>>12733509>If you want to make a point then make it yourself. Don't play games.I already made my point at the beginning of this conversation, you didn't accept nor refute it. Since you won't do it yourself, the "game" is to either ferret out the source of the disconnect, or to find clear indication of an active refusal. At which point the matter can be concluded. Bombarding you with "why" is childish, and it's done for the same reason children do it (until they're broken of it). I want to show you can answer the why's to some extent individually, but you cannot answer them all together.
Let's go back to the beginning of this conversation.
You admitted you cannot know, yet implied you saw it justified to simply act like you know.
I responded that your criteria threshold for "knowing" is far too a prior and set too low, and that the only reason to do this is out of need (as in to generate an output in the real world) or desire (psychological structures required to motivate or alleviate anxiety). That there is no reason to anchor on a default reality without cause, or to think in binary terms.
You responded that the model was good enough and basically was as good as knowing in any given interval. You denied that there was any emotional component nor need aspect in acting like you know things you do not know, when the actual empirical evidence is clearly inadequate. This is where the contradictions begin to mount. You know without knowing, you have seen without seeing, you need without needing, you do without desiring, you have reasons without having any basis for reason.
1/2
