Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

Troll.

Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical statements!

Regards,
The Agency

 

[Mojo]

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.

Here, you are addressing what is basically a reiteration of something you dismissed as a "magical argument" in post 2312.

Do you see the contradiction inherent in addressing something that you claim you are no longer addressing?

 

[WWHP]

Here, you are addressing what is basically a reiteration of something you dismissed as a "magical argument" in post 2312.

That was not presented as an argument to one of my statements, but a viewpoint, and this particular post seemed honest and considered by yourself, as in you honestly relayed to me your point of view.

Do you see the contradiction inherent in addressing something that you claim you are no longer addressing?

not really, not in any important sense. the 'agency' or formaly known as the managment is just part of my schtick to keep the discussion moving forward. If I contradict schtick, then fine, therefore I contradict schtick, so sue me.

The important contradictions to find are the contradictions to reality that OS 012 would have to contain if all of you are correct and i am incorrect. You haven't found any of those. You only seem to focus on the superficial errors, spelling, grammar, historical misstatements, ancedotals, nit picking, etc etc. And that is my honest point of view, that is how your argument style appears to me. You dont attack the meat, you capture only the crumbs.

Why the need to make me so wrong? Why do I have to be a troll for you to be right? Honest question, just curious. Is it because I except possibility in terms of things like Qi and Steorn? Does that really upset you so much? Is it because I focus my energies on something I believe can be very valuable in conflict resolution? Is it because I challenge my opponent to explain themselves, and point out what I honestly believe to be contradictions in their comments?

Are you going to honestly answer these questions?

BF

 

[Mojo]

Why the need to make me so wrong?

I don't need to make you wrong.

Why do I have to be a troll for you to be right?

You don't.

Is it because I except possibility in terms of things like Qi and Steorn?

You have not just accepted possibilities about qi; you have made claims about it. Claims that you have failed to back up. As far as Steorn is concerned, I have no problem with your accepting possibilities, but you need to be realistic about what those possibilities are. It is far more likely that there is something wrong with Steorn's claim than that the laws of thermodynamics are broken, and there are signs in the way they have put forward their "discovery" that all is not well.

Does that really upset you so much?

What "upsets" people (rather, what people here object to in your conduct) is that you make claims and then refuse to back them up with evidence.

Is it because I focus my energies on something I believe can be very valuable in conflict resolution?

The problem is that you make claims about your idea's potential for conflict resolution, but fail to produce any evidence to back up those claims.

Is it because I challenge my opponent to explain themselves, and point out what I honestly believe to be contradictions in their comments?

You fail to explain yourself clearly, and when your errors are pointed out you claim that you never made them, frequently by attempting to redefine the terms you use. For example, when it was pointed out that you were mistaken in your belief that a poster had posted contradictory statements you redefined "contradictory" as meaning "wrong"; when you were unable to back up your claim that beauty is objective you tried to redefine "beauty" as "symmetry". These are not honest tactics.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Yup, I agree with everything Mojo has just said. Could I also add:

not really, not in any important sense. the 'agency' or formaly known as the managment is just part of my schtick to keep the discussion moving forward. If I contradict schtick, then fine, therefore I contradict schtick, so sue me.

A major problem is that schtick has no place in a serious discussion. A very complex idea can be discussed relatively briefly but extremely productively if it is presented clearly and the resulting queries considered honestly. The length of a thread is not proportional to the validity of the ideas within it, and your use of schtick, invective and outright provocation to prolong the thread does not produce honest discussion, it just infuriates people or causes them to dismiss you as a troll.

In the opinion of the vast majority of people this discussion has not moved forward one iota in 50 pages. Reading back through the start of this thread and the badscience pages it is depressing just how little the arguments against OS012 have changed. This is not because people refuse to accept your arguments on ideological grounds, it is because your system is no clearer now than it was at the start, and because, in their opinion, you have not provided coherent rebuttals of the problems that have been raised. When people leave the discussion it is generally because it has become apparent to them that you will never properly answer their questions.

The important contradictions to find are the contradictions to reality that OS 012 would have to contain if all of you are correct and i am incorrect.

A system can contain no internal contradictions (I still have no idea with what you mean by "contradictions to reality") and yet still be utterly worthless. I can classify all statements on the basis of whether they are made by a person whose surname starts with a Z ("Z" statements) or not ("non-Z" statements). This is, as far as I can work out, completely internally consistent and completely worthless.

You haven't found any of those. You only seem to focus on the superficial errors, spelling, grammar, historical misstatements, ancedotals, nit picking, etc etc.

The problem is that all we have to work with is what you write. Our perception of the erroneous nature of your model is inextricably tied up with the way that you choose to express it. On a very general level, clarity of writing is often indicative of clarity of thought. I know that I cannot explain something clearly if I don't have my thoughts on it straight. Your writing style appears to indicate a large amount of wooliness in how OS012 relates to everything since it contains words with notoriously flexible meanings e.g., harmony, integrity, potential. On a more specific level your non-standard and varying use of specific terms leads to huge confusion. "Objective mystery" and your use of "subjective" to mean "false" are very good examples because to most people they are straightforward misnomer. These may seem like a superficial or grammatical errors. But, since the terminology that you use has meanings that are subtle and philosophically very precise, if you don't use them clearly and consistently these "superficial" errors represent serious problems with your system.

And that is my honest point of view, that is how your argument style appears to me. You dont attack the meat, you capture only the crumbs.

Have you stopped to consider how your argument style appears to us? The straightforward response to your last sentence is that, as far as we can see, there is no meat to your argument. In an effort to critique it honestly we respond to the small amount of information that you have given us. If our resulting responses do not deal with the fundamentals of your system that is your problem, not ours. However the lack of meat is in itself sufficient reason to dismiss your system since most people require evidence that something is actually functionally useful. Your failure to provide it does not reflect well on the system or on you. If at any point you were to provide this evidence I'm sure most people would be prepared to revise their opinion. Contrary to your latest martyrish post we do not feel "the need" to prove you wrong, at this point we simply believe that you are.

 

[drkitten]

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

Do you think that everything Chomsky does is "transformational grammars?


Hint. it isn'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.

That's not what "transformational grammar" means.

I am not qualified to make a presenation of transformational grammars, linguistics, or NLP,

Obviously.

And yet, somehow, awareness of that limitation doesn't seem to prevent you from doing just that.

And getting it dreadfully wrong....

I would recommend trying to understand OS 012 first,

We've been doing that for fifty pages now. I daresay that most of the readership of this thread understands it far better than you do, sin ce there's really very little content in it, and the content that it possesses has been well-understood for half a century.

 

[WWHP]

I don't need to make you wrong.

Well I dont believe you. Your behavior with me, in my eyes, shows that you will focus on whatever is wrong about my communications soley, which means spelling errors, grammar, and historical/academic footnotes.

You have not just accepted possibilities about qi; you have made claims about it. Claims that you have failed to back up.

such as? What claims have I made about qi in the objective sense, other than I argue for it being a third value phenomena? It took badscience.net over 30 pages to even understand my argument, and you still dont understand it.

As far as Steorn is concerned, I have no problem with your accepting possibilities, but you need to be realistic about what those possibilities are. It is far more likely that there is something wrong with Steorn's claim than that the laws of thermodynamics are broken, and there are signs in the way they have put forward their "discovery" that all is not well.

I have no accurate probability on Steorn's success or failure, I simply dont know how it will turn out. I simply challenge claims about them being scam artists. I am not certain they have what they say they have, I only hope they have what they say they have, not for my own belief's sake, but for the sake of science and our energy crisis.

What "upsets" people (rather, what people here object to in your conduct) is that you make claims and then refuse to back them up with evidence.

what claim? I request no one believe in anything that I state, i am only interested in anti-thesis and reasonable argument. I am not asking anyone to believe in qi, steorn, or OS 012.

The problem is that you make claims about your idea's potential for conflict resolution, but fail to produce any evidence to back up those claims.

Yes, i do state that I believe this can be very useful for conflict resolution, but i am not trying to prove that to you, I am trying to argue it's theoretical structures with you. There is a difference, and I know what that difference is.

You fail to explain yourself clearly, and when your errors are pointed out you claim that you never made them, frequently by attempting to redefine the terms you use.

I dont agree, what errors do I make that I ignore? Also, how much of it is me that is failing to explain, and how much is it you failing to comprehend?

For example, when it was pointed out that you were mistaken in your belief that a poster had posted contradictory statements you redefined "contradictory" as meaning "wrong"; when you were unable to back up your claim that beauty is objective you tried to redefine "beauty" as "symmetry". These are not honest tactics.

Well I simply dont agree here, when did I define contradictory as being 'wrong'? I defined it as in 'opposition to objective reality' or 'contradictory to reality. I didnt fail to back up my arguments on beauty, nor did I try to redefine any terms, that's your own false interpretation.My arguments are still intact.

I brought 'beauty' into this discussion on purpose. It's a valid o/s event, and highlights many things we have been discussing. In my eyes, it is all of you whom has failed to support your arguments about beauty. Not one person here attempted to argue that AJ's apperance is common or ugly.

I am sure you know this, but human beings lie. When people here argue against beauty, how do I know or anyone that they are lying or not? If Zaay says he doenst find AJ beautiful, is he being honest? Are you? I find many of this communities arguments about beauty to be so based in subjectivity, idealism, and opinion and I think many here simply are not honest to themselves about what beauty is.

 

[WWHP]

Yup, I agree with everything Mojo has just said.

No you dont. Mojo said he doesnt need to define me as a troll for him to be right. You, however, have called me a troll so many times in our discussion it's ironic you would state you agree with Mojo.

A major problem is that schtick has no place in a serious discussion. A very complex idea can be discussed relatively briefly but extremely productively if it is presented clearly and the resulting queries considered honestly. The length of a thread is not proportional to the validity of the ideas within it, and your use of schtick, invective and outright provocation to prolong the thread does not produce honest discussion, it just infuriates people or causes them to dismiss you as a troll.

I dont begin with schtick, i merely use it when I am confronted with personalities or ideas that do not have a place in serious discussion. I dont agree that 'schtick' has no place. Many people use humor in their presentations, even academics.

Ever hear of a book called "Surely your joking, Mr. Feynman!"?

In the opinion of the vast majority of people this discussion has not moved forward one iota in 50 pages.

Who cares about your instant straw poll you just magically conducted in your mind?

Reading back through the start of this thread and the badscience pages it is depressing just how little the arguments against OS012 have changed. This is not because people refuse to accept your arguments on ideological grounds, it is because your system is no clearer now than it was at the start, and because, in their opinion, you have not provided coherent rebuttals of the problems that have been raised. When people leave the discussion it is generally because it has become apparent to them that you will never properly answer their questions.

WHAT QUESTIONS HAVE I NOT ADDRESSED? That is a misleading statement. I have failed to answer nothing.

And if your posts here were not contaminated with vitriol, disgust, contempt, and libel, then you would find the discussion easier to follow.

A system can contain no internal contradictions (I still have no idea with what you mean by "contradictions to reality") and yet still be utterly worthless.

agreed. But it's worthlessness is proved in practice, not in theory. I am not here to provide evidence of dialectic, rather, to argue a theoretical structure which can govern dialectic.

I can classify all statements on the basis of whether they are made by a person whose surname starts with a Z ("Z" statements) or not ("non-Z" statements). This is, as far as I can work out, completely internally consistent and completely worthless.

agreed, that is worthless.

The problem is that all we have to work with is what you write.

well in case your not paying attention, that is all I have to work with all of you. I can only go on what you write. You are not factoring yourself into this discussion. You hold me at some high standard that you yourself are not keeping.

Our perception of the erroneous nature of your model is inextricably tied up with the way that you choose to express it. On a very general level, clarity of writing is often indicative of clarity of thought. I know that I cannot explain something clearly if I don't have my thoughts on it straight.

People have a hard time understanding Derrida, Hegel, Fuller's writings too, so?

OS 012 is expressing something that is very difficult to represent textually, yet it is mutually observable.

Your writing style appears to indicate a large amount of wooliness in how OS012 relates to everything since it contains words with notoriously flexible meanings e.g., harmony, integrity, potential.

The meaning of various words is defined specifically in OS 012, and OS 012 stays entirely consistant with those meanings.

On a more specific level your non-standard and varying use of specific terms leads to huge confusion. "Objective mystery" and your use of "subjective" to mean "false" are very good examples because to most people they are straightforward misnomer.

Sure, to those who do not understand OS 012, they will not understand how to infer objectively false from subjective or shared or mutual observable mysteries or anything of the sort, so?

These may seem like a superficial or grammatical errors. But, since the terminology that you use has meanings that are subtle and philosophically very precise, if you don't use them clearly and consistently these "superficial" errors represent serious problems with your system.

were am I inconsistant? you fail to note where, again, you make a charge, and dont back up that charge.

Have you stopped to consider how your argument style appears to us?

Not only have I considered it, but I can predict it.

Have you considered how your arguments appear to me?

The straightforward response to your last sentence is that, as far as we can see, there is no meat to your argument. In an effort to critique it honestly we respond to the small amount of information that you have given us. If our resulting responses do not deal with the fundamentals of your system that is your problem, not ours.

You have been aware of the highintelligence site for some months now. Since there are numerous essays, links, etc there for you to evaluate, you could bring those to my attention. You make assumptions and statements regarding OS 012 that only highlight how you are 'seeing' OS 012.

However the lack of meat is in itself sufficient reason to dismiss your system since most people require evidence that something is actually functionally useful. Your failure to provide it does not reflect well on the system or on you. If at any point you were to provide this evidence I'm sure most people would be prepared to revise their opinion. Contrary to your latest martyrish post we do not feel "the need" to prove you wrong, at this point we simply believe that you are.

This point is another misleader. I am not here to 'prove' that it is useful. I am building a useful and practical component for this framework and that framework's success or failure is my proof.

Arguments on OS 012's mathematics of 0, 1, and 2? Did those with Jonny.
Arguments on OS 012's 'narrow usage' of objective? refuted those with jonny and others. arguments on three values? did those with all of you.

what argument do you have left? Is it just me? Is it just my communications? Hardly. You have merely introduced a new conflicting idea to refute OS 012, that it's wrong because it's presented poorly. ANd you know what? I am willing to accept that this CAN be presented better, this is just the best way I currently know how to present it.


If I can sit down with other academic people, and they can engage me in dialogue and come to see what i mean and find it interesting or possibly useful, how come I cant do that with all of you?

Is it my fault or your fault? or rather is it all of us who need to take responsibility for the output of this discussion?

BF

 

[WWHP]

Do you think that everything Chomsky does is "transformational grammars?

no

Hint. it isn't.

good, we are in agreement then. next problem?


"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.

That's not what "transformational grammar" means.

didnt say it is what transformational grammars mean. I gave an example of Chomsky finding true meaning from grammatical meaning.

He argued that the intuition of a native speaker is enough to define the grammaticalness of a sentence; that is, if a particular string of English words elicits a double take, or feeling of wrongness in a native English speaker, it can be said that the string of words is ungrammatical (when various extraneous factors affecting intuitions are controlled for). This (according to Chomsky) is entirely distinct from the question of whether a sentence is meaningful, or can be understood. It is possible for a sentence to be both grammatical and meaningless, as in Chomsky's famous example "colourless green ideas sleep furiously". But such sentences manifest a linguistic problem distinct from that posed by meaningful but ungrammatical (non)-sentences such as "man the bit sandwich the", the meaning of which is fairly clear, but which no native speaker would accept as being well formed.

That's what I said was similar to OS 012 in transformational grammars. The 'meaning' as opposed to the form of meaning.

And yet, somehow, awareness of that limitation doesn't seem to prevent you from doing just that.

And getting it dreadfully wrong....

then enlighten me and correct my mistake. Dont provide opinion and commentary like you were doing erroneously before.

We've been doing that for fifty pages now.

Hardly. You have provided misinformed opinion. You have failed to even stay with me in discussion to obtain what I mean, you resort to knee jerk reactions.

I daresay that most of the readership of this thread understands it far better than you do, since there's really very little content in it, and the content that it possesses has been well-understood for half a century.

All truth passes through three stages.

First it is rediculed.
Secondly it is violently opposed.
Third it is declared to be self evident.

BF

 

[flimflam_machine]

No you dont. Mojo said he doesnt need to define me as a troll for him to be right. You, however, have called me a troll so many times in our discussion it's ironic you would state you agree with Mojo.

Don't tell me what I do or don't agree with. The fact that I have called you a troll does not preclude my thinking that everything that Mojo said is correct. I believe that you are wrong when you state that OS012 is a useful system. Whether you are a troll and do not actually believe this to be true is irrelevant. I do not need you to be a troll do disagree with your statements.

I dont begin with schtick, i merely use it when I am confronted with personalities or ideas that do not have a place in serious discussion. I dont agree that 'schtick' has no place. Many people use humor in their presentations, even academics.

Yes, but that's because it furthers understanding. Your "humour" has never done that, it has simply been used to insult and belittle those that disagree with you. This is your discussion, you started it and you have repeatedly claimed that you are keeping it on track while others attempt to derail/troll it. But you have shown time and time again that you are prepared to sink to name-calling and offensive behaviour that can have no productive function in a civilised discussion.

And if your posts here were not contaminated with vitriol, disgust, contempt, and libel, then you would find the discussion easier to follow.

True, I hold you in enormous contempt and your actions here disgust me. But that does not mean that I have not been following the discussion nor that I do not have very sound reasons for believing a large quantity of what you say to be devoid of reason and substance.

were am I inconsistant? you fail to note where, again, you make a charge, and dont back up that charge.

Can I refer you to every one of the posts by myself and others on your use of language, starting with Jonny's on about page 5.

The meaning of various words is defined specifically in OS 012, and OS 012 stays entirely consistant with those meanings.

The evidence of this thread says otherwise, again, I agree with Mojo.

Have you considered how your arguments appear to me?

Yes, repeatedly, and I cannot understand how it has not crossed your mind for the briefest instant that the views of everyone here have some validity. You have on no occasion admitted that you were incorrect in anything that you have said. I cannot relate in any way to that kind of obstinacy, hence my labelling you as a troll. I cannot comprehend how anyone can act the way you have without doing it to be deliberately provocative. I suspect that my arguments come over as preachy and patronising, so?

You have been aware of the highintelligence site for some months now. Since there are numerous essays, links, etc there for you to evaluate, you could bring those to my attention. You make assumptions and statements regarding OS 012 that only highlight how you are 'seeing' OS 012.

How else can I discuss OS012 other than from how I "see" it? I've read your website and I think that many of the points that I would raise with it have been discussed here. I've not got time to deconstuct it totally, nor do I think that would be profitable since, as has been noted before, it uses a whole heap of words to say not very much at all. No content, therefore not much to discuss.

WHAT QUESTIONS HAVE I NOT ADDRESSED? That is a misleading statement. I have failed to answer nothing.

Let's have a look:

Arguments on OS 012's mathematics of 0, 1, and 2? Did those with Jonny.

Completely without conclusion as far as I could work out. I think by the end you had agreed that: 0, 1 and 2 are different numbers, that 1 is the smallest positive integer and that 2 is the next smallest positive integer. I saw nothing in that discussion that convinced me (or Jonny as far as I could work out) that 0, 1 and 2 have any necessary relationship to your categories nor that they are better logical identifiers than any other symbols.

Arguments on OS 012's 'narrow usage' of objective? refuted those with jonny and others.

No you didn't refute them Bubb. The fact still remains that you are mashing two different definitions of "objective" together and failing to see why it makes you hard to understand. You refused to read the links provided that have discussed the various uses of "objective" in metaphysics and epistemology.

arguments on three values? did those with all of you.

Yes, and I think most people accept that in electronics systems and in the classification of statements with relation to the knowledge of an individual ternary logic can make some sense. I wrote that many pages back: statements I know to be true, statements I know to be false and statements that have a truth value that I don't know. You (incorrectly) dismissed this as "the Socratic dialectic". What you have repeatedly and conspicuously failed to show is that ternary logic has any place in a dialectic nor that it has any validity in relating statements to the state of reality. Your third value remains completely unproven and I still consider it a knowledge value, rather than a truth value.

what argument do you have left? Is it just me? Is it just my communications? Hardly. You have merely introduced a new conflicting idea to refute OS 012, that it's wrong because it's presented poorly.

Bubb, none of the problems with OS012 have been resolved except perhaps the issue of trivalent logic perhaps having some validity in the context of an individual's knowledge. The issue of presentation is more serious than you think. You have had several months to clarify it and you have failed to do so either through inability or through choice. If you have chosen not to clarify OS012 it is either because you are a troll or because you know that it has no real content. If you are unable to clarify OS012 it is either because you have very poor language skills or because you do not actually have a clear system to present. The only option that leaves your system with any credibility is that you have very poor communication skills. The problem is that, having just accepted that you could have presented it more clearly; you must explain why, rather than clearly defining your terms, you constantly introduce new words into the discussion that have very nebulous meanings e.g., harmony, potential etc. to explain your old statements As Mojo said, this is not a sign of honesty and, yet again, I agree with him.

 

[flimflam_machine]

First it is rediculed.
Secondly it is violently opposed.
Third it is declared to be self evident.

Don't delude yourself that what you're seeing here is opposition Bubb, this is mostly still ridicule. What you think is opposition is actually just an expression of disbelief and offense at how you have conducted yourself in this discussion.

More importantly: not everything that is ridiculed goes on to be "truth".

 

[Mojo]

Well I dont believe you. Your behavior with me, in my eyes, shows that you will focus on whatever is wrong about my communications soley, which means spelling errors, grammar, and historical/academic footnotes.

I take it that you consider your classification of statements as subjective or objective is unimportant as far as OS 012 is concerned, then. I've made quite a few posts about your classification of the statement "AJ is beautiful", for example.

such as? What claims have I made about qi in the objective sense, other than I argue for it being a third value phenomena?

Well, there's this one for a start:

You know, there is a Chi Kung master here in Los Angeles who can project so much heat from his hands that you have to tell him to stop because it burns like a match. I have experienced him doing this.

I have no accurate probability on Steorn's success or failure, I simply dont know how it will turn out. I simply challenge claims about them being scam artists. I am not certain they have what they say they have, I only hope they have what they say they have, not for my own belief's sake, but for the sake of science and our energy crisis.

Wishful thinking is no substitute for evidence.

what claim? I request no one believe in anything that I state, i am only interested in anti-thesis and reasonable argument. I am not asking anyone to believe in qi, steorn, or OS 012.

How about:

The main point of my arguments was the 'third' value of truth, which could be defined as 'niether true and niether false', mystery, possibility, or what have you. I was amazed that so many 'critical' thinkers are not nearly as skeptical to the claims of reductionists or thier own claims as they are of the paranormal, and many of their arguments crumble into nothingness when confronted with this third value.

You refused to back up this claim when requested to do so.

Yes, i do state that I believe this can be very useful for conflict resolution, but i am not trying to prove that to you, I am trying to argue it's theoretical structures with you. There is a difference, and I know what that difference is.

Have you been using OS 012 in any of the threads you've participated in here or at badscience?

I dont agree, what errors do I make that I ignore? Also, how much of it is me that is failing to explain, and how much is it you failing to comprehend?

That's your problem: you seem unable to admit that you could be wrong, or that your constant failure to communicate your ideas may be your own fault.

Well I simply dont agree here, when did I define contradictory as being 'wrong'? I defined it as in 'opposition to objective reality' or 'contradictory to reality.

That's a pretty good definition of "wrong", and not the definition of "contradictory" given by, for example, the concise OED I have on the shelf here.

I didnt fail to back up my arguments on beauty, nor did I try to redefine any terms, that's your own false interpretation.

Anyone can look back at the thread and see that you attempted to redefine "beauty" as "symmetry".

My arguments are still intact.

That's your opinion.

I am sure you know this, but human beings lie. When people here argue against beauty, how do I know or anyone that they are lying or not? If Zaay says he doenst find AJ beautiful, is he being honest? Are you? I find many of this communities arguments about beauty to be so based in subjectivity, idealism, and opinion and I think many here simply are not honest to themselves about what beauty is.

Beauty is a subjective property, whether you like it or not.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Sorry to jump the gun Mojo.

Well I simply dont agree here, when did I define contradictory as being 'wrong'? I defined it as in 'opposition to objective reality' or 'contradictory to reality. I didnt fail to back up my arguments on beauty, nor did I try to redefine any terms, that's your own false interpretation.My arguments are still intact.

The problem here Bubb is that you have redefined the term. "Contradictory" does not mean "wrong" nor "in opposition to objective reality". This is an embarrassingly clear example of you failing to use the correct language, failing to accept that it makes your meaning unclear and them attempting to bluster your way forward.

I brought 'beauty' into this discussion on purpose. It's a valid o/s event, and highlights many things we have been discussing. In my eyes, it is all of you whom has failed to support your arguments about beauty. Not one person here attempted to argue that AJ's apperance is common or ugly.

I am sure you know this, but human beings lie. When people here argue against beauty, how do I know or anyone that they are lying or not? If Zaay says he doenst find AJ beautiful, is he being honest? Are you?

So you're just accusing Zaay of lying to try to prop up your argument.

I find many of this communities arguments about beauty to be so based in subjectivity, idealism, and opinion and I think many here simply are not honest to themselves about what beauty is.

Bubb, there isn't any argument about this. What you think is beautiful I may not, and an person from a different culture or period might have yet another opinion That's all the evidence that is needed to irrefutably prove that beauty is subjective. The regularity of preference within a particular culture and time is not proof of objectivity. Either you are just wrong on this one Bubb or everyone else is lying.

 

[drkitten]

All truth passes through three stages.

First it is rediculed.
Secondly it is violently opposed.
Third it is declared to be self evident.

Irrelevant. Since OS/360 or whatever the Sam Hill you call it isn't true, it is much more likely to
pass through only one stage.

First, it will be ridiculed.

There is little need to go to the second stage, since there's no content there to oppose.

 

[drkitten]

"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.

Once again, your terminology betrays your ignorance.

There is no such thing, in the Chomskian framework, as a "grammatical meaning." Chomsky is very clear in his statement the theory of autonomous syntax; the syntax (grammar) of an utterance is almost entirely unrelated to the semantics (meaning) of that utterance. The phrase "grammatical meaning" is self-contradictory, since "grammar" and "meaning" are diametrically opposed.

Continuing this further, Chomsky's theory of "autonomous syntax" has little or nothing to do with his later theories about "transformational grammar."

I think the phrase you want is "literal meaning." You're right, the literal meaning of "support our troops" is not the same as the pragmatic one intended by the speaker. But that has little or nothing to do with Chomsky or his work. (Chomsky is a lousy semanticist.) If you want some references about this kind of semantics, I can provide you with some references -- George Lakoff is probably a good start.

I didnt say it is what transformational grammars mean. I gave an example of Chomsky finding true meaning from grammatical meaning.

And you got it wrong. The whole point of tranformational grammars is that they transform the order of the words without adjusting the meaning, precisely because syntax and semantics are separable. The similarlity you describe simply does not exist, in the same way that if I tried to draw a similarity between elephants and spiders on the grounds that they both have six legs, the similarity would fail. Transformational grammar does not reflect any properties of sentential meaning; that's the whole point. And, unfortunately, 0S/360 doesn't reflect any properties of sentential meaning eiher.

So unless the "similarity" that you want to draw is that they're both completely useless for understanding meanings, you're wrong.

 

[jimbob]

Because

http://www.xkcd.com/c174.html

 

[jimbob]

All ideas conflict or have the potential for conflict.

Welcome to the conflict of idea. Both true and false ideas conflict because even false ideas are believed to be true to another point of view, and all ideas believed to be true are in conflict with other ideas believed to be true.

Idea#1

BF struggles with grammar and clear thinking

Idea#2
BF is a troll

Where is the conflict between these two ideas?

 

[WWHP]

Idea#1

BF struggles with grammar and clear thinking

Idea#2
BF is a troll

Where is the conflict between these two ideas?

From my point of view, there is no conflict, since both ideas are false ideas, and false ideas do not conflict with one another.

The ideas in conflict with those ideas are:

BF is at ease with grammar and clear thinking. BF is a dialectician engaging in live dialogue with those whom adhere to a conflicting point of view.

You also didnt respond to my last response to you. typical. Remove yourself from the dialogue and form a new one so you can keep your momentum in the discussion. That's cheating. If you cant stay with me in tit for tat, then your ideas are worthless, no matter how many times you keep reinventing your argument.

Bubblefish

 

[Mojo]

BF is at ease with grammar

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I don't think anyone here could be accused of rediculing OS012