I have seen several questions and discussions recently on this forum concerning p-zombies, whether or not what we call consciousness is a tangible entity or merely an illusion or elaborate scheme conjured up by the mechanism we call our minds, etc.
How are these, and such similar questions, relevant to our lives as humans, aside from providing us with amusement in the form of provocative philosophical discussion? "We are what we are", and it does not seem to be within our power to change the fundamental nature of our existence and consciousness.
I accept the idea of acquiring knowledge "for its own sake" - perhaps no endeavor befits humans more. But I do not see these questions and their potential answers as "knowledge", since they are only interesting theories and ideas but it seems beyond our ability to prove any such things, such that engaging in discussions of them could be considered "the pursuit of knowledge".
So: Why bother?
Note: the moderators have pointed to another question @ Is it meaningful to distinguish between two possibilities which are observationally equivalent?
However, my question actually disagrees fundamentally with the premise of that question, and I also disagreed with that premise in the comments there: My question is not about the relevance of issues that have no perceivable impact - I clearly stated here: 'I accept the idea of acquiring knowledge "for its own sake"' - an idea that flies in the face of the premise that question referred to. I require no "perceivable differences". Differences in vocabulary, in approaches to the same conclusion, in modes of examining a particular issue, these are all important, although there may be no perceivable difference once the conclusions have been reached.
My question is: Does the pursuit of knowledge include discussing issues which can never be conclusively proven, due to the nature of our very human existence? Are not such issues moot? Irrelevant? A mere intellectual exercise?