Aurino, Aurino, are you telling me you don't understand why Dick's statement:

"given the fact that we absolutely do not know what it is" is so bizarre?

He claims as 'a fact' what is merely his theory.

"What it is" type questions are just an endless merry-go-round (like word-definitions in a dictionary). All you do when you say 'this is that' is you match up two patterns.

You may say 'a tree (pattern T) is
'roots, trunk, branches, and leaves' pattern (RTBL). In so far as 'explaining' is regarded as 'subdividing", you have done some 'tree' explaining.

You may say a tree is 'such and such biological/ chemical/ mathematical set of relationships and ratios'; you have again matched two patterns (and maybe 'explained' tree in terms of function of various relations.

You may say a tree is 'something you just know from childhood experience'- again you matched two patterns.

You may say the independent object 'tree' is the common factor in all those pattern-pairs.

There is no such thing as ultimately knowing 'what' something is.

Because here you have two things: the 'what', and the 'something', that is, supposedly a 'what'.
Things are not 'what's' (other things). Things just ARE. Anything else, and you're just comparing patterns.

Ultimately you know ISness; you experience the "Being" that things ARE through the sense of 'existence awareness' (honesty). How do you experience honesty? Existence is the alpha and omega; there is no 'how'. There is just ISness.
You ARE. That's how, one could say.

Quoting: "Until you understand the meaning of the question "how is it possible to know anything at all?", which is Dick's basic problem, you can't criticize his solution".

I have demonstrated that I do know the meaning of that question. My example: how does a moving object in a cloud of differently moving objects, know what its movement is? Answer: by comparison with other objects' movements, it determines its relative movement.

When Dick makes major errors in logic (you can not DEFINE something as 'undefined' without having still in this way defined it (obviously), fallacies like equivocation (equivocating R1 with reality), unwarranted assumptions (like not analysing math); when his premises are so error-ridden his conclusion loses its foundations.

I do not believe that giving people the 'silent treatment' is polite. The feature of dictatorships is censorship of free debate. Error is increased when people pre-judge that they can defeat others arguments, without facing up to them.

"How is it possible to know anything at all (including this statement)?" can be broken down into:

What does it mean to 'know' something?

Answer: if it means "to compare it with something else, and know its RELATIONSHIP with other things; this is accomplished by comparing and matching patterns.

My past life history of pattern comparing is how I know the pattern 'computer' is what is in front of me. It doesn't matter if 'knowledge' seems all circular: the relationships within your knowledge are full of boundaries that give structure.

A dictionary may appear circular; but there is a complex web of relationships in there. Some words do not appear next to others. Ultimately it relies on you knowing some meanings from direct experience as a child (trial and error; good guesswork; etc.)

Dick claims that the boundaries that give structure to physics, are necessary boundaries for any set of knowns (conserved patterns) and unknowns (optional patterns).