Skepticism and The Normal

Good on you, Moby. I got as far as checking that BF really believed that that pile of disconnected nonsense was an argument, but didn't have enough strength to try to take it apart, especially since he's not going to understand.

And let's see what evasions will he come up with now, to try to maintain that he does understand musical terms.
 
Mojo said:
Oh, and by the way, I didn't use the word "pessimestic" either. There is no such word.
Click to expand...

There is now.

I would like to chime in on the glass full/empty issue. There is another issue here as well that makes it somewhat murkier: it seems that the starting and ending states of the glass are important.

Basically, if you are emptying the glass of the water, it would seem most correct to indicate it is "half empty," as you are attempting to turn it from full to empty. Similarly, if you are filling the glass it would seem most correct to speak of it as "half full," as this most accurately describes the state of the glass within the broader context.

However, if you simply happen upon a glass filled half way with water, it comes down to the preference of the observer. I generally choose to say "half full of water" because the glass in its natural state is empty, and thus describing it with varying degrees of fullness strikes me as somewhat more accurate.

But how can we be sure it's half anything? Do we have sufficiently precise measurements to make that decision? How do we define "full?" If the glass contains water taking up approximately 51.23% of its described maximum capacity, what is it? ;)
 
Mobyseven said:
It is also the basis for a very cool trick you can do with a trombone, where you can play a major chord with a single trombone - you play the root note on the trombone while singing the fifth note of the chord. By singing the fifth note you boost the major 10th harmonic, giving you the third note of the major chord!

Peace Out

Mobyseven
Click to expand...

derail, if that were possible:

you dig Albert Mangelsdorff? :)
 
calebprime said:
derail, if that were possible:

you dig Albert Mangelsdorff? :)
Click to expand...

Actually, I must confess that I don't know who that is (though I'd quite like to find out).

I must also confess that of all the instruments I play, trombone is not one of them.

The 'playing a chord on a trombone' trick was explained to me (and demonstrated, which sounded mighty cool) by a friend of mine who plays trombone and also sings - being able to sing is certainly a bonus if you're trying to pull off this trick, as your pitch has to be pretty spot on to get the effect.

But Albert Mangelsdorff - I'm listening? :)
 
Mobyseven said:
Actually, I must confess that I don't know who that is (though I'd quite like to find out).

I must also confess that of all the instruments I play, trombone is not one of them.

The 'playing a chord on a trombone' trick was explained to me (and demonstrated, which sounded mighty cool) by a friend of mine who plays trombone and also sings - being able to sing is certainly a bonus if you're trying to pull off this trick, as your pitch has to be pretty spot on to get the effect.

But Albert Mangelsdorff - I'm listening? :)
Click to expand...

Sorry for delay in answering but I got lost somewhere in the Buzz Lightyear thread. Scary. Clean living from now on for me.

Mangelsdorff is (was?) a trombonist who took this technique so far that he did entire solo albums. Heard him back in the 80's. Good sense of humor, and pretty musical despite the emphasis on this technique. He could do a sort of boogie background and do melodies on top of it. Not too "avant garde" if that equals hard to listen to.

Don't know if anyone since then has taken this technique farther...Steve Turre', maybe.

ah, it;s all clear now; DJJ simply lacks a little finger on his right hand.
 
Last edited:
calebprime said:
Sorry for delay in answering but I got lost somewhere in the Buzz Lightyear thread. Scary. Clean living from now on for me.

ah, it;s all clear now; DJJ simply lacks a little finger on his right hand.
Click to expand...

YOu frequent a DJJ thread, and think that Buzz Lightyear is scary...

Well that is your subjective opinion...

Clean living from now on for me.
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp
 
calebprime said:
Sorry for delay in answering but I got lost somewhere in the Buzz Lightyear thread. Scary. Clean living from now on for me.

Mangelsdorff is (was?) a trombonist who took this technique so far that he did entire solo albums. Heard him back in the 80's. Good sense of humor, and pretty musical despite the emphasis on this technique. He could do a sort of boogie background and do melodies on top of it. Not too "avant garde" if that equals hard to listen to.

Don't know if anyone since then has taken this technique farther...Steve Turre', maybe.

ah, it;s all clear now; DJJ simply lacks a little finger on his right hand.
Click to expand...

Ah, cool. Being a child of the late-eighties I plead ignorance to him. But sounds interesting!

What on earth was going on at the end of your post there??? You're not from Australia are you? Because if you've been awake for as long as I have I would entirely understand it if your brain was scrambled...mmm...scrambled eggs. What I wouldn't give for som...SEE WHAT I MEAN??? :p
 
ah, it;s all clear now; DJJ simply lacks a little finger on his right hand.

DJJ=DavidJayJordan

he types his apostrophes like ; for no apparent reason.

i hit the ; key by mistake and realized it was next to the ' key.

i;m sorry. no more cryptic messages.

being fussy, i think people who persistently type the same typos are funny.

how much can i labor this explanation?
 
jimbob said:
YOu frequent a DJJ thread, and think that Buzz Lightyear is scary...

Well that is your subjective opinion...

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

:D

yeah, DJJ is scarier, but who among us hasn't fantasized about contacting Egyptian deities by chanting for hours in a cold room with live acoustics? I know I have.

or maybe it's the good intentions? Sorry about that.

To date myself:

He takes all my money
You know I'm through with Buzz
Yes I'm through with Buzz,
All right, oh yeah, uh huh
He's not very funny
You know I'm through with Buzz
Yes I'm through with Buzz,
All right, oh yeah, uh huh

I remember when he stole my girl
Drug her all around the world
You know I'm cool, yes I feel alright
'Cept when I'm in my room and it's late at night

Maybe he's a fairy
You know I'm through with Buzz
Yes I'm through with Buzz
All right, oh yeah, uh huh, all right
 
calebprime said:
Mangelsdorff is (was?) a trombonist who took this technique so far that he did entire solo albums.
Click to expand...
Was, I'm afraid. Died a couple of years ago. I can recommend an album called Triplicity, which is a live recording from the late 70s, backed by just bass & drums, but that's the only one of his I've got.
 
Mobyseven said:
Our sanity.
Click to expand...

Our approval, is what it seems more like. It's not something he's come out and said, but why else would he keep coming back and posting about this stuff unless he was trying to just wear us down and make us go "You're right! Your ideas are incredibly valuable and useful contributions to mankind's understanding of his world!"

I wonder two things, and I apologize if they were mentioned earlier in the thread and I missed them:

1) Has he discussed any of these ideas with people who teach logic, philosophy or math for a living (who would seem to be the most likely go-to folks for something of this ilk)?
2) If so, what did they say?
 
TheGline said:
1) Has he discussed any of these ideas with people who teach logic, philosophy or math for a living (who would seem to be the most likely go-to folks for something of this ilk)?
Click to expand...

He claims to have approached some people about this, but no one that is an expert in philosophy, mathematics, or logic. Specifically, he has not approached anyone knowledgable in mathematics, and he hasn't mentioned philosophy or logic. He did, however, mention approaching people in "marketing" or "business" about this.

Make of that what you will.
 
JonnyFive said:
He claims to have approached some people about this, but no one that is an expert in philosophy, mathematics, or logic. Specifically, he has not approached anyone knowledgable in mathematics, and he hasn't mentioned philosophy or logic. He did, however, mention approaching people in "marketing" or "business" about this.

Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...

Here's what I make of that: he's not interested in whether or not his ideas are testable or useful, but simply in putting his name to them.

This reminds me a little too much of the "ZOMG AMAZING SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH" people who conduct their peer-review by press release.
 
TheGline said:
Bubbelfish, what do you want from us?
Click to expand...

He wants your attention, that's all. In fact he craves it because it makes him feel important. He's found the Internet is an easy, cheap and pain-free way of getting attention. Underneath all the ignorant, illiterate and largely meaningless bluster he spouts is a bit of plain old attention seeking that most children indulge in periodically during their infant and adolescent years. That Rome isn't actually an infant, but a more middle aged C-list showbiz related individual, speaks volumes about his emotional and intellectual immaturity.
 
TheGline said:
1) Has he discussed any of these ideas with people who teach logic, philosophy or math for a living (who would seem to be the most likely go-to folks for something of this ilk)?
Click to expand...

A number on this very thread, who might be expected to be supportive and helpful if the idea were worth pursuing.

2) If so, what did they say?
Click to expand...

How shall I phrase this? -- "they were unsupportive and unhelpful." But no less supportive and helpful than the material merited...
 
It's a pity I'm not taking discrete structures until this fall. BF's claims about math and logic fall somewhat into that realm of study, and it would've been fun before it became obvious he was just acting like a nasty pseudo-troll when challenged.
 
TheGline said:
I wonder two things, and I apologize if they were mentioned earlier in the thread and I missed them:

1) Has he discussed any of these ideas with people who teach logic, philosophy or math for a living (who would seem to be the most likely go-to folks for something of this ilk)?
2) If so, what did they say?
Click to expand...


He claims to have spoken to a number of academics (and others) about this and to have received a positive response. For example:
Bubblefish said:
I already know these set of distinctions are valid mathematically. A friend of the family's is a former princton math professor, actually a little famous in the world of internet mathematics. Now he's making big $$$$$ (almost infinite;-) as an investment banker. I'm not going to mention his name because people here will most likely contact him as they did the other research friends of mine. I asked him to go over this with me more than two years ago, I wanted to find out if I was nuts or on to something. When I explain him the distinctions of 0, 1, and 2, he said "Oh, your onto something here. In mathematics we would call this Zero, One, Infinity"

Once he saw those distinctions, he came to be in perfect agreement with me regarding the rest of my argument about OS 0 1 2. He also suggested i was tapping into something essential used in quantum computing, which I hardly even understand, much less normal computer programming
Click to expand...


He even claims that some of these are working with him on the idea.

But he refuses to name any of them in case we check his story.

He has also said that there are a number of people who understand OS 012, and can explain it better than he can, but he has declined to cite any of them, or to invite any of them here to explain it.
 
So, according to this Princeton math professor, infinity = 2.

I'm with pv+, Bubb just wants our attention. He has explicitly stated that his idea of success is a prolonged discussion, not necessarily with any resolution. He does seem to like it when people agree with him (or at least accept that he has spelled something correctly), but only so he can crow about it later. He also makes no real effort to actually convince anyone since he mantains his pathetic tactic of vomiting fluffy, semi-illiterate verbiage "Go on! Infer, feel and think!... blah blah blah" It has been repeatedly pointed out that if he presented his ideas briefly, coherently and using common terminology then they could actually be critiqued, which is what he says he is after ("antithesis"), but the consistent fact throughout all these threads is that he has still failed to make his system clear or explain how it works.

Taking Bubb's behaviour as a whole (over this thread, the previous one here and the one at bs.net) I'm convinced that Bubb is simply a troll. I think he takes pathetic pleasure in :

- raising a discussion that is superficially interesting, but ultimately vacuous.
- as he himself has suggested, maintaining a discussion that is at once attractive (some interesting subject matter has been brought in from outside) and repulsive (Bubb's behaviour and style).
- being insulting, but not so insulting that people instantly leave.
- giving the impression that he may be onto something revolutionary but never revealing what it is ("I know a secret but I'm not going to tell you.. nyah nyah nyah etc."), in order to string out the discussion.
- jumping on the bandwagon of any topic that is raised (or occasionally introducing one e.g., qualia) and claiming that they support his ideas (often with reference to some eminent scientist/mathematician/philosopher etc.).
- never, under any circumstances admitting that he is/was wrong and very obviously being immune to reason. This is such a fascinatingly messed up character flaw that it keeps people coming back just to see if they can get through to the deluded tosspot that he is actually mistaken.

At all these, he is surprisingly skilled. Does this skill make up for his obvious lack of any other talent? Sadly no.

Does Bubb actually believe what he writes? I still don't know for sure, but I'd strongly guess "no", it's all just a wind up. If he does believe it then I feel sorry for him for being quite so deluded; if he doesn't believe it then I feel sorry for him for not having anything better to do, and being sad enough to get some sort of gratification from trolling.

So on the basis that Bubb is simply a troll I'd say that what he really wants from us is a hefty kick in the knackers.
 
I'm really sorry I cant participate in this discussion right now, my responsibility with work is at a critical stage right now and need all the extra brain power I can get. I will of course be back here when things simmer down and am thrilled to see this discussion continue.

Until then, check out this article. Are these scientists saying that color is BOTH objective and subjective? My lord I believe they are!

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061015_banana.htm

Lotsa Love,
Bubblefish
 
Mojo said:
He claims to have spoken to a number of academics (and others) about this and to have received a positive response.

He even claims that some of these are working with him on the idea.

But he refuses to name any of them in case we check his story.

He has also said that there are a number of people who understand OS 012, and can explain it better than he can, but he has declined to cite any of them, or to invite any of them here to explain it.
Click to expand...

Color me completely unsurprised. As others have said, this isn't about whether or not his idea holds water; it's whether or not he can get anyone to take him seriously.

Well, to quote Sam Goldwyn, "Include me out."

If OS 012 is anything more than two-valued logic by any other name, I'd love to have someone else explain it better.
 
flimflam_machine said:
Does Bubb actually believe what he writes? I still don't know for sure, but I'd strongly guess "no", it's all just a wind up.
Click to expand...

I second that. Or, rather, I don't think he cares about this material in a way that would show real sincerity. He cares about it just enough to try and make other people take it seriously, but he doesn't care about it enough to worry about whether or not it might be trivially true (i.e., nothing new here), or just plain wrong. Small wonder he hasn't discussed this with someone who actually teaches or works with the subject.

It's a little like, oh, claiming to make earth-shattering discoveries in cosmology without ever having taken any basic high-school physics courses.... but we don't know anyone who's ever done that, do we?
 
flimflam_machine said:
So on the basis that Bubb is simply a troll I'd say that what he really wants from us is a hefty kick in the knackers.
Click to expand...

(Sorry about the multi-quote)

...yeah. It makes sense now. What he really wants is to rile us up badly enough that he'll get banned, and then he can use that as a badge of pride or further justification that his ideas are right because "orthodox thinkers" won't accept it.

I've seen this sort of thing way too many times to know it never has a happy ending.
 
flimflam_machine said:
So on the basis that Bubb is simply a troll I'd say that what he really wants from us is a hefty kick in the knackers.
Click to expand...


I see you're using "wants" in the David 'Two Brains' Willetts sense of the word.

flimflam machine said:
So, according to this Princeton math professor, infinity = 2.
Click to expand...
If you read the post carefully, you will see that is was not a Princeton math professor, but a "princton" one.
 
Bubblefish said:
Objective Reality supporting my arguments once again. Check out this link as well. This is what I have been developing and talking about for years.

http://www.jewcy.com/feature/11-16/wiki_wars

If you don't like OS 0 1 2, your not going to like the future.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you, that article does not describe what you claim OS 012 does. It describes a "lose-lose" situation in which both parties to a dispute are dissatisfied:
If the sign of a good negotiation is the arrival of a resolution where both parties remain dissatisfied, then time and again this anarchic online community successfully resolves the world’s most seemingly intractable debates. In this sense, Wikipedia is a geopolitical laboratory, offering lessons on how we might approach such problems in the real world.
Click to expand...


You in fact claim that the only thing that makes OS 012 distinct from other frameworks is that it can arrive at a "win-win" resolution with which both sides are satisfied:
Bubblefish said:
Everything that I mention in OS 012 is commonly established by other frameworks academically. The only thing that is groundbreaking is the synthesis of these ideas into a framework or game that can in theory produce a 'win win' in negotiation and conflict resolution.
Click to expand...


So it would appear that the Wikipedians are not using OS 012, but one of these other "other frameworks" which you claim OS 012 is distinct from in that it can produce a "win-win" result. Or alternatively, that if they are using OS 012, that it isn't working, or that it is not in any way distinct from these "other frameworks".

Perhaps you should refrain from posting links until you have time to read them.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Perhaps you should refrain from posting links until you have time to read the ability to comprehend them.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you

Jim

ETA: I am using the JP178 meanings otf the phrase "the ability" and with this set of meanings, which are intuitive, I am actually not insulting anyone, merely stating an identical meaning to Mojo.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by flimflam_machine
So on the basis that Bubb is simply a troll I'd say that what he really wants from us is a hefty kick in the knackers.
Click to expand...
(Sorry about the multi-quote)

...yeah. It makes sense now. What he really wants is to rile us up badly enough that he'll get banned, and then he can use that as a badge of pride or further justification that his ideas are right because "orthodox thinkers" won't accept it.

I've seen this sort of thing way too many times to know it never has a happy ending.
Click to expand...
That may, indeed, be one of Bubb's aims, but I was actually using "want" (as Mojo noted) in the following senses: 4 (often want for) lack or be short of something desirable or essential. 5 [FONT=&quot]informal,[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]chiefly Brit.[/FONT] ought to, should, or need to do something. 6 [FONT=&quot]informal,[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]chiefly Brit.[/FONT] (of a thing) require to be attended to.

I don't think Bubb even cares if people take him seriously, as long as they talk to, or even about, him. Actually I think he probably takes more, sad pleasure in getting people to talk about something that is bollocks, but that is presented in a semi-serious way. Of course the most interesting parts of this thread have not actually been about OS012, but about other topics that have been introduced, and then escalated by Bubb's spectacular failure to understand them.
 
Mojo said:
You in fact claim that the only thing that makes OS 012 distinct from other frameworks is that it can arrive at a "win-win" resolution with which both sides are satisfied
Click to expand...

Sounds like a sort of Nash equilibrium (if memory serves) -- which is, again, more grist for the mill of OS 012 being neither particularly original, useful or interesting...
 
flimflam_machine said:
I don't think Bubb even cares if people take him seriously, as long as they talk to, or even about, him. Actually I think he probably takes more, sad pleasure in getting people to talk about something that is bollocks, but that is presented in a semi-serious way. Of course the most interesting parts of this thread have not actually been about OS012, but about other topics that have been introduced, and then escalated by Bubb's spectacular failure to understand them.
Click to expand...

The whole segment of the discussion on music was great, for instance. But, yes, it's just redolent of the old saw that there's no such thing as bad publicity. (Unless you're a sex offender ... cough...)
 
JonnyFive said:
A classic example if ever I've seen one.
Click to expand...

And if my Bubblefishometer is working correctly, he'll claim he's nor resorting to it, just putting it out there for us to chew on, or some other similar evasion.

"If your ideas had merit, you wouldn't have to sink to this level."
"My ideas do have merit -- you're just too thick to understand them without a little incentive!"
"Give us the ideas. Save the incentive."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Randi Gets Rude...
2 3 4
Replies
145
Views
29K
Solus
S
C
Questions for Lucianarchy
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
234
Views
12K
Ashles
Ashles
S
'The Man Who Paints The Future' with Randi
2
Replies
71
Views
10K
Hamhawk714
H
Aster
Reflexions. No offence please.
Replies
39
Views
3K
Aster
Aster
B
"Catalyst" on Homeopathy
Replies
8
Views
1K
spoonhandler
S

Back
Top Bottom