From: idontcheckthisveryoften@yahoo.com   
      
   "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in message   
   news:78WdnQYFuubKs6fbnZ2dnUVZ_qKqnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   >   
   > "George Weinberg"  wrote in message   
   > news:Xns9924627276B3Eeorgeweinbergsbcglob@207.115.33.102...   
   >> "Somebody"  wrote in   
   >> news:CcKdnSeEJee2-6vbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@insightbb.com:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in message   
   >>> news:kLSdnYJiCdK0wKvbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Somebody"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:h_mdnb6-kLYjxqvbnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@insightbb.com...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:rLudnebRpuDCcKjbnZ2dnUVZ_v6tnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> People see all the proof they need for whatever what they want to   
   >>>>>> see. I believe it's called confirmation bias.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> fundamental attribution error   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That works, too.  There's only one thing that can be known for   
   >>>> certain, everything else is just guesswork...   
   >>>   
   >>> what is that?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The fact itself that "only one thing can be known for certain" :-)   
   >   
   > I would say that even that can't be known for certain.  I know, it seems   
   > like a paradox, but really it isn't.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Some radical skeptics will assert that nothing can be known for certain,   
   >> but of course they can't know that, right?   
   >   
   > I'd argue that if there was no perception, then there would be nothing.   
   > If there is nothing, then why is there something?  I see my hands typing   
   > these words.  Everything I think and see and experience, even my own   
   > existence, could be an illusion, but any illusion requires perception.  It   
   > might be that illusion doesn't exist, but whatever it is that appears to   
   > be illusion is being perceived.   
   >   
   > One might argue that in order for perception to exist, there must be both   
   > the perceiver and that which is being perceived.  I would counter that   
   > this seems reasonable, but can't be proven without relying on unprovable   
   > beliefs or presumptions from which to build a logical progression.   
   >   
   >> But the "one thing" version gets rids of the paradox.   
   >   
   > Well, as you seem to have pointed out, it does and yet it doesn't.   
   > Personally, I see no evidence that can prove that only one thing can be   
   > known for certain.  It certainly seems that way to me, but I'm basing my   
   > own argument on the existence of certain possibilities, which haven't been   
   > proven to exist.   
      
   I feel like a dog trying to understand how a combustion engine works.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)