[mistermann]

You are literally ignoring it, you speak as if your opinion of reality is a 1:1 match for the thing itself.

Can you link to:

1. Two of your comments in this thread where you express uncertainty in any of your assertions?

2. Two comments where someone disagreed with you, and you acknowledged (in the comment itself) your prior incorrectness/imperfection?

[lisper]

No. But I can link to this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40240018

[mistermann]

> No.

And why is it that you cannot link to what I ask for?

Remember your claim above?

>> ignoring the fact that our minds are both map-creators and part of the territory seems foolish

> That's a straw man. Of course it's foolish. No one is ignoring it.

[lisper]

> 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.

So what is your point???

[mistermann]

> 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?

[lisper]

> Is that the only reason you are unable?

I'm not unable, I am unwilling.

> Are you sure such examples exist?

Yes. Here is one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40250568

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40111778

Proceed with caution if you don't want a repeat.

[mistermann]

>> 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.

I think it goes without saying that you believe this claim to be true.

Truly amazing.

[strogonoff]

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.

[lisper]

My apologies on both counts. It seemed like a concession to me, but whatever.

Just to avoid further misunderstandings, what exactly is it that you disagree with?