OS 0 1 2, Global Dialectic for the Internet

Donks said:
Have you provided evidence of Qi? I don't have the time at the moment to read your threads and was wondering if you have.
Click to expand...

No Donks, I have not provided evidence of it, nor did I ever claim I was going to in these discussions. However, I am assisting a party of individuals whom are about to or are attempting to provide empirical evidence for it as a bona fide phenomena. They are trained professionals quite familiar with the scientific method.

One of them (dr. lo) is going to take the Randi Challenge in a few months and I came here to recon the situation and gather information relative to the Randi challenge.

Thanks for asking questions

Bubblefish
 
Bubblefish said:
No Donks, I have not provided evidence of it, nor did I ever claim I was going to in these discussions. However, I am assisting a party of individuals whom are about to or are attempting to provide empirical evidence for it as a bona fide phenomena. They are trained professionals quite familiar with the scientific method.

One of them (dr. lo) is going to take the Randi Challenge in a few months and I came here to recon the situation and gather information relative to the Randi challenge.

Thanks for asking questions

Bubblefish
Click to expand...
In that case, I have no further comments, unless you proposed a protocol for testing Qi and I had questions or comments regarding that.
 
Donks,

Perhaps when we get closer to the challenge, I will bring that up here on the forum for those wishing to comment or question objectivly and rationally.
 
Bubblefish said:
Donks,

Perhaps when we get closer to the challenge, I will bring that up here on the forum for those wishing to comment or question objectivly and rationally.
Click to expand...
Why? Your past performance certainly suggests you couldn't tell objectivity and rationality from your own backside.

*YAWN*

Well - I shall, along with the others here, await your challenge entry, should it ever materialise in this lifetime.
 
Zep said:
Why? Your past performance certainly suggests you couldn't tell objectivity and rationality from your own backside.
Click to expand...

Zep, of all things someone could say about me, that is the funniest one liner so far from truth it's scary, since I developed a framework for the common and perfect application for both of them!

*YAWN*
Click to expand...


I am sure that spending your time trying to boost your post count can get tiring;-)

Well - I shall, along with the others here, await your challenge entry, should it ever materialise in this lifetime. [/B]
Click to expand...

Stay tuned. I am looking forward to it too. My intention is to create another documenative project around the challenge, so I want it to happen for personal reasons as well as philosophical.

Peace,

Bubblefish
 
Bubblefish said:
Zep, of all things someone could say about me, that is the funniest one liner so far from truth it's scary, since I developed a framework for the common and perfect application for both of them!
Click to expand...
You ARE getting as ridiculous as Kumar, aren't you. Or do you often get these delusions of adequacy.

Bubblefish said:
Stay tuned. I am looking forward to it too. My intention is to create another documenative project around the challenge, so I want it to happen for personal reasons as well as philosophical.

Peace,

Bubblefish
Click to expand...
Then you need to brush up on some basic skills first...like spelling, and grammar, and punctuation, and English as a whole subject in itself, really. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.

Or maybe you don't want to be taken seriously...in which case you have succeeded admirably! I have never seen a better impersonation of a self-inflated egomaniacal bird-brain! Well done!
 
Then you need to brush up on some basic skills first...like spelling, and grammar, and punctuation, and English as a whole subject in itself, really. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.
Click to expand...


Those whom are rational here were able to take what I wrote in the seriousness that in conveyed just fine. Just read the thread.

Or maybe you don't want to be taken seriously...in which case you have succeeded admirably!
Click to expand...

I want the essence of what I write to be taken as is, and the rest should be fun.

Cant please everyone. But at least you increased your posting count. You should be proud.
 
Because you insist on continuaLy pOsting With irrelevancy, i have decided to give you Much crEdit by capitalizing the appropiate phrase and giving you the last word on the matter.

love,
bubblefish
 
Oh look! Now it's REALLY a prick all over!

040902_blowfish_1500s.jpg
 
The Value of Mystery

Some questions for Bubblefish:

What is the value of mystery in truth?

Take the statement "is 1 = 1?"

In this context one value of truth that is readily apparent to me is that in reality 1 is equal to 1.

For example, when buying a train ticket to the airport I can can answer the question "how many tickets do you need?" truthfully, and recognize immediate value:

- My money is limited so I don't spend more money than I need to.

- I must get to the airport to earn a living so buying at least 1 ticket (not 0) is valuable.

Thus I get to the airport, earn money, and keep myself alive. All valuable to me.

But where is the mystery? How does one get at the "mystery within the truth?" Your tagline says that "their is a rational argument for including mystery in the value of truth." This implies that its optional; that including mystery in the truth must be a concious act, performed by the truthsayer (is that a word?)

Lets assume that your rational argument exists, even though you've never provided it, and that mystery is a value in truth!

What is that value? Indeed, how does one include "mystery in truth"?

Using my example above would this qualify as including Mystery in Truth?

Ticket Agent: How many tickets do you need?
Me including mystery in truth: Most of the time I need just one.
Ticket Agent: How many do you need right now?
Me including mystery in truth Its a mystery to me, why don't you pick a number?
Ticket Agent: Ok you need fifty tickets!
Me including mystery in truth: That seems a little high.
Ticket Agent: Ok you don't need any.
Me including mystery in truth: That seems a little low.
Ticket Agent: Tell you what, lets split the difference and I'll sell you 25 tickets.
Me including mystery in truth: Ok, you got a deal!

I'm all about value so if I can get more out of the truth than just making good choices in order to promote my goals I'm all ears. Problem is in my little play above I can't figure out what that value is, especially as it relates to my goal of getting to the airport. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong.
 
Re: The Value of Mystery

jellerbee said:
Some questions for Bubblefish:

What is the value of mystery in truth?
Click to expand...

Rather, what is the value of 'truth' in mystery? It is true that there is an unknown factor.

Take the statement "is 1 = 1?"

In this context one value of truth that is readily apparent to me is that in reality 1 is equal to 1.

For example, when buying a train ticket to the airport I can can answer the question "how many tickets do you need?" truthfully, and recognize immediate value:

- My money is limited so I don't spend more money than I need to.

- I must get to the airport to earn a living so buying at least 1 ticket (not 0) is valuable.

Thus I get to the airport, earn money, and keep myself alive. All valuable to me.

But where is the mystery? How does one get at the "mystery within the truth?" Your tagline says that "their is a rational argument for including mystery in the value of truth." This implies that its optional; that including mystery in the truth must be a concious act, performed by the truthsayer (is that a word?)
Click to expand...

It's the value of mystery being a truth,not the truth being a mystery. The certainty of the uncertainty.


Lets assume that your rational argument exists, even though you've never provided it, and that mystery is a value in truth!
Click to expand...

The tag line is a refrence for a three valued logical dialectic that has three truth values. Pure Truths (empirical, objective, or logical truths, truths which can be mutually agreeable), False truth (metaphors, art, personal points of view) and 'mysterious truths' or ideas that signify something outside of individual or collective perception, such as 'god' 'death' etc etc.

Often, mysterious truths are much more practical and grounded and not so philosophical. For example, in 2002, WMD in Iraq was a 'mysterious truth', we could not with any honest or rational certainty identify the truth or falsity of thier existence, yet WMD were argued as 'true' whilst arguements that suggested otherwise were discouraged, while the opposing arguements were forced into 'false'. Most people argue with a 'true or false' agenda, where such arguements do not reflect the situation so much and force all 'mysterious ideas' into a category of either true or false, thus creating a misleading conceptual map of the environment, War in Iraq being a practical example.

If you have any more questions, you should drop by the forum, as this thread is really not set up for this discussion, you know, with yo-yo's like Zep and all;-)
 
Global Dialectic

Yep, I just found your site and that forum soon after my posting. Interesting. Will check it out and get back to you at that venue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom