>>>Let me give you an example. I stated countless times that the problem is purely abstract. Do you understand that knowledge is an abstract thing?>That knowledge is nothing but a chain of abstract concepts? That the concepts themselves have no meaning, that meaning is only a chain of relationships between multiple concepts? And that those relationships must be governed by a simple set of rules?>I don't know if you understand the above. If you don't, then my expectation is that you would try to, and you have done that to some extent. But then, all of a sudden you start talking about enzymes and phyla and amoebae, and I'm here scratching my head thinking what does any of that have to do with anything I said?>>If you accept that we can continue our discussion, if you don't then I'll assume you can't or won't deal with the problem. (I'm trying hard not to sound rude, it's not my intention, but I have to expose my understanding of the situation so that you can see where I'm coming from, and my understanding of the situation is pretty frustrating)>The reason they look like the same issue on surface is because they ARE different attempts to communicate the same issue. If I could transplant my brain to your head you would immediatly understand what I'm talking about. Since I can't do that, all I can hope for is to make your brain look a bit like mine. Apparently the problem is that I can't do that with words alone, yet words are all I have.>I'd like to see anyone come up with a perfectly logical justification for that kind of assumption. Where is the "great deal" of difference other than the order of magnitude?Can you understand the concept of knowledge as something that can be defined with logic alone? Computer engineers do.>I have raised a very specific issue. How is it that you came to know a lot of things if you didn't know anything at all about anything at all to start with?>That's as specific as it gets. To be more specific would imply that I already know the answer to the question, which I don't even though I'm tempted to think that I do.>But don't you realize that you answer almost every single question with the same answer yourself? Almost everything you wrote so far amounts to "evolution did it".>If we can have a powerful theory like evolution that potentially explains everything, why is it that we can't have another theory that explains the theory of [biological] evolution and any other theories?>Are we really so stupid that we can't explain our own knowledge? I don't think so.