The difference is as simple as that "exists" denotes "is" and that somewhere, sometime and somehow are consequent to the "is" and not inherent to the "is".

Now, imagine for a moment that you dropped a single drop of water into the ocean and I asked you: Is it there?
Sure enough, you can affirm it is, but can you pinpoint the "there"?

Salt is salty but you can't point that out before you taste it; hence is versus is experienced or in plus traction equals interaction.

What do you mean soon? That's been a progressive realization for months.

Indeed, most anything. Ironically, my question fits the bill.

I had such hopes for him and to find this surprise, just dashed them. I feel terrible.

Why are they irritating?

Pick up a pair of rollerblades and go for a long walk.

I think that your situation is the same, and that your issue is mainly derived from the pre-established order of things in which you try to fit.

If you were a man of your own island and had to make up your own order - where would the problems be?
Where would depression, anti this and that find place?

Being self-reliant doesn't exclude being loved, like Robinson you just need a little creativity and like Don Quixote a little courage to live like the Sun, which is loved, as though self-sustained it gives and gives.

Ever read Robinson Crusoe?

What do you mean by transition, shedding?
As agnosticism like all other a-- is just a peel.

Also:

For starters, it is hardly disputed that Jesus was a living entity even amongst academics. Yet, none of them are going to assert that he actually was the son of God. — Wallows

The title Son of God is misunderstood.
It's not specifically Jesus, but the anointed genealogy.
David, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Ezra and so forth all shared the title.

As to your issues - tell me, how would you relate them to the sea? Where lost men go to find their fortune?

In five words?

What powerstructure?
All interpretations are based in selective truths.

Here's the chain of events in two fold:
Truth > Aspect > Interpretation
Produce > Ingredients > Dish

Read his phrasing carefully - subject to interpretation. Meaning interpretation is just an aesthetic, Rorschach.
Truth is always in power as it's the base.

Because it's not. Only because and when layered.

Selective truths are essentially aspects of truth, in that they are derived from it.

In the allegory of the cave, both worlds are equally albeit selectively true. Selective truth is subjective truth though by itself is objective; it only appears subjective when layered against a background of other truth/s.

All illusions are truthful, though they are selectively true. Hence one technically always resides in truth, merely in a constrained form.

The Earth is not roasting, it's in the process of warming up a by a few degrees. — Marchesk

Roasts are slow, so come and remind me again in three years.

Actually we do know how much of the anomalies are due to human influence, and that would be most of them. Solar influence is negligible, CO2 is negligible, but pouring down plastic while allowing the earth to innately microwave the surface - is not. The earth is roasting, the fire is fueled by man and that's a fact borne of the last 50 years.

If I wanted to subtly cull the populace, I'd produce 'climate change' as it'd be pretty hard to trace disasters to me while people are still dazed and recovering.

Who chose her? She's self-appointed and exhibited by the media.

Who actually benefits from the hysteria raised by some kids with signs? The assassinated or the assassins?
It's not a no-win situation, it's an all in at the flop.

Two things;
- The conclusion that man's Co2 emissions are the primary cause of changes in the Earth's climate and average temperature.

- The conclusion that man-made climate change causes the end of the world. — Tzeentch

The CO2 emissions by themselves aren't the primary cause, it's all the emissions from earth outwards - in due to fossil fuel sondages. Simply not burning coal or oil will do little in comparison to the stop of their exhumation which is public enemy number one.

Secondly, the end of the world as in the end of the established routine is an imminent and unavoidable reality. This is precisely Titanic gazing out at the tip of the iceberg, and one either takes heed or nonchalantly sinks the ship.
If mankind keeps pushing well past their boundary, it's obvious that the recoil will fling it off the planet.

It does exist and the example shows this, just as it constatates that it requires a conduit in order to interact in the specified manner. A battery though not in use is still active though not an active participant.

Whether they're both physical or not shouldn't matter, as there are degrees of physicality, and a physical mind isn't necessarily biological. The battery example denotes this as well.

So essentially the mind to body is equatable to the sun and the effects it provides to the solar system; a big intelligent battery.

But the biology of the living and recently deceased is the same. Like a computer that is on or off is the same.

So if it isn't mind, what is this separate power supply that determines whether an organism is on or off?

The duality can be demonstrated as simply as severing any body part.
Unless the mind is plugged in to the body, the body has no battery life and is a body no more, but a pile of flesh.

The disparity between creature and carcass is clear, there's nothing to prove - but if you've got a better explanation for this disparity, do share.

Where do you draw the line between processes and processing? Obviously none of the pre-processed data is ever directly experienced, albeit experienced by one's faculties.

So if there's no mind driving matter, why are all faculties enabled to an end-product autonomous overseer? If we have to go through the analogy of eyesight, we could substitute eyes for fiber optics and brain for a TV - so who's observing?

Elaborate on the second premise, if you would.
Please be as detailed as you may.

I believe the exact opposite, that one should always be skeptical about what others say. People are not to be trusted. — DingoJones

That creates more problems than it solves.

If I may offer an analogy:

I think that the implication of realism in fantasy is more or less a necessary step. You're just not going to climb up the staircase in a single step and the larger your steps, the more you strain yourself. So it's the good requisite smooth transition.

And I suppose 'relatable' would be the word.
Imagine Transformers, but without the humans or voiceacting. It would be like watching a Dubstep mix.
Or a nature documentary without sound - it turns in to a screensaver. It goes from smooth to really damn sharp.

Do loan him the money, but most importantly don't reduce contact merely to loans, rather keep in touch until you're sure he's stable. If you intend on financially supporting him for a while, do it on a budget, so that he doesn't grow complacent.
From the description offered, that seems to be the main issue; you've become his reserve and he's growing increasingly complacent.

Teach him to fish, rather than giving him a fish everytime he's hungry, as independence is the best gift you could offer.

Honestly though, why do you take it to heart? Just speak your doubts, shrug and move on.

Here's a quote:

The unwise man is awake all night,
and ponders everything over;
when morning comes he is weary in mind,
and all is a burden as ever.

Step back and relax.
I tend to my garden and make something nice for myself or someone else.

Rather than flail around in the quicksand of negativity, just sink and pass through. Why bother adding insult to one's injury?

One would require rules, and these rules may be brought up via personal or second hand experience.

So I guess I would be inclined to ask, do you see a big difference between rules and laws?

You're just not free enough if you don't have the freedom to be bullied.

-Signed the Anti-Vac of speech

I think it all really comes down to me not being able to understand what the point of being alive is. — raindrop

The point is the same as in everything else, and you'll figure it out as you go along.

How am I supposed to deal with the fact that I'll just expirence life through my eyes and thoughts when there are so many verions of reality out there? — raindrop

What's there to deal with it?
You're a piece of the pie like everyone else, just not the same piece.

Rather than worrying over not being part of a hivemind, thinking in monotone, be glad for the creative and colourful interactions the world provides.

Expression = speech. — Terrapin Station

Oh yeah, smacking you across the mouth isn't an expression of discontent for the quibble coming out of it, it's just the sensible thing to do.

Now you just need to find some expressive cavemen who don't have any speech regulations and forge your own country.

Just replace real with evident.

Not all actions are speech. — Terrapin Station

I want to live in a world where anyone can express anything whatsoever, in any context.
8m — Terrapin Station

Don't even try to squirm out of this one.
You've made it abundantly clear that you just want to get high on 'freedom' with no regard as to the consequences.

Meaning anarchy.

Better yet, would you like to live in such a world where strangers come up and tell you to kill yourself?

Kill yourself' with loving intent — Shamshir

Use those eyes for once and read before you reply.

Kill yourself' with loving intent — Shamshir

Again, intent, — Terrapin Station

Again, read before replying.

Why ever say 'I love you' when 'Kill yourself' with loving intent works the same, is that it?