3 ms·

> 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 thin

> 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.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      > Actually, I am the one asking YOU! I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me. However, you have missed some questions I asked of you. I would also enjoy reading any answers you may have to questions I have asked of others upthread. And of course, you have no obligation to answer my questions, but I would prefer if we are explicit and accurate about how each of us conducts ourselves in the conversation (ie: if one of us does not answer specific questions, acknowledge that simply and unequivocally). And if you were implicitly posing "Are things always as they seem?" to me, my answer is: no, things are not always as they seem. In fact, I argue that they are almost always not what they seem, and that this is necessarily the case due to the physical architecture of the mind/reality, plus a whole bunch of other scientifically uncontroversial reasons. > As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person... We are discussing an object level matter - it is possible that you do not have bias on this matter, but that you personally perceive yourself to be unbiased is not convincing, and is certainly subject to a variety of possible well known phenomenon in psychology/etc. At the very least, I think the most epistemically sound stance is that it is not known whether you or I have some bias, or the degree to which each of us is biased. After all, science has a fair amount of depth in this realm and if you take their findings even partially seriously, that there is at least some uncertainty seems highly certain. > ...and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs. I am less interested in being persuasive than I am in being correct. Actually, I have enough experience in this domain that I believe it may not be possible to convince certain people of certain things, at least on current communication platforms like this one, in cultures like this one. I think this could change with more sophisticated platforms and cultures, but such things are not the purpose or goal of HN (dang has been explicit about this). > You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary. As I already asked you (and you did not answer): "Are things always as they seem?" I respectfully challenge you to answer this question. > Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself. Ah, "solipsism", color me not shocked at all that this idea manifested in the mind of someone I am having this type of conversation with. Do you believe that I am a solipsist, or that the ideas I have written here are fundamentally and necessarily solipsistic? > Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it. The first burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion - I challenged the assertion above, no response has appeared thus far. As for making a case, consider this assertion: >> He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded. Is this not mind reading? Or at the very least, stating one's opinions/inferences in the form of facts? And if this is ok, then should Mr. Greenwald not get a free pass on the very same basis?

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.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > Actually, I am the one asking YOU! I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me. However, you have missed some questions I asked of you. I would also enjoy reading any answers you may have to questions I have asked of others upthread. And of course, you have no obligation to answer my questions, but I would prefer if we are explicit and accurate about how each of us conducts ourselves in the conversation (ie: if one of us does not answer specific questions, acknowledge that simply and unequivocally). And if you were implicitly posing "Are things always as they seem?" to me, my answer is: no, things are not always as they seem. In fact, I argue that they are almost always not what they seem, and that this is necessarily the case due to the physical architecture of the mind/reality, plus a whole bunch of other scientifically uncontroversial reasons. > As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person... We are discussing an object level matter - it is possible that you do not have bias on this matter, but that you personally perceive yourself to be unbiased is not convincing, and is certainly subject to a variety of possible well known phenomenon in psychology/etc. At the very least, I think the most epistemically sound stance is that it is not known whether you or I have some bias, or the degree to which each of us is biased. After all, science has a fair amount of depth in this realm and if you take their findings even partially seriously, that there is at least some uncertainty seems highly certain. > ...and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs. I am less interested in being persuasive than I am in being correct. Actually, I have enough experience in this domain that I believe it may not be possible to convince certain people of certain things, at least on current communication platforms like this one, in cultures like this one. I think this could change with more sophisticated platforms and cultures, but such things are not the purpose or goal of HN (dang has been explicit about this). > You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary. As I already asked you (and you did not answer): "Are things always as they seem?" I respectfully challenge you to answer this question. > Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself. Ah, "solipsism", color me not shocked at all that this idea manifested in the mind of someone I am having this type of conversation with. Do you believe that I am a solipsist, or that the ideas I have written here are fundamentally and necessarily solipsistic? > Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it. The first burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion - I challenged the assertion above, no response has appeared thus far. As for making a case, consider this assertion: >> He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded. Is this not mind reading? Or at the very least, stating one's opinions/inferences in the form of facts? And if this is ok, then should Mr. Greenwald not get a free pass on the very same basis?