Skepticism and The Normal

[flimflam_machine]

Originally Posted by Mojo
The observer is external to the thing observed, and therefore not a component of it.

You can only note the observer is external to the thing observed if you are observing them.

Hang on! That doesn't even nearly rebut Mojo's point. Even if you observe the observer, that does not make them component of the thing that they are observing. I can see my friend looking at his computer and I don't believe that he is a component of that computer.

OS 012 is for interpreting MEANING of statements in content, not form.

So how does OS012 extract "meaning" from statements then? Most people just do it by reading them.

 

[pv+]

120 million americans were wrong about WMD in Iraq, and they are americans. The french were actually right, inspite of being french. Other than that, I dont get your point.

298 million Americans didn't know anything about WMD, and neither did 61 million French. You can't tell the difference between guessing and knowing, nor fictional and factual. You are blindingly dim and profoundly shallow.

 

[flimflam_machine]

More silliness:

Take a look, we can very much perceive something that is not actually there [link to Kaniza figure]:

We are percieving something metaphysically. Ever hear of Esher? We are percieving an internal metaphysical structure.

What do you mean "we are perceiving something metaphysically"? The definition of metaphysical is "transcending physical matter", doesn't that just mean that it isn't physically there? I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Escher, clarify please.

Quote:
To sum up: of course you can separate the objective from the experience attached to it, it's called metaphysical objectivism.

You can distinguish it, you cannot seperate it, there is a difference.

So nothing exists "separate" from our perception? You really are a Berkeleyan idealist!

 

[pv+]

Ever hear of Esher?

Yes! It's near Ascot.

You really are a Berkeleyan idealist!

Don't you mean "Berk"?

The reason Bubble spells all the names wrong is because, prior to stumbling across them in Wikepedia two minutes previously, he doesn't know anything about them. Together with his general linguistic ignorance it accounts for his obsession with filling up space with any old noise rather than the quality and veracity of the content.

 

[WWHP]

298 million Americans didn't know anything about WMD, and neither did 61 million French. You can't tell the difference between guessing and knowing, nor fictional and factual. You are blindingly dim and profoundly shallow.

Bubblefish is no longer rationally addressing magical statements

Regards,
The Managment

 

[WWHP]

Yes! It's near Ascot.


Don't you mean "Berk"?

The reason Bubble spells all the names wrong is because, prior to stumbling across them in Wikepedia two minutes previously, he doesn't know anything about them. Together with his general linguistic ignorance it accounts for his obsession with filling up space with any old noise rather than the quality and veracity of the content.

Bubblefish is no longer rationally addressing magical statements

Regards,
The Managment

 

[Timanfaya]

Yes! It's near Ascot.

Marvellous.

 

[jimbob]

I just feel the need to post this youtube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ5cuv8PwYw

BF had originally posted this as some further video "evidence" for Qi, can anyone come up with another explaination for these marvelous phenomona?

Just a bit of fun

 

[jimbob]

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/psych.htm

What's the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic? A psychotic thinks two and two make five. A neurotic knows that two and two make four, but he just can't stand it.

 

[pv+]

Originally Posted by pv+
Yes! It's near Ascot.


Don't you mean "Berk"?

The reason Bubble spells all the names wrong is because, prior to stumbling across them in Wikepedia two minutes previously, he doesn't know anything about them. Together with his general linguistic ignorance it accounts for his obsession with filling up space with any old noise rather than the quality and veracity of the content.

Bubblefish is no longer rationally addressing magical statements

Regards,
The Managment

The truth Bubblefish. I thought you were interested in truthfulness. Obviously not when it's about you, eh?
If you close your eyes the world is still here, and your ridiculous posturing is still here for all to read. As I told you before, I use you as an example to my students of what can happen when you fill your head with too much dope and stuff, and you don't get out enough. How to waste a life! First class example. Bravo Bubblefish.

 

[WWHP]

Even if you observe the observer, that does not make them component of the thing that they are observing. I can see my friend looking at his computer and I don't believe that he is a component of that computer.

I'm not saying he is a component of his computer. But he IS looking at his computer, and it's his own subjective reality viewing that computer, and thus, objective reality is a component of his subjective reality, and his subjective reality is a component of objective reality. That's objective reality with a big O, not just a PC laptop that your friend is staring at.

So how does OS012 extract "meaning" from statements then? Most people just do it by reading them.

Sure, we are always creating meaning from everything we observe, if it wasnt for us subjectives in the universe, there would be no meaning. However, we dont always see what each other means. OS 012 helps to see what each other means.

I'm not going to respond to questions that ask 'how does that work' because A.) This discussion is not about how it works, it's about it's theoritical structures and B.) I have already given some examples or highlights or generalizations, which, C.), you dont understand, and simply dont have a hope of understanding until you know the difference between objective and subjective reality. If you get the distinctions, it's not so hard to imagine or visualize.

So let's get the basics down first before you wanna rush into the advanced stuff.

BF

 

[WWHP]

What do you mean "we are perceiving something metaphysically"? The definition of metaphysical is "transcending physical matter", doesn't that just mean that it isn't physically there?

A center line is metaphysical, it's simply not there, yet the body is proportioned around it. A metaphysical structure is a pattern integrity.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/marksomers/81.html

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Escher, clarify please.

Escher created drawings of objects that simply cannot exist, yet the mind can handle thier existence and percieve something that simply is NOT really there.

So nothing exists "separate" from our perception? You really are a Berkeleyan idealist!

I dont use the word seperate, I use the word 'distinguishable'. Everything in our perception is distinguishable. The seperation is not really there objectively, there is interdependency and interconnectedness. And no, this point of view is NOT berkeleyan idealism, if you assumed that, then your farther behind than I thought.

We create reality (metaphysically) and reality creates us (physically).

If you're trying to model OS 012, and your model isnt reciprocal in nature, then your model is incorrect by default. Think about it, how could a ternary structure be Berkeleyan idealism?


BF

 

[WWHP]

The truth Bubblefish. I thought you were interested in truthfulness. Obviously not when it's about you, eh?
If you close your eyes the world is still here, and your ridiculous posturing is still here for all to read. As I told you before, I use you as an example to my students of what can happen when you fill your head with too much dope and stuff, and you don't get out enough. How to waste a life! First class example. Bravo Bubblefish.

Bubblefish is no longer rationally addressing magical statements!

Regards,
The Managment

 

[Mojo]

I'm not saying he is a component of his computer. But he IS looking at his computer, and it's his own subjective reality viewing that computer, and thus, objective reality is a component of his subjective reality, and his subjective reality is a component of objective reality. That's objective reality with a big O, not just a PC laptop that your friend is staring at.

If "objective reality with a big O" has a subjective component, then something about it is dependent on viewpoint and it is therefore not objective.

If a statement has a subjective component then it is not the same for all viewpoints. You have claimed that the subjective component of statements that most people would consider to be objective is the observer. As an example for you to explain, let's go back to the statement that we were discussing: how does an observer have an effect on the truth value of the statement "AJ is a woman"?

 

[Mojo]

Mistakes are contradictions to reality.

There wasn't a contradiction in the statement you quoted. You should try to stick to the definitions of the word that other people use: "1: a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another. 2: the statement of a position opposite to one already made" (Concise OED).

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by Bubblefish

No

Would you like to elaborate?

????

 

[Mojo]

You can only note the observer is external to the thing observed if you are observing them.

...and you can only note that the observer is noted as being external to the thing observed if you observe that they are being observed as external to the thing observed, and you can only note that it is noted that the observer is noted as being external to the thing observed if you observe that they are being observed as being observed to be external to the thing observed, and...



All the way down.

But in any case this is irrelevant to the point you were trying to rebut.

 

[Flo]

Bubblefish is no longer rationally addressing magical statements!

Regards,
The Managment

Neither is he rationally addressing any statement at all, by the look of it. That's what usually results from being in a periumbilical stationary orbit ...

 

[Cuddles]

Bubblefish is no longer rationally addressing statements

Nothing new happening here then?

Don't you mean "Berk"?

I always liked the word "berk". Apparently it is derived from Cockney rhming slang "Berkshire hunt". See if you can guess what that means.

 

[Mojo]

I always liked the word "berk". Apparently it is derived from Cockney rhming slang "Berkshire hunt". See if you can guess what that means.

Ascot is in Berkshire. Is it something to do with Bubblefish's reference to Esher?