Ok so I was discussing reality with my good friend and he said something that has been on my mind ever since. He told me that there is no way to prove anything is real. Well I went a little bit ahead of him to say that while you can see something with your eyes, that doesnt neccessarily make it true, or real. Such as an apple, you look at an apple, it looks red (unless your like colorblind), BUT how do we know that it is not our own mind TELLING us that its red when in fact it could be a color unimaginable? So that would mean that the red we see is just a perceived image in our mind, but theres no way to tell the truth. Also how can we prove that the apple actually exists? Sure you can feel it and see it, but how do we know that this is not yet another illusion made up by our mind. So in essence were at the mercy of our own minds perception per say. Sure we can say that to say the apple exists because I see it and feel it no matter what but that would be pure ignorance... but truely so much better. The fact that the apple exists can be neither proved nor disproved and to say that one is true is chosen ignorance. I once had a friend (since then this assholes moved to alaska without leaving a phone number or anything), who would debate with me constantly and for a time I actually lived with him, so I got really good at debating KINDA. Well anyway, the one thing I learned was that he has a passive ignorant (is that a real term?) attitude towards everything. We once argued about astronauts landing on the moon, his side of the argument was that we heard it on the radio, saw it on pictures, saw it on television, heard it and was told that it actually happen, thus it happened and theres no doubt about it that it happened. My side of the argument consisted of the van allen belt and if you study astronomy theill tell you about it probally but I doubt they teach it in high schools, and the fact that not me nor him could prove or disprove that it actually happened because we werent there physicially (ive come quite a long way in theory forming from here for sure) and that saying that it was one or the other was chosen ignorance as ive said before. I could go on and on forever about this but I think for one I have given two superb examples and now would like to hear a bit of oppinion and I have a poll which im about to explain. Ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. Chosen Ignorance: the state or fact of KNOWINGLY being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. Knowledgeable: possessing or exhibiting knowledge, insight, or understanding; intelligent; well-informed; discerning; perceptive. Complete Knowledgeable: Pretty much knowing everything there is to know My question is this: If you had the oppertunity to have complete Knowledge or COMPLETE ignorance (not chosen), which one would you choose. I have to say though that ignorance would be peaceful (ever wonder why mentally "incapable" people are never sad?) yet complete knowledge would be completely insane, not only would you be bored, but you would know EVERYTHING, to imagine the thoughts OR lack of thoughts going through your head, its kind of hard to imagine, incomprehensible, but I doubt it would be peaceful.