Skepticism and The Normal

[Mojo]

In OS 0 1 2, Synergy is defined as 'all sides contribute, all sides win the collective output of all contributing'.

It's another beautiful symmetry, the symmetry of collective human organization that is expressing itself intuitively.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsirr_concert-sauvage-dans-le-metro

Is this not beautiful human symmetry expressed sonically? What makes the collective output of all contributing (the music) such a beautiful synergy? It is the syncopation, the symmetry of sound and rythme in tone, technique, and feel.

That is synergy. That is symmetry. That is beautiful. If you say it is not beautiful, you are lying.

Nope. Because "that is beautiful" is a subjective statement.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

In OS 0 1 2, Synergy is defined as 'all sides contribute, all sides win the collective output of all contributing'.

It's another beautiful symmetry, the symmetry of collective human organization that is expressing itself intuitively.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsirr_concert-sauvage-dans-le-metro

Is this not beautiful human symmetry expressed sonically? What makes the collective output of all contributing (the music) such a beautiful synergy? It is the syncopation, the symmetry of sound and rythme in tone, technique, and feel.

That is synergy. That is symmetry. That is beautiful. If you say it is not beautiful, you are lying. If you dont find it beautiful, then you havent found it.

Well its certainly an improvement on Phil Collins - but what wouldn't be?

 

[Zep]

What symmetry? It's the NON-symmetry that makes it appealing...to some.

 

[Mojo]

Well its certainly an improvement on Phil Collins...

On the other hand, Phil (and possibly some close members of his family) might disagree.

 

[Mojo]

In OS 0 1 2, Synergy is defined as 'all sides contribute, all sides win the collective output of all contributing'.

...

That is synergy. That is symmetry. That is beautiful. If you say it is not beautiful, you are lying. If you dont find it beautiful, then you havent found it.

Frankly, if OS 0 1 2 leads you to call people liars because their judgement on subjective matters differs from yours, I don't think it's likely to be much good for resolving disputes.

It might cause a few though.

 

[Mojo]

My turtles were perfectly relevant.

Bubblefish is no longer rationally addressing magical statements!

Regards,
The Managment

How is that a "magical" statement? I was pointing out, albeit slightly elliptically, a flaw in your argument: that, quite apart from the fact that it was irrelevant, it led to an infinite regression.

Ah, I get it: a "magical" statement is just one that you don't want to answer.

 

[Mojo]

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.

And yet still AJ's gender would remain female.

Glad you are finally integrating my argument. It's taken you about 4 months, but your getting it.

Note that Rome is now attempting to extricate himself from the hole he's dug himself by claiming that he's actually been arguing the opposite of what he appeared to be arguing. That's the beauty of OS 012: he can claim that the meaning that others attributed to his earlier posts wasn't the meaning he intended, even if that meaning is clearly the only one that could reasonably be ascribed to his words.

Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical statements

Just thought I'd save you the trouble.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Bubb, I must say that I'm quite proud, I've reduced you to using a whole new level of bollocks to try to rescue your previous swathe of bollocks. It's genuinely impressive.

The line doesnt exist except as a focal point for the collective pattern integrity of human being.

Hold on, the line exists as a "point". Line and point are very different geometric concepts Bubb, and you've now introduced "pattern intergrity" as the new phrase to replace "symmetry" which replaced "beauty". Care to define "pattern integrity" in an objective way Bubb. It sounds like you are admitting that the line does not exist in reality, nor does it exist mathematically. So it can't be measured nor defined, so symmetry about it cannopt be measured nor defined except by one's perception of it. So the beauty perceived from that symmetry is just that, a perception, and so it is wholly subjective.

t's not where that line is, the line is going into center of the earth and out from center of the earth, it's a line that is radiantly project out and in from earth's center. It's where the line falls along the body.

Oh hang on, it does exist, it's a line from the centre of the earth (a radius). So if someone is standing up their body is symmetrical about it, but if they lie down on their side they stop being beautiful?

Look at this picture. Regardless of the 'wig' which would be considered out of proportion, look at the center line STRAIGHT down the body. The bodies curves 'spiral' around the center line.

Oh, but now it is the mid-sagittal plane! But Prof. Yaffle just posted a paper that shows that symmetry about this plane is not always considered beautiful. And you've introduced spirals as well, great job!

i am arguing that beauty is both objective and subjective, and relatable to symmetry, which is relatable to balance, harmony. If the objective component of beauty is symmetry, then that means in the internal metaphysical existence must have a symmetry too. And it does, it's a natural coupling we all can confirm exists, thinking and feeling. When there is beautiful experience, then there is harmony of thinking and feeling.
...
The pattern integrity is not in nature as a physical thing

And now you are flat-out refusing to use terms in a way such that they can be properly defined or quantified, and you have admitted that the "pattern integrity" that is necessary for beauty is not a physical thing. So even by your own warped view of objective (mutually viewable) beauty is not objective. You've been reduced to complete gibberish and you are very much in an emperor's new clothes situation.

Zaay's arguments are idealism, by the way, and sometimes dualism, but he is a bag of philosophical confusion.

No they weren't, Zaay argued for truth values that were orthogonal (look it up) to knowledge and so is a metaphysical objectivist. Your arguments are dualist.

Your arguments are materialism and idealism. You have idealism when you define beauty. You have materialism when you define awareness. You are also philosophically confused!

No, my argument is materialism. I believe that beauty is not created in the real world by our minds in an idealist sense, nor that it exists independent of our minds. I think that certain objects in the outside world cause brain states that we perceive (through whatever mechanism) as indicating beauty. But "beauty" is not inherent to the thing being perceived; colour, shape, physiognomy, etc. are, and they create a perception that we interpret as beautiful. But "beauty" is entirely subjective since it is the perception of those things, not those things themselves.

The inner process of human being in relationship to the external is what produces our ideas. Ideas themselves are metaphysical. Ideas may be created by our brain state, but it's our brain state integrating objective reality. There is interdependence. We create a map of reality we call reality, and we use that map to manipulate reality according to our map's limitations.
...
Objective reality, it could be said, creates our precepts because our brains and nervous systems are indeed objects in reality. Yet we have an experience of metaphyics in that process. It doesnt appear to us as brain circuitry, it appears to us as thinking, feeling, percieving, experiencing. That experience is our 'map' of objective reality. It then influences how we interact and integrate reality, which then rearranges objective reality to fit our models.

Ok, so we've pinned you down. You are an metaphysical objectivist. You believe that there exists a world independent of our perception and that our mental states are created by our interaction with it. Fine, good, although I don't know what you mean about rearranging objective reality to fit our models. Explain.

Of course objective reality is affected by our perception. Ever hear of Global Warming? Ever hear of archeticture? Where you aware that a few scientists have created micro big bangs and black holes?

Well, these events are not caused directly by our perception but by our actions. Since the bodies making those actions are part of objective reality, that is just one part of objective reality interacting with another part of objective reality. Our actions may in turn be influenced by our perceptions but this is surprisingly difficult to establish. There is good evidence that our conscious perception lags a significant fraction of a second behind reality and that it simply acts as a sort of failsafe for actions that we are already starting to take subconsciously.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=10720334&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

[How do you insert a link with something other than the URL as the text?]

It could be that our consciousness is entirely superfluous for the majority of actions that we take. Funnily enough the effect of consciousness on reality is exactly what Wright and Dennett were talking about with regard to epiphenomenalism.

hmmm, that's an interesting suggestion, I never looked at it that way, perhaps I am a metaphysical objectivist in a certain sort of way if i take that at face value.
...
I would say your closer to the money with the metaphysical objectivist, but I have never heard that term before, and chances are we are using seperate understandings of metaphysics and objectivism in our definitions anyway.

Try here for definitions and just general interesting reading:

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


P.S. Give up on the objective nature of beauty Bubb, seriously it's a bit embarrassing and you're really floundering.

 

[flimflam_machine]

And now that Bubb has said that he believes in external objective reality we can get down to the problem of the third value. But basically we are getting back to what chillzero and zaay were saying about 35 pages ago.

If you accept that objective reality exists independent of consciousness (metaphysical objectivity), then you (or a computer) can make statements about that reality. These statements have a truth value that is determined solely by how accurately they describe that reality. Since they relate only to reality and do not have to refer to an observer for any of their terminology their truth values are not dependent on point of view. Since their truth values are not dependent on point of view they are not dependent on the knowledge held by the people (or ravens) who constitute those points of view. Therefore "unknown" does not constitute a valid truth value for these statements.

The problem is that Bubb's entire logic is based on subjective reality. Statements are, to an individual, known to be true, known to be false or have a truth value that they don't know. Fine, Zaay wrote that, I wrote that, no big deal. But since we all believe in external objective reality we can all accept that this has no bearing on the way the world actually is. If it did then the fact that "ravens can fly" is unknown before I see a raven and true after I see a raven that logically means that no raven could fly before I saw a raven. Obviously nonsense if you are a metaphysical objectivist.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Subjective hokum is Tumbleman's forte. Objectively rubbish. Bubblefish remains an introspective nonsense spewer.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical, emotional, mystical, or irrational statements and queries!

Regards,

You are not, in fact, The Management. Please do not refer to yourself as such.

Posted By:Lisa Simpson​

Just brilliant!

Could I also add Bubb that you are not "The Managment" either.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Just brilliant!

Could I also add Bubb that you are not "The Managment" either.

I can't believe I never noticed that one! I suppose after a while I started to screen out all but the most egregious errors.

 

[sinnikal]

Prof., I think you'll find the missing 'e' either went straight down his neck or somehow got very attached to his argument.

 

[Timanfaya]

I bet he couldn't manag a pisupp in a brerewy.

 

[flimflam_machine]

I bet he couldn't manag a pisupp in a brerewy.

Nope, and philosophically he hasn't got a lg to stand on.

 

[WWHP]

snore. I wish the responses here were thoughtful. I'll respond to these queries soon when I have time later.

And sorry, Lisa Simpson, I believe I can refer to myself in any manner that I choose too metaphorically. I shall not refrain from using metaphors, jokes, similies that are not abusive. I dont see how JREF has any right, according to forum rules, which can dictate my usage of self refrentials. If I choose to say that I am managment for myself, that is my right, and I shall not refrain from doing so unless a specific forum rule is being said to be broken.

Since the JREF administrative team is not effectively dealing with the trolling on this thread, it is appropiate for me to deal with it in manners consistant with forum rules.

Respect,
[edit]Breach of Mod Warning removed.[/edit]

Lisa has warned you about making posts that may give the impression that you represent the management of either this Forum or the JREF. Any further breaches will result in an automatic suspension or banning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[drkitten]

snore. I wish the responses here were thoughtful. I'll respond to these queries soon when I have time later.

And sorry, Lisa Simpson, I believe I can refer to myself in any manner that I choose too metaphorically.

Since the JREF administrative team is not effectively dealing with the trolling on this thread, it is appropiate for me to deal with it in manners consistant with forum rules.

Respect,
The Managment

Except that the forum rules require you to abide by the moderators, and therefore you are not dealing with it in a manner "consistent with forum rules."

I think we're dealing with another person who can't stand his ideas being subjected to real scrutiny and is therefore trying to commit suicide by mod.

I'm happy to help. Reported.

 

[Mojo]

...it is appropiate for me...

You should stay off the opiates.

 

[pv+]

Since the JREF administrative team is not effectively dealing with the trolling on this thread, it is appropiate for me to deal with it in manners consistant with forum rules.

Respect,
The Managment

You are the troll on this thread. It's transparently clear that you know you are. A twittering, ignorant troll - infantile, self-obsessed, patronising, condescending, lying and drugged-up-to-the-eyeballs just like you are on every forum and thread you've ever infested.

Grow up.

 

[pv+]

[QUOTE"flimflam_machine"]Bubb, I must say that I'm quite proud, I've reduced you to using a whole new level of bollocks to try to rescue your previous swathe of bollocks. It's genuinely impressive.[/QUOTE]

I'm impressed too. One of my favourites of Bubble's narcotic induced bottom burps is this:

i am arguing that beauty is both objective and subjective, and relatable to symmetry, which is relatable to balance, harmony. If the objective component of beauty is symmetry, then that means in the internal metaphysical existence must have a symmetry too. And it does, it's a natural coupling we all can confirm exists, thinking and feeling. When there is beautiful experience, then there is harmony of thinking and feeling.
...
The pattern integrity is not in nature as a physical thing

100% Bubblewaffle!