> And why is it that you cannot link to what I ask for?
Because I don't have time to grovel through everything I've ever posted to find examples where I conceded a point.
> Remember your claim above?
Yes. What does that have to do with anything? That wasn't a reply to you, that was a reply to /u/stroganoff, whereupon /u/stroganoff conceded the point.
> Because I don't have time to grovel through everything I've ever posted to find examples where I conceded a point.
Is that the only reason you are unable? Are you sure such examples exist?
>> Remember your claim above?
> Yes. What does that have to do with anything?
Why would you not know the answer to this? You know the answer to everything that's been presented to you, do you not? (Well, except for the substantial amount of questions that have been asked of you throughout these various conversations, by myself and others, that you have dodged. Or the cases where you have asserted that you possess knowledge, but are unwilling to respond to challenges to such claims.)
> So what is your point???
I believe it is possible that:
a) you are not perfectly rational.
b) you are conducting yourself in these internet conversations as if you are.
c) you do not have a deep understanding of the subtle and complex differences between belief and knowledge.
Do you believe that I may be on to something, at least possibly?
I try hard not to be wrong, but when I am, I have no problem admitting it.
> You know the answer to everything that's been presented to you, do you not?
So far.
> except for the substantial amount of questions that have been asked of you throughout these various conversations, by myself and others, that you have dodged
Like what?
> Or the cases where you have asserted that you possess knowledge, but are unwilling to respond to challenges to such claims.
Like what?
> you are not perfectly rational.
Of course I'm not. I never said otherwise. That's just ridiculous. No human is perfectly rational.
> you are conducting yourself in these internet conversations as if you are
Well, I try very hard to be as rational as I can be, and I think I'm getting better at it with practice. But I'm still not perfect, and I never will be.
> you do not have a deep understanding of the subtle and complex differences between belief and knowledge
Those are two topics that I have not yet addressed, so you cannot possibly have any basis for assessing my understanding or lack thereof. The fact that you think you have such a basis indicates that you are, at the very least, making some unwarranted assumptions.
(But I would wager (if we could find a way to adjudicate it) that my understanding of belief and knowledge is a lot deeper than you think.)
> Do you believe that I may be on to something, at least possibly?
No. I think that you once again have failed to do your homework. If you will recall, I smacked you down for that once before.
OK, fair enough. I will rephrase: I don't see any plausible mechanism by which you could know this, though I do concede that there are some possibilities. Maybe you have ESP. Maybe you have access to secret alien brain scanning technology. Maybe you hired a private investigator to suss out the depth of my understanding of the subtle and complex differences between belief and knowledge (though how he might have done this without my being aware of it remains a bit of a mystery). I have no idea. So yes, it's possible that you have some basis for believing that I "do not have a deep understanding of the subtle and complex differences between belief and knowledge". It's also possible that the earth is flat. But if you want me to take either possibility seriously then the burden is on you to explain it to me. Until you do that, the most plausible explanation I have for your behavior, and the one I am now going to start acting on, is that you are simply a troll.
Of course you know things I don't. Everyone over the age of 2 probably knows things I don't. Why would you even ask such a stupid question with such an obvious answer? And why did you phrase it in such a pretentious way? "Possess knowledge that you do not" -- who talks like that?
Does this have any affect on your belief that "so you cannot possibly have any basis for assessing my understanding or lack thereof" is a true statement?
What are you doing if not trolling? Do you think this is a competition? What do you think the prize is? You do realize there's no audience here, right? No one is paying attention to this thread any more.
Not sure what to call it....~"Analysis of the logical & epistemic cognitive performance of Humans on Internet Message Boards"? Something like that I guess. I try not to overthink it and just have fun, makes the whole thing much more optimal at this stage, in my estimation.
> Do you think this is a competition?
I very much think of it like that. A video game analogy ("world building" genres like Sim City, etc) is extremely fitting.
> What do you think the prize is?
At the grand scale: the well being of Humanity.
> You do realize there's no audience here, right?
I am not able to "realize" that, because I have had extremely different training than you.
> No one is paying attention to this thread any more.
It isn't possible for you to know this. Do you even realize that? Like seriously, are you joking when you make these comments or what?
EDIT: I noticed something:
>> Implicitly declaring victory again are we? And if not: what is it that you are doing?
If you stopped approaching HN as a contest you might see better outcomes.
> "world building" genres like Sim City
Sim City was a non-competitive single-player game the last time I played it. That was a long time ago so maybe things have changed. But be that as it may, "game" and "competition" are not synonyms. The distinguishing characteristic of a competition is that there are necessarily winners and losers.
> I have had extremely different training than you.
Do tell. You don't have any links in your profile so you apparently want to remain anonymous, which is fine. But then you can't blame me when I draw my conclusions about you based solely on what I observe you doing here, because that is all the data I have.
> It isn't possible for you to know this.
Oh, the irony. Is your memory really so poor that you don't recall giving me a hard time for saying the exact same thing two days ago?
Which says: "Well, There's Your Problem" is an expression typically used to point out the apparent cause of a mechanical failure or malfunction. On the web, the phrase has become closely associated with a subset of FAIL images depicting various accidents on the road and construction sites.
"to point out the apparent cause of a ~~mechanical~~ failure or malfunction"
Please point out the (apparent(!)) failure or malfunction here.
> If you stopped approaching HN as a contest you might see better outcomes.
Are you implying knowledge of the True value of the outcome?
As far as I'm concerned, these outcomes are better than expected...like, I could hardly imagine a more perfect scenario in my dreams. Or as Terence McKenna liked to say: "Reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it’s stranger than we CAN imagine".
> Sim City was a non-competitive single-player game the last time I played it. That was a long time ago so maybe things have changed. But be that as it may, "game" and "competition" are not synonyms.
This seems fairly reasonable, if considered on its own anyways (isolated from the context of this conversation).
I would add: the airspeed of a European swallow is 24 mph.
> The distinguishing characteristic of a competition is that there are necessarily winners and losers.
There are winners and losers in The Game of Life/Reality. As one example, take all the innocent people killed in Gaza in the last few months, and compare it to the relatively nice, cushy life I lead (and perhaps you too). If this was simply "real life", I'd expect people to have more compassion (I base this theory on the widespread and oh so popular sentiments like ~"All lives matter!!!" that I had to temporarily endure during the whole COVID...."thing". Thank God we've put all that performative nonsense/delusion behind us, amirite?).
> Do tell.
Unfortunately, that information is only released on a need to know basis.
> But then you can't blame me when I draw my conclusions about you based solely on what I observe you doing here...
Yes I can, and for valid reasons (that may be beyond the scope of your knowledge, or even belief).
> ...because that is all the data I have.
Not technically it isn't. I've given you all sorts of "data" that could help you with your predicament.
>>> No one is paying attention to this thread any more.
>> It isn't possible for you to know this.
> Oh, the irony.
Do you have access to the HN server logs? Yes or No? (And even if you did: is that adequate to flawlessly resolve whether your claim is true)?
Also: please reveal your method. And in so doing: please explicitly note whether you are expressing an opinion or asserting a (perceived) fact (with respect to whether your method is adequate to resolve the question without any possible flaws or shortcomings). As you may or may not remember (or be willing to acknowledge), we've had a little trouble with you explicitly revealing whether you are dealing in facts or opinions in your writing.
> Is your memory really so poor that you don't recall giving me a hard time for saying the exact same thing two days ago?
Not at all, I have chided you numerous times for claiming to possess knowledge for that which cannot be known (by you, or anyone). One might even say that is the essence of our various conversations.
For fun though: how about you explain the irony that you see here? If I am at fault, I would very much like to know...to me, that is fun.
> You really need to read the latest installment in my series
As I asked you last time (and you did not answer): why? If there is something for me to learn there, what is it (and what among my text illustrates that I need to learn it)?
You misspelled my username, and I did not actually concede the point. It was past midnight here at the time. I only corrected part of my comment, but I still do disagree with your point.
Because I don't have time to grovel through everything I've ever posted to find examples where I conceded a point.
> Remember your claim above?
Yes. What does that have to do with anything? That wasn't a reply to you, that was a reply to /u/stroganoff, whereupon /u/stroganoff conceded the point.
So what is your point???