5 ms·

> The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then yo

> The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons", but is he actually doing that, and to a large degree (mostly, etc)? Consider this: within your mind, might there be a bias toward perceiving that this is what he is doing, and might it be also possible that you may not be able to perceive that this is happening (due to the evolved nature of the human mind)? Let's try to simultaneously operate in a dual state of mind: both abstract (keeping in mind the phenomena discussed in the article, and taking it seriously) and object level (discussion of "these bio labs"[1]): is it possible that some of the things discussed in the article could happen to us folks here on HN, sometimes? To be clear, I am not asserting as a fact that this is happening here, in a big way - rather, I am merely and explicitly offering it as a suggestion of what might be happening, at least to some degree. [1] I put "these bio labs" in brackets because technically, at the cognitive/neuroscientific level, that is not what either person is actually discussing - rather, each person is necessarily discussing their model of "these bio labs". However, while this is architecturally unavoidable, this is not to say that there is no way to optimize the manner in which we perceive and discuss our respective virtual realities.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
As a third party, I can weigh in to eliminate some of the ambiguity you're worried about: It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal), and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible
- mistermann 5y ago
  > It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal) Consider this: are things always as they seem? If you consider the entirety of your history on this planet, has there ever been a time where you were at least partially mistaken? Or even easier: have you ever observed another human being mistaking belief for knowledge? I mean technically: is it not true that you are representing/asserting your perception of "reality" (virtual/perceptual/cognitive reality) to be 100% perfectly and comprehensively aligned with reality itself? > and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible. This is extremely common in conversations within certain domains. Consider this: - if someone has a bias against certain things, might this have some negative effect on the style and effort they devote to trying to truly understand it (also taking into consideration what is happening in the subconscious mind, which is sub-perceptual, and arguably has the ability to place a ~"hard cap" on what any given individual is capable of, especially if they are not intimately(!) familiar with the phenomenon and actively taking measures to counteract its effects)? - if one was to give a quantum mechanics textbook to someone who has no background in math/physics/etc, might it seem incomprehensible to them? And based on prior conversations, it is perhaps a good idea to preemptively counter some common rebuttals to this sort of thinking: often the response I will get to this sort of reasoning is that it is "pedantic", or various memes/slurs such as /r/iamverysmart, Gish Gallop, JAQing off, etc. I promise that this is not what I am doing - I am genuinely trying to have a truly good faith conversation (which, unsurprisingly, may appear "very weird"), and I encourage you to disagree with any points I've made that you believe (after some self-critical contemplation, ideally) contain a genuine flaw(s), however small.
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    >are things always as they seem you already asked that of the other person I am a third party confirming that, yes, in this case, they are as they seem to that person if you believe their position, as confirmed by a third party, contains genuine flaws, it might just be your biases showing through nonetheless, I encourage you to clearly (and succinctly) articulate them, and try to convince us that said person's views do not reflect reality
    - mistermann 5y ago
      > you already asked that of the other person > I am a third party confirming that, yes, in this case, they are as they seem to that person And now I am asking you. Two people agreeing that something "seems" true does not render it true in actual/shared reality. > if you believe their position, as confirmed by a third party, contains genuine flaws, it might just be your biases showing through This is one possibility, but another possibility is that their position, and the "confirmation" by the third party, is erroneous, perhaps due to their biases. > nonetheless, I encourage you to clearly (and succinctly) articulate them, and try to convince us that said person's views do not reflect reality I do not "have a dog" in this object level fight - my interest is in the abstract: what are the various ways in which human beings perceive reality incorrectly, and is it possible to get even one of them to explicitly acknowledge that it is possible that their belief is incorrect, at least to some degree....and, might it be possible that this ~methodology (exerting effort to discover what is actually true, and fine-grained "hard stops" preventing that discovery, etc) may have materially important utility to humanity, and should therefore perhaps be taken seriously. Note also that I explicitly encourage disagreement, as well as avoiding the premature formation of conclusions (I did not do this explicitly before, so I am appending it here).
      - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
        >And now I am asking you. Actually, I am the one asking YOU! >I do not "have a dog" in this object level fight As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person, and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs. You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary. Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself. Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago

As a third party, I can weigh in to eliminate some of the ambiguity you're worried about: It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal), and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible

mistermann 5y ago
> It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal) Consider this: are things always as they seem? If you consider the entirety of your history on this planet, has there ever been a time where you were at least partially mistaken? Or even easier: have you ever observed another human being mistaking belief for knowledge? I mean technically: is it not true that you are representing/asserting your perception of "reality" (virtual/perceptual/cognitive reality) to be 100% perfectly and comprehensively aligned with reality itself? > and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible. This is extremely common in conversations within certain domains. Consider this: - if someone has a bias against certain things, might this have some negative effect on the style and effort they devote to trying to truly understand it (also taking into consideration what is happening in the subconscious mind, which is sub-perceptual, and arguably has the ability to place a ~"hard cap" on what any given individual is capable of, especially if they are not intimately(!) familiar with the phenomenon and actively taking measures to counteract its effects)? - if one was to give a quantum mechanics textbook to someone who has no background in math/physics/etc, might it seem incomprehensible to them? And based on prior conversations, it is perhaps a good idea to preemptively counter some common rebuttals to this sort of thinking: often the response I will get to this sort of reasoning is that it is "pedantic", or various memes/slurs such as /r/iamverysmart, Gish Gallop, JAQing off, etc. I promise that this is not what I am doing - I am genuinely trying to have a truly good faith conversation (which, unsurprisingly, may appear "very weird"), and I encourage you to disagree with any points I've made that you believe (after some self-critical contemplation, ideally) contain a genuine flaw(s), however small.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  >are things always as they seem you already asked that of the other person I am a third party confirming that, yes, in this case, they are as they seem to that person if you believe their position, as confirmed by a third party, contains genuine flaws, it might just be your biases showing through nonetheless, I encourage you to clearly (and succinctly) articulate them, and try to convince us that said person's views do not reflect reality
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > you already asked that of the other person > I am a third party confirming that, yes, in this case, they are as they seem to that person And now I am asking you. Two people agreeing that something "seems" true does not render it true in actual/shared reality. > if you believe their position, as confirmed by a third party, contains genuine flaws, it might just be your biases showing through This is one possibility, but another possibility is that their position, and the "confirmation" by the third party, is erroneous, perhaps due to their biases. > nonetheless, I encourage you to clearly (and succinctly) articulate them, and try to convince us that said person's views do not reflect reality I do not "have a dog" in this object level fight - my interest is in the abstract: what are the various ways in which human beings perceive reality incorrectly, and is it possible to get even one of them to explicitly acknowledge that it is possible that their belief is incorrect, at least to some degree....and, might it be possible that this ~methodology (exerting effort to discover what is actually true, and fine-grained "hard stops" preventing that discovery, etc) may have materially important utility to humanity, and should therefore perhaps be taken seriously. Note also that I explicitly encourage disagreement, as well as avoiding the premature formation of conclusions (I did not do this explicitly before, so I am appending it here).
    - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
      >And now I am asking you. Actually, I am the one asking YOU! >I do not "have a dog" in this object level fight As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person, and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs. You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary. Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself. Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it.