4 ms·

> 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 hav

> 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
>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. You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, with which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any, though, we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post. >>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? No, it's drawing conclusions based on the available data. I also independently drew the same conclusions, so that should make you introspect a little, and ask what it is you're doing which causes people to conclude that based on the available data of your behavior. >Are things always as they seem? Indeed, are they? Is it possible that you aren't actually asking this question at all, and you actually agree with the person to which you responded? And you just think something else happened? Do you think this is possible? On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person. I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks!
- mistermann 5y ago
  > You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though.... I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer. Note also: I may not hold a position on object level matters - me pushing back on a claim should not be interpreted as a belief in the opposite (as is usually the case, in my experience). > ...we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post. You can certainly conclude that, and even assert it, but this does not make it true. > On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person. This is my intent and desire, but whether this is a group undertaking in fact I cannot say, I can only hope. > I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks! I would hope that it would help: the goal is be to highlight that perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important, but whether I am successful in the slightest I do not know - if forced, I would predict that I am not successful, based on hundreds if not thousands of similar conversations. This seems to be a very difficult nut to crack, but then I don't think that should be very surprising. If you don't mind: could you state explicitly whether you will answer the questions I stated above (physically answer them, in this thread)?

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago

>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. You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, with which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any, though, we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post. >>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? No, it's drawing conclusions based on the available data. I also independently drew the same conclusions, so that should make you introspect a little, and ask what it is you're doing which causes people to conclude that based on the available data of your behavior. >Are things always as they seem? Indeed, are they? Is it possible that you aren't actually asking this question at all, and you actually agree with the person to which you responded? And you just think something else happened? Do you think this is possible? On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person. I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks!

mistermann 5y ago
> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though.... I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer. Note also: I may not hold a position on object level matters - me pushing back on a claim should not be interpreted as a belief in the opposite (as is usually the case, in my experience). > ...we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post. You can certainly conclude that, and even assert it, but this does not make it true. > On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person. This is my intent and desire, but whether this is a group undertaking in fact I cannot say, I can only hope. > I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks! I would hope that it would help: the goal is be to highlight that perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important, but whether I am successful in the slightest I do not know - if forced, I would predict that I am not successful, based on hundreds if not thousands of similar conversations. This seems to be a very difficult nut to crack, but then I don't think that should be very surprising. If you don't mind: could you state explicitly whether you will answer the questions I stated above (physically answer them, in this thread)?