By the way, think about the concept of “echolocation” a bit if you still insist the latter is easy 
Which differs from this thread in what way.
I am about at the point where I am simply going to close this thread and let you pick a single, (even singular), topic and post it. Unless I see a groundswell of support to leave this open, it will be closed, shortly.
(I really hate it when we get near the end of the semester and the freshmen philosophy students believe they have stumbled on the Great Truth or the Great Question. )
[ /Moderating ]
In another thread, I mentioned Robert Heinlein’s short story “They.” To simplify (without spoiling) the story is about the basic questions of reality and knowledge, and is handled in a clear, direct, easy-to-follow fashion. Highest recommendation.
(It can be found in a Groff Conkin anthology, “Science Fiction Terror Tales.” Damn good book!)
The ultimate short answer is: we can’t ever know anything. Period. There is no way to disprove the notion that I’m a butterfly dreaming I’m a man. Even Cartesian knowledge – I know my own self-awareness – can be questioned.
The problem with this short answer: it’s tremendously unproductive! It’s the ultimate dead end. Okay, we know nothing. Now let’s all go home and meditate… Or, we can make a handful of basic assumptions – for instance: cause-and-effect, sequential time, other people are really other people, etc. – and see where that leads us. And, y’know? It leads to math, science, technology, and internet porn. It rewards our assumptions. It gives us a vast, rich culture, the music we love, the art forms we adore, good food, fast cars, the space program, and debate fora like The Straight Dope.
So, yes, keep the proviso in mind: everything we see is based, ultimately, on a handful of assumptions. But also keep in mind: without those assumptions, we got nothin’!
Think about this: you (a conscious entity) can see other conscious entities; you (a conscious entity) cannot see you. A linear combination of these two states; you, other conscious entities.
This relates to solipsism.
Or, in the case of this thread, omphaloskepsis.
Like in The Matrix after Neo is implanted with a tracking device, waking up in his bed, checking his navel? Wasn’t really omphaloskepsis, was it?
Yip. The real problem with this being a debate is that it’s pretty much already answered. We know we can’t know certain things. We merely agree on them. And one of the things we agree on is that people who want to kill thousands or millions of people for not agreeing with them are not enlightened.
Do we agree that we can’t know certain things?
How common knowledge is the fact we can’t know certain things? Infinitely or finitely?
Do you know the answer to the blue-eyed islanders puzzle?
Why did anyone bother to create an amusing logical puzzle about perfectly religions logicians try to discover their own eye color which is apparently impossible because their own religion makes it impossible to do so until a guru tell them that one of them has the wrong color until they all kill themselves on the same day Huh?
Think about it :p:o:smack:
Right, because they’re sure they are Truman or anti-Truman. Trust me, I have no fucking clue which one I am, so that’s why I’m trying to make everything as open-ended and questioning as possible.
I still believe this is the greatest debate of all time though, so I hope you do me the favor of suspending judgement for as long as possible on this thread
Jesus has the wrong color?
So Hiroshima was the work of unenlightened people? That’s not quite right is it? Who knows? Do you know? I sure as hell don’t. That’s why I never vote in elections.
Maybe? How would we ever have found out if he did? Maybe he was colored wrong othogonally to all of us, and kept trying to come up with parables to explain it, and finally gave up and sacrificed himself?
Is this the Chewbacca Defense?
Maybe we can change it to "Who is really the most “evil” person on Earth? It’s kind of a more direct way of asking the same thing? But think about the contents of this other thread first? Or maybe just paste the threads together with a topic change.
Don’t blame me, I asked about OBL and (almost) no one took the bait
Yeah, something like that. I think you got it.
Can you promise me that one day you and Douglas Adams will come together figure out what that 42 thing is for me? You probably don’t think it’ll ever happen, but I bet you will do a pretty good job, all in all 
I mean, you don’t need to know that the answer is correct, you just have to make an amusing joke about it.
Just think about it later. Much later. (or sooner? who knows)
Oh, I get it…awesome! Thank you so much for the insight 
Sorry. My judgment of this thread has already been made.
However, I have received enough feedback requesting it stay open that I will leave it open until it turns into a gooey mess.
As to “greatest” of all time: it has not really sparked all that much interest among great minds even after Plato tossed it into his Republic some 2400 years ago, (brief jaunts into the topic by Augustine and Descartes, notwithstanding). By the time you are a senior, you will probably recognize this.
Seriously though, are we approaching this from a “what is actually true” angle or more of a “since we can’t know, what is the optimal life strategy” angle?
Kozmik, I can’t PM you and thank you privately, so I’m going to have to do it publically. Thank you! And please be easy on me, I’m sure you could confuse me some more if you wished to at this point. :o