Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

Perhaps in the meantime he can get one or other of the two "academics with careers so impressive it would startle [us]" that he has on his "team" to step in for him. At least they should be able to express themselves clearly if they so wish.

Assuming that they exist objectively, of course, rather than just inside Rome's head...

I think your confused about something Mojo. I'm not trying to convince you, nor get anyone here to believe me. That's too much work and I'm not interested in the result. I am here to see if there are any valid arguments against this framework.

There isnt.

 

[WWHP]

Please tell us more about the affect of dialectics. What sort of affect does a dialectic normally have? Does it have a positive affect or a negative affect?

Historically, we use dialectics to arrive at truth, or at least something which we can agree is true.

Dialectics could have a postive or negative effect I imagine. DM perhaps had some negative affects. Court rooms use 'bully' dialectics, which can have a negative affect

And I am really intrigued by theoritical structures of any kind.

http://www.highintelligence.com/OS 012intheory.html

 

[Mojo]

I think your confused about something Mojo. I'm not trying to convince you, nor get anyone here to believe me. That's too much work and I'm not interested in the result. I am here to see if there are any valid arguments against this framework.

Unless you state in an intelligible way what your "framework" is, you won't find out whether or not there are any valid arguments against it.

There isnt.

1) There should be an apostrophe.

2) "Arguments" is plural.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Please tell us more about the affect of dialectics. What sort of affect does a dialectic normally have? Does it have a positive affect or a negative affect?

Historically, we use dialectics to arrive at truth, or at least something which we can agree is true.

Dialectics could have a postive or negative effect I imagine. DM perhaps had some negative affects. Court rooms use 'bully' dialectics, which can have a negative affect

Quote:

And I am really intrigued by theoritical structures of any kind.

http://www.highintelligence.com/OS%20012intheory.html

If you can't get the joke....




Well at least you can spell Agency, so I suppose that is some improvement.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Apparently the intentional grammatical *spoof* went over your head, with the rest of this conversation.


Quote:

That sentence scores a solid 6.7 Prescotts for incomprehensibility.

and a perfect 10 in irony. if you can't get the joke, then you can't understand the argument.

The problem is that your grammar and comprehensibility are generally so poor that few people notice when you do it intentionally.

 

[jimbob]

I think your confused about something Mojo. I'm not trying to convince you, nor get anyone here to believe me. That's too much work and I'm not interested in the result. I am here to see if there are any valid arguments against this framework.

There isnt.

What would change your mind?

The fact that your system is unusable?

The myriad other, and better multivariate-logic systems?

The glaring holes in the system?

The fact that using it seems to encourage an uncritical acceptance of scam artists like Dr Lo and STEORN?

Is it a basic tenet of your system that it will turn zero-sum games into nonzero-sum games?

Is there any evidence for this?
http://www.highintelligence.com/OS 012 basic.html

Human Beings are not in conflict

Ideas conform to a set of natural laws and human being conforms to another set of natural laws.

All ideas conflict, yet Human Beings are not ideas, thus Human Beings are NOT in conflict, ideas are.

Human beings are only in conflict when human beings confuses themselves as an idea. When human being confuses human being as an idea, human being is making a illogical and irrational error that can be revealed in written language.

Why do you believe

I have just re-read the above quote, and it seems even more inane the second time.

I work for a company, other companies also work in the same markets, so the organisations are all competingfor the customers' money. every contract that we win means less cash for our competitors and visa-vesa. How can ths be turned into a win-win situation (without breaking anti-cartel legislation)?

This is a minor form of "conflict" in that it is (generally) fair and ethical, but is still conflict. When you get to discussions of political power, especially in non-democratic systems, the conflict is often for the power not the idea; the idea is just one (of many) means of mobilising support.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Human Beings are not in conflict

Ideas conform to a set of natural laws and human being conforms to another set of natural laws.

More inane the second time? Surely that's not possible.

I'd love to be able to do this, just state whatever I felt like stating without any justification or evidence and just blindly assert that it is true.

All ideas conflict, yet Human Beings are not ideas, thus Human Beings are NOT in conflict, ideas are.

More importantly isn't this just a straightforward logical fallacy: the "thus" is completely unjustified. Maybe ideas conflict, maybe even all ideas conflict. But that doesn't mean that all things that conflict are ideas i.e., that only ideas conflict. It's perfectly possible that ideas and humans conflict.

 

[Mojo]

More importantly isn't this just a straightforward logical fallacy: the "thus" is completely unjustified. Maybe ideas conflict, maybe even all ideas conflict. But that doesn't mean that all things that conflict are ideas i.e., that only ideas conflict. It's perfectly possible that ideas and humans conflict.

He probably thinks a non sequitur is something you can't cut roses with.

This sort of thing is why it would be a good idea if Rome got his tame academics (if they actually exist, of course) to explain OS 012 instead of trying to do it himself; at least they should be able to explain it in a coherent way.

I am here to see if there are any valid arguments against this framework.

If he really wants to see whether anyone can produce a valid argument against his "framework", it is necessary for his "framework" to be explained intelligibly, and he seems incapable of doing this.

Of course, it may be that he is being deliberately obscure in order to prevent valid arguments against his ideas being formulated.

 

[JonnyFive]

I see he was arrogant enough to continue to do something the mods on the board specifically asked him not to.

Reminds me of when ChristopherA was rambling about his right to free speech being violated, even though this is a private forum.

 

[Mojo]

I see he was arrogant enough to continue to do something the mods on the board specifically asked him not to.

Reminds me of when ChristopherA was rambling about his right to free speech being violated, even though this is a private forum.

Yrreg has been known to do much the same.

 

[jimbob]

He probably thinks a non sequitur is something you can't cut roses with.

In a convent?

 

[WWHP]

Unless you state in an intelligible way what your "framework" is, you won't find out whether or not there are any valid arguments against it.

Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical arguments

Regards,
The Agency

1) There should be an apostrophe.

2) "Arguments" is plural.

Spell checks are appreciated. However, they are not arguments against the framework. Bubblefish is no longer responding to critiques of spelling as a magical means to refute arguments.

The Agency

 

[Mojo]

Spell checks are appreciated. However, they are not arguments against the framework. Bubblefish is no longer responding to critiques of spelling as a magical means to refute arguments.[/b]

What about critiques of punctuation and grammar?

 

[WWHP]

What would change your mind?

My mind is always amendable to truth and reason. If you or anyone can explain it's flaw to me reasonably, without using rhetoric, opinion, or insult, then I can consider.

The fact that your system is unusable?

Yes, if OS 012 was unusable, that would change my mind

The myriad other, and better multivariate-logic systems?

What other three value dialectics for internet communication are there? Can you provide some links? If there is a more refined dialectic than this, I will ditch this project and join that one.

The glaring holes in the system?

Yes, if there was a glaring hole in the system, that would change my mind. If the hole is so glaring, how come no one has noticed it?

The fact that using it seems to encourage an uncritical acceptance of scam artists like Dr Lo and STEORN?

First off, there is nothing in OS 012 that accepts anything that is false or unknown as true, so your critique here is using 'weasal words'. Secondly, those are libelous statements against two entities you dont know much about, and I dont think your current logic allows for that either.

Is it a basic tenet of your system that it will turn zero-sum games into nonzero-sum games?

Depends. It is a basic tenet that a zero sum game, such as conflict or the resulting arguments for conflict, can be turned into non zero sum games through a rational tit for tat dialectic.

Is there any evidence for this?

Not in the academic sense, no there is not, not yet. But that's because the proper study has not yet occured. For my own benifit from experience, yes, I have experienced proof of this with success of certain ventures of mine where I have consciously used this framework.

I have just re-read the above quote, and it seems even more inane the second time.

That's not an argument. That's an opinion. That's what I get from all of you, opinions, and no argument. How is it then that I can argue my point of view and you apparently can only provide opinion? Isnt that rhetoric in response to dialectic?

I work for a company, other companies also work in the same markets, so the organisations are all competingfor the customers' money. every contract that we win means less cash for our competitors and visa-vesa. How can ths be turned into a win-win situation (without breaking anti-cartel legislation)?

I'm not sure that is a win lose situation. What's wrong with such approach to declare it needs fixing? By having competition, all companies recieve the higher organization and skills that competition neccesitates. Your companies win is via attainment, you clearly had the dominant idea for your client, who is going to win either way, because companies are competing for his money

This is a minor form of "conflict" in that it is (generally) fair and ethical, but is still conflict.

yes, agreed, and a healthy conflict. this framework seeks to revise all conflicts into healthy conflicts, between ideas, not people.

When you get to discussions of political power, especially in non-democratic systems, the conflict is often for the power not the idea; the idea is just one (of many) means of mobilising support.

agreed, and in this framework, it is soley the most rational and refined idea that can raise in power.

 

[WWHP]

What about critiques of punctuation and grammar?

Equally appreciated. However, they are not arguments against the framework. Bubblefish is no longer responding to critiques of punctuation and grammar as a magical means to refute arguments.

The Agency

 

[WWHP]

I see he was arrogant enough to continue to do something the mods on the board specifically asked him not to.

Reminds me of when ChristopherA was rambling about his right to free speech being violated, even though this is a private forum.

Human Beings are not ideas. Bubblefish may be arrogant, obnoxious, foolish, childish, or rude, but that does not make the ideas discussed false by default. Bubblefish will no longer rationally engage rhetoric or charged language which tries to equate human beings with ideas as a magical way to refute arguments.

Regards,
The Agency

 

[WWHP]

More inane the second time? Surely that's not possible.

I'd love to be able to do this, just state whatever I felt like stating without any justification or evidence and just blindly assert that it is true.

OS 012 BASIC is an intuitive presentation of the framework, and should be considered intuitively, not analytically. To judge an intuitive presentation as an academic one is not rational.

All ideas conflict, yet Human Beings are not ideas, thus Human Beings are NOT in conflict, ideas are.

More importantly isn't this just a straightforward logical fallacy: the "thus" is completely unjustified. Maybe ideas conflict, maybe even all ideas conflict. But that doesn't mean that all things that conflict are ideas i.e., that only ideas conflict. It's perfectly possible that ideas and humans conflict.

you are somewhat correct.

The 'thus' is unneccesary and has yet to be edited from OS 012 BASIC. The rule simply is 'Ideas are in conflict, human beings are not in conflict', which relates further meaning which can be stated as"ideas in their natural environment will conflict as is their nature, and this conflict is neccesary for the arrival of truth. Human being is not in conflict when in her natural environment, for win win strategies exalt human potential, and conflicting ideologies exhalts the potential of ideas. Human being only discovers conflict with other human beings when human being is confused as an idea.

 

[WWHP]

This sort of thing is why it would be a good idea if Rome got his tame academics (if they actually exist, of course) to explain OS 012 instead of trying to do it himself; at least they should be able to explain it in a coherent way. If he really wants to see whether anyone can produce a valid argument against his "framework", it is necessary for his "framework" to be explained intelligibly, and he seems incapable of doing this.

You are actually correct. Since i am not trained in academic frameworks, presenting things academically is not my natural expression, although I do appreciate the intellectual challenge and education that such a presentation affords me. I am aware that many academics will struggle with my creative and informal style, and that is what my team will assist me in doing, creating a proper presentation for peer review.

However, I can explain it to anyone who stays with me in honest exchange, and many academics have understood me through this process so I know it is possible.

I didnt invent this, I found it. And i dont claim any great skill in finding it either, it was more luck than anything. I made the commitment to see this project through until the proper team could be assembled to properly introduce and communicate this idea. I truly believe that this idea has relevance to some purpose greater than my own personal wishes as an artist seeking career gratification. I am far from qualified to be the one doing what I am doing. I know that. It's not what I am really qualified to do.

This idea has also provided me the most extraordinary clarity on many things, and has changed my life in ways I cannot even describe, and I know that it has had similar affects on others as well.

Sorry that my own natural skills cannot provide you what you would normally require, however, if you put your intuitive cap on, and stay with me rationally, you will see what i mean, for what i see is purely rational.

Thanks for the advice,
Bubblefish

 

[Zep]

Troll.

 

[WWHP]

Come on then - explain the parallels between Chomskian transformational grammar and OS012.

It's the meaning behind the phrase, yes, and not the phrase itself which communicates the meaning? Isnt that Chomsky to a 't'?

"Support our Troops" is a phrase, which means, as Chomsky pointed out "support our policy". It's linguistically deceptive, yet through understanding of meaning and grammar, we can come to deconstruct the true meaning from the grammatical meaning.

I am not qualified to make a presenation of transformational grammars, linguistics, or NLP, I just notice similarities and shared truths outline in those frameworks.

I would recommend trying to understand OS 012 first, and then perhaps we can both outline the similar truths in other frameworks.