Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Why?

Because belief isn't all-or-nothing.

> That's not what you're saying, however.

Yes, it is exactly what I'm saying.



> Because belief isn't all-or-nothing.

Why not?

> Yes, it is exactly what I'm saying.

Here, let me save us a few rounds:

No it's not.

Yes it is.

No it's not.

Yes it is.

No it's not.

Now how about you rephrase what you wrote so we can move forward?


> > Because belief isn't all-or-nothing.

> Why not?

There a point that can be reached in a discussion where you realize that (assuming the other participant is honest, without which there are other insurmountable problems) you just don't have the requisite common understanding of reality to have a fruitful discussion.

The point at which you question the idea that belief, in general, isn't necessarily absolute is that point, for me, in this discussion.


So you can't explain why you believe something you do?

I agree. It is at this point when I cannot continue a discussion. Have a good day.


I expect the following is relevant to dragonwriter's thinking: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mp/0_and_1_are_not_probabilities

Meanwhile, we might all do well to read and reflect on http://lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_dista...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: