From: idontcheckthisveryoften@yahoo.com   
      
   "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in message   
   news:COSdncpWsNWV-afbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   >   
   > "Somebody"  wrote in message   
   > news:oNidnTcZfaD8rKfbnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@insightbb.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.   
   >   
   > It's just a theory anyway, there's nothing to be gained by understanding   
   > it. Thank you for trying!   
      
   arf!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)