<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: onthrowaway457</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=onthrowaway457</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2026 14:12:55 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=onthrowaway457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by onthrowaway457 in "Douglas Hofstadter: Analogy as the Core of Cognition [video]"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Constructing explicit analogies for persuasion seems to be a bit of a different thing.<p>I’m not sure if Hofstadter puts it this way, but to me even the core aspects of your sentences in this post have roots in analogies. What does it mean to lose an argument or to spiral it to a different place? There is no place, there is no lost item, but we talk about these abstract ideas in ways that largely depend upon understanding things like physical objects and space and movement.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:50:34 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49652160</link><dc:creator>onthrowaway457</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49652160</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49652160</guid></item></channel></rss>