Skepticism and The Normal

[Curnir]

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

A false statement.

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

Curnir the Terrible no longer comments on silly statments made by trolls and starfishes.

The High Council of Dalaran.

 

[Mojo]

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.

A classic. Bubblefish choses to respond to a post in order to complain that the poster hasn't responded to his posts, while ignoring six preceding posts that specifically address posts that Bubblefish has made.

That's cheating.

Your ideas are worthless, no matter how many times you keep reinventing your argument.

 

[jimbob]

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.

So only "true" ideas are in conflict with each other?

Are these:

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.

both true ideas?

And are they in conflict with each other?

Did your website quote mean that some ideas are, "in conflict with each other", whatever that means?

There is a big difference between "some" and "all".

One statement is wrong (all ideas conflict), the other is merely trivial (some conflict).

 

[Mojo]

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.

Note also that Bubblefish now appears to be using a different definition of "tit for tat" to the one discussed earlier with regard to game theory. All "tit for tat" is, in game theory, is a strategy that involves cooperating unless the other party defected on their last move, in which case a party playing "tit for tat" then defects. It has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of any ideas being discussed.

 

[WWHP]

Okay, let's see what arguments flim has against OS 012 today.

Don't tell me what I do or don't agree with.

You love me.

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.

I dont care if you think that. I'm not trying to sell you on it.

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.

Then what place does calling me a troll for 4 months have in critique and debate?

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.

I will tease back. I dont ad hom. there is a difference. I dont need to frame you or anyone negatively, i just do it to make light of the tension you are bringing with you in this discussion.

By the way, any critiques of OS 012 in this thread that are viable?

True, I hold you in enormous contempt and your actions here disgust me.

So you get what you put in. Ever hear the quote 'everybody gets the bubblefish they deserve?'

I remember back at badscience. I made it a point to be respectful and polite to you, even wrote you a PM telling you that I appreciate your particiapation. I gave you an easy road in, handed it right to you. How did you respond? by calling me names and staying attached to that false idea in your head about me.

So you're just getting back what you put in.

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.

Oh, I know you have been following it.

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.

YES! I want you to attack my ideas and meaning, and show where I am inconsistant. YOU BETTER HAVE A SOLID QUOTE OF MINE IN CONTEXT THAT ADDRESSES THAT.

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.

What makes you think that? If I didnt think there would be any validity to your point of view, I wouldnt be here wasting my time.

You apparently are projecting, you dont find any validity to my point of view, and thus you are wasting your time.

You have on no occasion admitted that you were incorrect in anything that you have said.

I was incorrect about aristotle and ancient greece. I was incorrect in stating that the qi experiment was a double blind.

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?

No, I just think this is the first time in your life where your core ideas have been challenged.

How else can I discuss OS012 other than from how I "see" it?

You cant. But you also have to consider that 'how you see it' and what 'it is' may be two distinctions, and you are assuming 'how you see it' is the same thing as what it is.

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.

It's all we have been discussing for almost FIVE months now, flim. Please stop BS'ing the crowd here.

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 think you didnt understand the discussion, that's what I think. And instead of asking questions to gain understanding, your doing that 'OS 012 IS HOW I SEE IT' trick in your mind again.

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.

Well, who cares? The point is that niether you nor Jonny had an effective antithesis to 0, 1, and 2. IF you dont u nderstand it, I dont expect you TO understand it.

I can explain it to ya, I can't understand it to ya'.

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

No you didn't refute them Bubb.

Um, yes I did.

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.

A bizarre projection on your end. It is YOU ALL who are mashing two definitions of objective together. You mash the definition of objective as is used in grammar/logic, and then apply it to common language, which uses a distint definition.

Me? I'm just using one definition. Objective is something that is mutually viewable in potential to all points of view.

You refused to read the links provided that have discussed the various uses of "objective" in metaphysics and epistemology.

huh? I read those things years ago! You think I havent been doing my homework or something?

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.

Whew, finally.

You (incorrectly) dismissed this as "the Socratic dialectic".

Your confused again.

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.

Dude, see what you just did? You did an elmer. Instead, you should have done a Socrates, and queried "Bubblefish, how does ternary logic or ternary truth values relate to dialectic, can you explain?"

Try the socratic dialectic, which is " I know that I dont know", instead of the Elmer dialectic, which is " I know that I know".

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.

Well that's the foundation right there. Even though it's taken you, mmm, about 4 1/2 months longer than everyone else has over the years, you finally made some progress.

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.

I respond to YOUR TEXT AND MEANING. This is a discussion, not a formal lecture. SInce you admit you bring contempt to your exchange with me, is it a wonder how you're finding what you are seeking?

Sorry, dude, but your meaning is apart of this exchange. We are two equal points of view. Your bring contempt, and you expect clarity. Odd combo if you ask me. Rather, come to the discussion with clarity, and you will find clarity.

I had to sneek this post in. The Agency is very strict and doesnt want me to respond to magical or emotional posts with no critical value.


BF

 

[Mojo]

Um, yes I did.

Would you care to let us know the definition you're using for the word "refute"?

 

[WWHP]

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.

That's exactly what I find similar in Chomsky's writings to OS 012. Thanks.

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

Thanks, I'm still studying Chomsky, and appreciate your assistance.

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.

Thank you.

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.

I note that Chomsky makes a distinction between meaning and grammar, and altering the grammar does not alter the meaning of the syntax. That's all I need to see to make the similarity.

OS 012 is about deconstructing 'meaning'.

And, unfortunately, 0S/360 doesn't reflect any properties of sentential meaning eiher.

You spelled OS 012 wrong, and also 'either', but no worries, I get your meaning. Although Mojo might not, he is a stickler for those kind of details.

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

I dont know yet how chomsky defines or determines 'meaning', but that's irrelevant right now. I just know that he defines meaning and grammar to be distinct, and that is what OS 012 does as well.

Thanks Kitten, appreciate your elucidation.


Bubblefish

 

[zooterkin]

Note also that Bubblefish now appears to be using a different definition of "tit for tat" to the one discussed earlier with regard to game theory. All "tit for tat" is, in game theory, is a strategy that involves cooperating unless the other party defected on their last move, in which case a party playing "tit for tat" then defects. It has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of any ideas being discussed.

As usual, I think BF's always had his own definition of 'tit for tat'. From the way he's used it, I think he means both responding to every post that someone makes, and also responding to each point in the message you are responding to. I believe that's why he seems to get upset when people summarise a post or only respond to some of the points in it. As far as I can remember, he was using this term before his spurious introduction of game theory.

 

[WWHP]

Would you care to let us know the definition you're using for the word "refute"?

sure.
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

by the way, me likey your style here! Yes, question me on how I am using and defining words! That's called deconstruction in OS 012, baby, and I knew you would catch on to it after a while.

I am in full blown production now, and dont have much time, will get to more posts later.

Lotsa Love,
Bubblefish

 

[Mojo]

Sorry, dude, but your meaning is apart of this exchange. We are two equal points of view. Your bring contempt, and you expect clarity. Odd combo if you ask me. Rather, come to the discussion with clarity, and you will find clarity.

This is utter nonsense. Your meaning won't be clear unless you have made it so. What other people "come to the discussion with" won't change what you have posted; other people's attitudes won't make your meaning clear if it is not, or make your posts unclear if you have expressed yourself clearly. We seem to be back to the fundamental principle of OS 012: failure in communication is never the fault of Bubblefish.

 

[Mojo]

1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

Which of those definitions were you using? They don't mean the same thing.

 

[WWHP]

Breach of Membership Agreement removed. i.e.Sexual harassment: Defined as unwelcome sexual advances, sexual suggestions, or sexual content directed at another user, when reported.

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

 

[WWHP]

Which of those definitions were you using? They don't mean the same thing.

I am using both of them relative to the operation. Those are two definitions of 'refute' in the dictionary. Amazing how one word can have possible contradictory meanings, eh?

Imagine you noticing that with the word 'objective'. Wow, that would be stellar, baby.

 

[Mojo]

By the way, any critiques of OS 012 in this thread that are viable?

It's not as if there have been any expositions of OS 012 here that are viable. It can't be critiqued until you provide one (maybe that's why you haven't).

 

[drkitten]

That's exactly what I find similar in Chomsky's writings to OS 012. Thanks.

OS 012, like "grammatical meaning," is self-contradictory?

OS 012, like "autonomous syntax," is completely irrelevant to the meanings of words and phrases?

I'm not sure what you find "similar," but I suspect it's not based on understanding....

I dont know yet how chomsky defines or determines 'meaning', but that's irrelevant right no.

Absolutely irrelevant. Chomsky has nothing to say about meaning; he neither defines nor determines it.

But you admit that Chomsky's views are totally and completely irrelevant, how does that make them "similar" to OS/360? (The answer I like is that they're both totally and completely irrelevant, but I suspect that's not where you're going.)

.

I just know that he defines meaning and grammar to be distinct, and that is what OS 012 does as well.

Really? Where does it do this? Is this some other property that you're making up out of thin air?

 

[Mojo]

I am using both of them relative to the operation. Those are two definitions of 'refute' in the dictionary. Amazing how one word can have possible contradictory meanings, eh?

When you said that you had refuted the arguments, were you claiming that you had disproved them or merely that you had denied them? Which meaning of "refute" were you using?

ETA: BTW, the two meanings, while different, are not contradictory.

 

[Mojo]

I do suggest that tit for tat in game theory may be able to model discussion online.

I would suggest that perhaps it can't, at least with reference to the particular "prisoner's dilemma" type of game theory that has been discussed here and in The Selfish Gene, and in which "tit for tat" proved so successful (although it was defeated in 2004 by a strategy used by a team from Southampton University). There is a crucial difference: in prisoner's dilemma both parties make their move at the same time, in ignorance of what the other's move is. Online, moves are made sequentially, and each "move" is a response to something that has already been posted, and is therefore known.

 

[zooterkin]

Talking of two meanings, I now recall the other point I meant to make, which is that BF also uses "tit for tat" to describe the way he attempts to match the tone or manner of his response to the post he's responding to, as well as to describe the structure he uses to lay out the reply.

 

[drkitten]

I have been using this term for about 3 1/2 years. I suggest it is similar to tit for tat in game theory, I dont say it IS tit for tat in game theory. I do suggest that tit for tat in game theory may be able to model discussion online.

Unfortunately, this suggestion is wrong, at several levels.

Mojo already pointed out that there are a number of fundamental differences between interaction in an iterated prisoner's dilemma and interaction on a message board. GIven that TFT is provably a very bad strategy in a number of variations on the prisoner's dilemma (most notably, of course, in the non-iterated case), it is foolish indeed to believe that the IPD results generalize without limit.

But beyond that.... No, TFT cannot "model" discussion online, for the simple reason that it's not a model. (Once again, your terminology betrays your lack of understanding and outright ignorance.) Different people can and do employ different communication strategies, almost without limit, and it's not possible for a single well-defined strategy to "model" all of them.

You might suggest that TFT provides a normaltive model for on-line communication, one that 'should" be followed or that would produce results that are somehow "good" with acceptably higher probability than other methods. That would even be a sensible and intelligent suggestion if it weren't so obviously contradicted by the facts; your attempts to apply TFT in this thread have not only failed to gather support for your ideas, have not only failed to aid in other people understanding your work, but have actively destroyed any shreds of credibility you might at one point have possessed -- and earned you a disciplinary suspension from the forum moderation team.

I can't imagine what kind of a winning strategy a coach could employ that starts by getting his players sent off the pitch. But that's what TFT has demonstrably done.

What does 'tit for tat' have in common with all usages of 'tit for tat'?

Chiefly, that you don't understand it. That seems to be something that 'tit for tat' has in common with number theory, with probability, with Chomskian syntax, with psycholinguistics, with logic, and with basic episetmology.

Or to put it another way,.... is there anything that you do understand?

 

[WWHP]

I'm in full production now and dont have time to get back to many posts. As usual, I will address all points made, and continue to correct misstatements that all of you make.