AskMe do answer me!

June 28, 2007 6:18 AM

What is the most intellectually challenging question you have ever been asked that is not knowledge specific?

There are many difficult questions in the world, but most of them require prior knowledge to answer. So the challenge then comes from synthesizing the knowledge into a coherent answer.

What about the other questions? What questions are there that are just very difficult to figure out (without being puzzles), but don't require domain specific knowledge?

For example : If a boy James grew up always seeing green as blue, and was told all his life that green was blue, how could he possibly ever figure out that the color he is seeing is not the same as the color everyone else is seeing?

posted by markesh to religion & philosophy (37 comments total)

Read about epiphenominal qualia and Frank Jackson's approach to the mind body problem. This should keep you busy for at least the rest of your life.
posted by pwally at 6:23 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

Koans?
posted by Leon at 6:31 AM on June 28, 2007

Aristotle-filter: .Is it true that there must be a Prime Mover, a First Mover? Why not conclude that there has always been motion?
posted by chuckdarwin at 6:35 AM on June 28, 2007

"According to the late philosopher and logician George Boolos, who was a professor at MIT, the hardest logical puzzle is one that was invented by the logician and puzzle-master Raymond Smullyan, and modified slightly by the computer scientist John McCarthy. Here is the puzzle:

Three gods A , B , and C are called, in some order, True, False, and Random. True always speaks truly, False always speaks falsely, but whether Random speaks truly or falsely is a completely random matter.

Your task is to determine the identities of A, B, and C by asking three yes-no questions; each question must be put to exactly one god. The gods understand English, but will answer in their own language, in which the words for yes and no are 'da' and 'ja', in some order. You do not know which word means which."
posted by voltairemodern at 6:49 AM on June 28, 2007 [4 favorites]

(text taken from physicsforums, but the original paper by Boolos is worth a read if you find this interesting.)
posted by voltairemodern at 6:50 AM on June 28, 2007

From a list of 39 "lets kill some time" questions I keep in my wallet, from a large list of questions that British University Department Heads asked potential graduate candidates:

2. Why don’t we have just one ear in the middle of our face?
3. Are you your body?
4. How can reindeer tell the difference between spring and autumn?
6. If you had to send three things to a group of isolated tribespeople that would immediately convey to them what it means to be “French,” what would you choose?
11. Do you think Neanderthals understood the concept of death?
12. What about fatalism? (see previous)
18. If there were three beautiful, naked women standing in front of you, which would you choose?
19. Does this have any relevance to economics? (see previous)
23. How do we know 1+1 = 2 f the concept of numbers was in fact invented by humans?
27. Is it possible for a society to exist in which everyone lies all the time?
28. What would make anyone want to settle in a place such as Iceland?
29. Why do archaeologists love pots so much?
32. How would you design an experiment to disprove the existence of God?

I tried to filter out the ones that didn't apply to your own question, while leaving a few in.
posted by Null Pointer and the Exceptions at 6:51 AM on June 28, 2007 [6 favorites]

Related to your example question -

How do you explain colors to a person blind from birth? Or music to a person deaf from birth?
posted by allkindsoftime at 6:52 AM on June 28, 2007

Answer to allkindsoftime's second question: "In writing."
posted by notsnot at 7:03 AM on June 28, 2007

You may want to set your criteria a little more carefully. What is domain specific knowledge? Grasp of language? Of logic? ANY history/culture/science?

Many pure logic questions can be answered with a minimal set of axioms. Howvever to have a real crack at them, you have to either derive a lot of analytical/logical philosophy from scratch, or have it to hand.

--

All of this being said, one of my favorites is:

Is there such a thing as a real non-provisional truth?

Basically, all serious Epistemology falls into this category.

Ditto on qualia.
posted by lalochezia at 7:06 AM on June 28, 2007

what would jesus do?
posted by lester at 7:14 AM on June 28, 2007

The Prisoner's Dilemma.
posted by googly at 7:15 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

The problem of induction. Basically the question is how do we know for sure that one thing causes another thing, and if we cannot be sure about this what does this say about our beliefs.
posted by afu at 7:35 AM on June 28, 2007

29. Why do archaeologists love pots so much?

I don't know why I love this question so much, but I know it's a huge factor is why I didn't want to be an archaeologist.
posted by kittyprecious at 7:59 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

voltairemodern,

I'm intrigued by your puzzle. I assume there is a solution that will without fail identify the gods? What if the 'random' god happens to answer every question truthfully? How could you reliably distinguish between him and the true god with only 3 questions?
posted by jpdoane at 8:09 AM on June 28, 2007

If someone has been blind from birth, what do their dreams look like?
posted by fox_terrier_guy at 8:12 AM on June 28, 2007

voltairemodern,

Ah - after thinking about it more, I forgot you could simply ask him whether or not he was the random god. Duh
posted by jpdoane at 8:24 AM on June 28, 2007

What do you really want?
posted by meehawl at 8:34 AM on June 28, 2007

What does "mean" mean?
posted by meehawl at 8:36 AM on June 28, 2007

I have one of Smullyan's books here, but it didn't include this puzzle. It did have a lot like it though.

More info on that puzzle and the solution are here.
posted by DarkForest at 8:44 AM on June 28, 2007

For example : If a boy James grew up always seeing green as blue, and was told all his life that green was blue, how could he possibly ever figure out that the color he is seeing is not the same as the color everyone else is seeing?

This requires prior knowledge of what green is, and what blue is. James would have a challenge in synthesizing this knowledge into a coherent answer.

But James could ask about it on the blue.
posted by yohko at 8:58 AM on June 28, 2007 [2 favorites]

Q: What is the purpose of life?
A: (easy) Nothing predetermined, but whatever you decide for yourself. I choose, "to be happy".

Q: So what will it take "to be happy"?
A: Uhhhhhhhh...
posted by LordSludge at 9:12 AM on June 28, 2007

2. Why don’t we have just one ear in the middle of our face?

Because we need two ears in order to determine distance and direction of sounds, and for best results, these ears are ideally placed on opposite sides of the body, relatively close to the brain.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:12 AM on June 28, 2007

Since we are now answering Null Pointers imponderables:

18. If there were three beautiful, naked women standing in front of you, which would you choose?

Answer: The one with the biggest tits.

...next
posted by BozoBurgerBonanza at 9:15 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

Answer: The one with the biggest tits.

Incorrect. The correct answer is "All three."

But, then, I am a greedy bastard.
posted by LordSludge at 9:46 AM on June 28, 2007

18. If there were three beautiful, naked women standing in front of you, which would you choose?

Indeed, it does not say that you can only choose one. Perhaps the Mormons are on to something.
posted by The World Famous at 10:04 AM on June 28, 2007

Why is there something, rather than nothing?
posted by O Blitiri at 10:27 AM on June 28, 2007

Null Pointer's question 29. (Why do archaeologists love pots so much?) is actually an excellent example of a question best answered with some specialized knowledge.

You can relax, everyone: I'm not going to go on and on about ceramic styles, seriation, composition, sourcing, and why we love them.

To answer the original question: I've been wrestling pretty hard with the transporter question. Why would I be willing to go through it, but not into the suicide booth languagehat proposes? Why is my partner adamant that he would not go through the transporter, nor would he accept the Elsa who emerged from it as the real Elsa, but a copy of his now-dead sweetheart? Does identity and The Self reside in the body somewhere? In consciousness? In continuity of consciousness?

I hope that freaking MeTa link works on post as it does on preview. For some reason, every link I've posted for the last couple of days, I've botched.
posted by Elsa at 10:29 AM on June 28, 2007

How to make love stay?
posted by box at 10:29 AM on June 28, 2007

Is there an Objective Universe or just many Subjective Universes? Sure feels like there should be an OU, but if all we have are measurements, of various accuracies, all we really have to work with is our subjective versions thereof.

And I don't know how to make love stay, but I can sure make it sit up and beg! ::sidles up to Elsa's clone::
posted by LordSludge at 10:44 AM on June 28, 2007

these ears are ideally placed on opposite sides of the body, relatively close to the brain.

So why not one in the front and one in the rear? Anyhow, it's just a question I use to make kids think a bit.
posted by Null Pointer and the Exceptions at 10:58 AM on June 28, 2007

Why is it so bothersome (at least to many) that we will die, but not at all troublesome that we were born? That is, both the future after you die, and the past before you were born, are times when you do not exist. Why do we find one disturbing, but not the other?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:58 AM on June 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

What is to be done?
posted by Abiezer at 11:08 AM on June 28, 2007

I'm not my clone! I'm me! Aren't I? That's the crux of the question.
posted by Elsa at 11:23 AM on June 28, 2007

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Sometimes there is nothing, but we never hear from you then.
Yours truly,
the anthropic principle.
posted by Mapes at 11:25 AM on June 28, 2007

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Because if it were nothing, it wouldn't be "there."
posted by The World Famous at 11:44 AM on June 28, 2007

My AP English teacher in high school:

"Good morning. Define humanity. You have 40 minutes."

Best and most fun essay I've ever written.
posted by olinerd at 12:30 PM on June 28, 2007

I don't think your example is that hard of a question. He would learn the difference by the way other parties used the words blue and green in conversation between themselves. When I say other parties this means more than just people but also books, TV shows, travel posters, the whole world of communication. The part of that in which he is a participant is much smaller than the part in which he is a spectator. If you mean that every communication he is exposed to is altered in that way, like some theater erected around him, then he would never realize the difference between his experience and others. There would be no difference to recognize. Everyone around him would be speaking the same language, one that is similar to English except there would be no usage of the label green. Green wouldn't exist in that social world. Just like in languages that only have words for two colors it would be difficult for someone who is color blind to understand that his sight has a different range than others. Of course their actions would have to be consistent with their language or they would give the game away, and that would be the difference between a culture with a small vocabulary for color and your example. To give a somewhat forced example, they couldn't talk about the contrast between the lake and the nearby forest.

Hardest question?

What is the relationship between rhetoric and philosophy?
posted by BigSky at 1:02 PM on June 28, 2007