Skepticism and The Normal

[Professor Yaffle]

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

I have never been convinced by that explanation, as everyone I know pronounces Berkshire as Barkshire....

 

[flimflam_machine]

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.

Straightforward logical contradiction, unless you're changing your definitions of "subjective reality" and "objective reality" between those two clauses. I wouldn't put it past you.

"Component" from askoxford.com:
noun a part or element of a larger whole.

It cannot simultaneously be true that A is a component of B and that B is a component of A. Objective reality can create a percept, but if that percept is simply a brain state, then it remains a part of objective reality.

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.

A) This discussion is about many things, but primarily it is about your "third value" and your use of it to justify OS012. You were asked to explain how it works several months ago and you still haven't.

B) No, you haven't explained with any degree of clarity or conviction how it works.

C) The main block to understanding it is not a failure to understand simple terminology, it is your refusal to explain it. You're wriggling Bubb!

For reference: Objective reality = reality that exists independent of consciousness and perception, subjective reality = reality (possibly individual) that depends on consciousness.

Go on then, explain it.

 

[Mojo]

Ever hear of Esher?

Yes, but it's not a valid move at this stage of the game.

 

[flimflam_machine]

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

You're flannelling Bubbster. Of course the line isn't there, in the same way that the equator isn't actually marked by a big white line that floats on the sea. But if you are claiming that the body is symmetrical about that line, you must be able to define where that line is. If you cannot, then you cannot measure or define symmetry around it. Again, if you say that it is something that is just perceived by some people (artists apparently) and not others that makes it subjective, which in turn makes percieved symmetry around it subjective, which in turn makes beauty (which you have defined as symmetry) subjective. C'mon Bubb, how are you arguing that beauty is an objective quantity? How is it inherent to the thing that is perceived as "beautiful"?


Bubb wrote on this page:

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.

Bubb wrote on last page:

We cannot find anything [referring to beauty] that is not there.

Care to clarify that contradiction Bubb? If we can perceive an impossible object that is not really there, how is it that our perception of beauty must be created by something that is "really there" i.e., inherent to the object.

I dont use the word seperate, I use the word 'distinguishable'.

So nothing exists in reality that is "distinguishable" from our perception of it. Here's your previous definition of distinction:

If there is a distinction, then they are not the same thing

So the mug on my desk is indistinguishable from my perception of it, they are one and the same thing? And how is this not idealism?

Everything in our perception is distinguishable.

From what?

The seperation is not really there objectively, there is interdependency and interconnectedness. . And no, this point of view is NOT berkeleyan idealism,

Could you explain how objective reality is dependent (as indicated by "interdependent") on perception or consciousness, if you're not talking about idealism of some kind?

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

Again, how do we create reality is you're not talking about idealism? If you are saying that objective reality creates a percept for us via our sensory systems then you need to explain how the status of objective reality is in any way affected by our perception. If you can't then you are a metaphysical objectivist. If you do think that our perception creates objective reality or that objective reality only exists in our perception then you are a (Berkeleyan) idealist. Which is it?

 

[sinnikal]

Back to more important issues, it's not 'Berkshire hunt', it's Berkeley hunt.
Which as we are now talking about idealism, seems perfectly symmetrical.

 

[flimflam_machine]

I just notice this hilariously inept reply to one of my previous posts:

Originally Bubb wrote:

Note how you cannot have a verb function unless it relates to an 'object'. In grammar, the object takes hold as a linguistic struture soley to relate to the verb, it's existence is not in question in grammar.

My reply was "ever heard of an intransitive verb" i.e., a verb that cannot take a direct object: http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

Does Bubb admit his error?... what do you think?

This rediculous comment only holds if objectively false is a transient verb.

Note that Bubb probably hasn't bothered reading the link since he uses "transient" instead of the correct "transitive"

Nothing removes both nouns and verbs from needing each other in statements, and transient verbs do not contradict this, rather, simply gives this relationship a new form.

But Bubb, you said that verbs cannot function unless they relate to an "object". That's just not true, read the link.

Since my definitions are indeed CONSISTANT with the first and second definitions of Objective given in the dictionary, and yours are consistant with the FIFTH definition given, which produce contradictions with possibly the first and definatly the second, I therefore state that any argument against my usage as 'narrow' is false, misleading, misinformed, and misguided.

Let's look shall we?

OBJECTIVE
1.) Of or having to do with a material object.

How does the statement "Bubblefish is an antelope" not "have to do with" a material object, unless you are not a material object?

I'd say that our definition is perfectly consistent with this.

2.)Having actual existence or reality.

Again, this is to do with metaphysical objectivism

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
3.)Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Now this is the definition that your use of "objective" satisfies, it is to do with epistemological objectivism.

(you are in harmony with this meaning, and are struggling with the contradictions)

5. Grammar
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

Care to explain how our definition is "in harmony" with this Bubb, or did you just choose one at random? This is a grammatical description that you have latched onto and as far as I can see, nothing to do with our definition at all. Get explaining!

 

[flimflam_machine]

Originally Posted by flimflam_machine
Well if it's objectively true that AJ is beautiful then it's objectively true that Bubb is arrogant and pompous.

Ahh, so I can be right as long as I can be wrong at the same time, interesting psychology!

No Bubb, you're not right and wrong at the same time. But if you are right then it is objectively true that you are arrogant and pompous, since that is the view of the vast majority of people who have encountered you here and on badscience.net.

However I'm perfectly happy to concede that it is just our subjective view that you are arrogant and pompous, in the same way that it is just your subjective view (but not Z's) that AJ is beautiful.

 

[Mojo]

I just notice this hilariously inept reply to one of my previous posts:

Originally Bubb wrote:

Note how you cannot have a verb function unless it relates to an 'object'. In grammar, the object takes hold as a linguistic struture soley to relate to the verb, it's existence is not in question in grammar.

My reply was "ever heard of an intransitive verb" i.e., a verb that cannot take a direct object: http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

Does Bubb admit his error?... what do you think?

This rediculous comment only holds if objectively false is a transient verb.

Note that Bubb probably hasn't bothered reading the link since he uses "transient" instead of the correct "transitive"

The problem is that he doesn't actually know anything about grammar. He's not going to be able to understand the reference to intransitive verbs if he doesn't understand what a verb is.

For example, look at this exchange:

That is because statement 2 is an objective statement.'This statement is OBJECTIVE'. No caveat is need in common language. Objective in this sense is a noun.

No it isn't, it's an adjective qualifying the noun "statement".

Watch, pokey.

This statement is objective.
This statement is objectively false.

"Objective" is still not a noun. In the first statement, "statement" is a noun and "objective" is an adjective qualifying it. In the second sentence, "statement" is the noun, "false" is an adjective qualifying the noun and "objectively" is an adverb qualifying the adjective. I actually explained what nouns, adjectives and adverbs are, and how they relate to each other, in the post he was replying to (although he didn't bother quoting that bit), but he still thinks "objective" is a noun, and he goes on to indicate that he still thinks "false" is a noun, as he had also claimed earlier:

Statement 1 is an objectively false statement, and objectively in objectively false is used an adjective to support the noun 'false'.

Note also that Rome resorts to name-calling in the face of his error being politely pointed out, thus demonstrating that what he said earlier about his use of "tit for tat" was pure humbug.

 

[WWHP]

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?

Dear Magical Thinkers,

Please refrain from translating three value arguments into two value arguments. Possibility is not certainty. When confronted with a three valued scenario, please do not attempt to fiegn understanding of Bubblefish's suggestions.

Regards,
The Managment.

 

[WWHP]

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.

Objective Reality with a big O has innumerous subjective components. And your correct here in a way. Each viewpoint of universe is relative to that viewpoint, and is not objective in and of itself, it just contains objectifiable information inside that point of view.

Example: Sunset, Sunrise. To view the sunset or sunrise is not objective reality in the sense of the big 'O', for the sun is neither setting nor rising, and that viewpoint of the sun is relative to an existance on earth.

If a statement has a subjective component then it is not the same for all viewpoints.

Stop keeping everything confined into statements. Statements relate points of view, but they are not points of view in and of themselves, but other than that, yes, I agree, that's what I have been arguing with you for almost five months now. Nice to see you are finally integrating it.

You have claimed that the subjective component of statements that most people would consider to be objective is the observer.

Objective/subjective are couplings within context. So Objective reality with a big O is the objective to any concievable point of view (subjective). Inside of that subjective viewpoint, there will again be another objective/subjective coupling, the individual experience contains shared information which is objectifiable, and subjective information that is unique.

My viewpoint of the sun's angle is subject, relative, to my position on earth. Only I can have the exact same angle and degree of observation. Only one point of view can reside in one point in time and space, so all points of view have a unique position with which to view objective reality.

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"?

By viewing it and confirming it to be true, and or evaluating what 'true' really means if the observer is a philosopher. Consider, we all need each other's information to navigate reality. AJ is a woman is a shared co-ordinate, thus, all viewpoints are needed to confirm that by default.

If the observer of that statement is Richard Rorty, well, he will affect the truth value of that statement by breaking it down into deeper understanding of Objectivity, Relativism and Truth.

If the observer of the statement is Jacques Derrida, he will deconstruct that statement so far away from objective reality as to be utterly meaningless, and make you question the point of view which made it.

By the way, OS 012 is muy compatible with Richard Rorty. Derrida is compatible with the soley the 2 value in OS 012, and possibly the 0 value.

 

[Mojo]

By viewing it and confirming it to be true, and or evaluating what 'true' really means if the observer is a philosopher. Consider, we all need each other's information to navigate reality. AJ is a woman is a shared co-ordinate, thus, all viewpoints are needed to confirm that by default.

If the observer of that statement is Richard Rorty, well, he will affect the truth value of that statement by breaking it down into deeper understanding of Objectivity, Relativism and Truth.

How will he "affect the truth value of that statement"? Will he make her cease to be a woman?

 

[WWHP]

Flim!

Nice to see you are still sticking with your guns, me likey your style!

I said: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.

Straightforward logical contradiction, unless you're changing your definitions of "subjective reality" and "objective reality" between those two clauses. I wouldn't put it past you.

objective/subjective is a coupling that is relative in context. The subject contains an image of objective reality in their brain state. It only can relate to external reality via the ideas it has about it. In this sense, objective reality is thus also 'inside' the observer, and the observer is indeed 'inside' of objective reality.

"Component" from askoxford.com:
noun a part or element of a larger whole.

Yes, objective reality in also a component of the subjective internal experience, and the subjective experience is a component of objective reality.

It cannot simultaneously be true that A is a component of B and that B is a component of A.

But it is true! My ideas, images, maps, conceptualizations about objective reality are internal, they are not outside of me. In this sense, objective reality is a component inside of my subjective experience, yet my subjective experience is a result of the objective reality that I have ideas about.

Please learn this word.

RECAPITULATION. See how that word is used in all contexts, and see what all contexts share in common, from music to science. It's a repeating 'form'

Objective reality can create a percept, but if that percept is simply a brain state, then it remains a part of objective reality.

agreed, and that brain state is EXPERIENCED subjectively and exists objectively.

A) This discussion is about many things, but primarily it is about your "third value" and your use of it to justify OS012.

Yes. This discussion is about the third value.

You were asked to explain how it works several months ago and you still haven't.

"Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical statements"

B) No, you haven't explained with any degree of clarity or conviction how it works.

"Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical statements"

C) The main block to understanding it is not a failure to understand simple terminology, it is your refusal to explain it. You're wriggling Bubb!

"Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical statements"

For reference: Objective reality = reality that exists independent of consciousness and perception, subjective reality = reality (possibly individual) that depends on consciousness.

Dude, this is what I have been arguing WITH YOU (meaning the badscience crowd) for almost FIVE months! Please dont integrate my arguments and then assume they are your position in this argument.

This discussion is not about how dialectic of this type can be applied. How this can be applied is 'how it works'. I told Jonny that if he signed an NDA, I would have a phone chat with him about 'how it is going to work'. He didnt. He had the option to personally confirm this, and he denied it. He would rather live in his subjective and comfortable understanding.

I dont think you are really interested in how it works. I think you harp on that point because it's the last concievable point you can make.

If you really want to know 'how' this can work, then sign an NDA, and let's have a phone chat. I have, mmmm, about 8 people on my team seeing how this can work. Two of them are academics with careers so impressive it would startle you. a few of them are entrepunuers with careers so impressive their millions made would alarm you. So clearly, there is no problem with seeing how this can work. The problem is you dont understand it.

If I dont understand Einstien or Newton, I am simply not going to understand space flight nor see how it could possibly work.

Please dont blame your own personal lack of vision on OS 012. This discussion is about it's theoritical structure, not it's application. If the theoritical structure is faulty, then it can't possibly work, right?

This discussion, however is an application of OS 012 in discussion, and therefore, you already have all the tools you need.

BF

 

[WWHP]

How will he "affect the truth value of that statement"? Will he make her cease to be a woman?

I bet Derrida could effect the truth value of that statement so much she could cease to be a woman in your eyes.

Rorty would affect the truth value by analzing what 'truth' really is. According to Rorty (and OS 012), there is no 'truth' out there, there is only language, where our values of true resides. He would make you question if the statement really reflect a truth about a mysterious object or rather a truth value relative simply to our language.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I bet Derrida could effect the truth value of that statement so much she could cease to be a woman in your eyes.

Rorty would affect the truth value by analzing what 'truth' really is. According to Rorty (and OS 012), there is no 'truth' out there, there is only language, where our values of true resides. He would make you question if the statement really reflect a truth about a mysterious object or rather a truth value relative simply to our language.

And yet still AJ's gender would remain female.

 

[sinnikal]

If I dont understand Einstien or Newton, I am simply not going to understand space flight nor see how it could possibly work.


BF

Quite a few points for Einstien (whoever he is) and Newton.
A couple of posts above I noticed, again, that Soley chap again. But I don't think he's worth points

 

[Mojo]

Quite a few points for Einstien (whoever he is) and Newton.

5 points for Einstien:

5 points for each mention of "Einstien"

None for Newton, I'm afraid.

I haven't the time to figure out how many points he gets under rules 2 to 5.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I would count it as an attempt to favourably compare himself with Newton: so thats 20 points.

 

[flimflam_machine]

objective/subjective is a coupling that is relative in context.

Explain in everyday english please.

The subject contains an image of objective reality in their brain state. It only can relate to external reality via the ideas it has about it.

Yup, fairly old philosophical argument. We do not experience objective reality directly we only have access to our own subjective experience, carry on...

In this sense, objective reality is thus also 'inside' the observer, and the observer is indeed 'inside' of objective reality.

Urrrrrrrr! Incorrect, you are trying to mix metaphysical objectivity and idealism! If you believe in metaphysical objectivism then objective reality is external to the observer (allowing that the body of the observer is part of objective reality). As you said before, what the observer has is an "image" or perception of reality inside them. In no meaningful sense is "objective reality... also 'inside' the observer".

Yes, objective reality in also a component of the subjective internal experience, and the subjective experience is a component of objective reality.

Again wrong! Objective reality can create subjective internal experience. The brain activity that leads to subjective experience is part of objective reality but the experience itself is not.

From here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/objectiv.htm

Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)... Subjective reality would then include anything depending upon some (broadly construed) conscious awareness of it to exist.

Since subjective experience depends on consciousness it cannot be part of objective reality which "exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it"

My ideas, images, maps, conceptualizations about objective reality are internal, they are not outside of me. In this sense, objective reality is a component inside of my subjective experience, yet my subjective experience is a result of the objective reality that I have ideas about.

Again a very important distinction here. Your ideas about objective reality are internal. The objective reality that creates them is not, unless of course you are an idealist.

Quote:

For reference: Objective reality = reality that exists independent of consciousness and perception, subjective reality = reality (possibly individual) that depends on consciousness.

Dude, this is what I have been arguing WITH YOU (meaning the badscience crowd) for almost FIVE months! Please dont integrate my arguments and then assume they are your position in this argument.

Don't patronise me Bubb. For months you have been saying that we don't understand your arguments or the philosophy behind it. We understand the philosophical principles fine. What we don't accept are your inferences. I have no problems with the ideas of objective and subjective reality. I think that objective reality exists independent of any subjective reality (as per the definition). What you have conspicuously failed to show is how something that depends on subjective reality (knowledge) can have any effect on the truth value of statements that refer to objective reality. You are still dodging that very question. Care to answer it now?

Two of them are academics with careers so impressive it would startle you. a few of them are entrepunuers with careers so impressive their millions made would alarm you.

Appeals to authority and wealth (bizarrely). Trust me, I am not impressed nor alarmed by money and I am not startled by impressive academic careers.

Please dont blame your own personal lack of vision on OS 012. This discussion is about it's theoritical structure, not it's application. If the theoritical structure is faulty, then it can't possibly work, right?

Blame it for what? So far I have no evidence that OS012 is of any value so I have nothing to blame it for. I also have no evidence that OS012 does work so it's entirely possible, and increasingly likely, that its theoretical framework is completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊.

This discussion, however is an application of OS 012 in discussion

Not a good advert Bubbo, I suspect that far from resolving conflict the net result of these discussions is that, if anyone here ever met you, they'd give you a hefty kick in the bollocks.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

And just how do you effect a truth value?

And I would just love to discuss thetheoritical structure of OS012. I can hardly wait! Can you introduce me to some entrepunuers as well please?

 

[Mojo]

Appeals to authority and wealth (bizarrely).

Particularly unimpressive if the authorities in question are not actually named, and could just as easily be Rome's imaginary friends.