Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

The Flim Flam Files.

Round 243.

The problem here Bubb is that you have redefined the term.

To redefine a 'term', one must transcend a previous definition and apply a new one where it could not previously be reasonable to apply.

I, as bold as i am, have done no such thing!

"Contradictory" does not mean "wrong" nor "in opposition to objective reality".

To contradict means to either to express the *opposite* of or to be inconsistant with. If a statement suggests a truth that is the opposite of what is viewed in reality, then the statement is thus contradictory to reality, or not consistant with reality.

I am not going to upset the 'agency' and belabor this again with you. This is a no brainer, and any 12 year old could u nderstand. If you are reverting back to just plain fundamental ignorance, I am afraid the Agency will start replying to rediculous statements as this once again.

I mean, c'mon flim flam, you got more crazy reactions than a 14 year old female poet on her monthly.

For example, I state:

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?

And you say

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

I accused zaay of lying WAAAAAY back, when he was found lying. However, this was not an accusation, but rather 'skepticism'. Try it some time, you might like it.

Yes, I am very skeptical when Zaay or others argues that AJ is not beautiful. I already know zaay lies and manipulates people, so why should I trust him in an argument on beauty when he can resort to subjective fundamentalism to disprove beauty's objective quality?

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.

There most certainly is an argument about the objective and subjective qualities of beauty. Do an internet search and discover many points of view on the subject.

Because you fail to argue your point, and wish to rest on the comfort of your subjective fundamentalism does not mean that the argument has disappeared! It just means your an idealist. Sweet, very sweet. I was an idealist too. Now, I am just idealistic;-)

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.

Sheesh, what a philosophical light wieght you are! The fact that balance, symmetry, harmony are found to be beautiful in all cultures relative to thier expression is evidence that beauty is also objective. If it was purely subjective, it would be random and inconsistant. Heads would turn when ANYONE enters a Hollywood HotSpot. A significant number of people would be perplexed that beauty is listed as part of angelina jolie's self knowledge.

The regularity of preference within a particular culture and time is not proof of objectivity.

The fact that a beautiful women can be found to be beautiful in all modern cultures however, is.

Either you are just wrong on this one Bubb or everyone else is lying.

See how poor bivalent thinking is? If your going to limit your options, limit them objectively. Rather, bubb could be wrong and everyone could be lying, or bubb could be right and some people may be lying.

Beauty is discovered. If you discover it, it must exist.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Truth passes through three stages

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.

nah, redicule is what I got back at badscience. This is full on opposition and the beginnings of the self evident phase. Egos are on the line, your in and your in deep.

What you think is opposition is actually just an expression of disbelief and offense at how you have conducted yourself in this discussion.

Hehe, it takes you guys five months to express your disbelief of my person?

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

Correct, only truth goes on regardless of redicule.

Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

I take it that you consider your classification of statements as subjective or objective is unimportant as far as OS 012 is concerned, then.

No, just your comments about it. O/S is part of the structure of OS 012. OS 012 falls along the natural couplings of O/S. If i am contradictory to reality with O/S, then OS 012 is false.

I've made quite a few posts about your classification of the statement "AJ is beautiful", for example.

Yes, I remember refuting each and every one of them. Did I miss one you want to bring to my attention?

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:

​

Originally Posted by Bubblefish
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.

Yes, I did make that claim. It's true, he projects heat from his hands. I dont know how he does that, but he does. If your in Los Angeles, you can go to his office and get a treatment in Medical Qi Kung for about 90 bucks (session lasts about 50 minutes)


Hey, this set of statements from you I simply dont follow..

Wishful thinking is no substitute for evidence.

How about:

​

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

This whole thread is me backing up that claim! Are YOU applying skepticism equal to Randi's claim about Steorn as you are to Steorn itself?

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

yes

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.

That may be your problem too, since I have highlighted error after error you have made with me. I love being wrong and making mistakes. Sometimes I will even post something I am speculating about as a truth so I can get an argument going and uncover further truth.

See, no matter what, i win truth. If I make a mistake, i win a new truth. If I dont make a mistake, then I retain and refine a previous truth.

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.

Dude, I have a dictionary too, but I store it online at dictionary.com

http://www.answers.com/contradicting&r=67

To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).
To deny the statement of.
To be contrary to; be inconsistent with.

Anyone can look back at the thread and see that you attempted to redefine "beauty" as "symmetry". That's your opinion.

That's not my opinion, it is an objective fact. So much so that if you go to answers.com and look up 'symmetry', you get ....

http://www.answers.com/symmetry



Beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement.

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

Saying that over and over again does not make it true, it just makes you a fundamentalist.

 

[WWHP]

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

Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical arguments and statements!

The Agency

Bubblefish, we here at the agency feel your love and compassion, but when you address the magical or emotive statements, you are giving them validity in thier minds, please refrain from responding to them so this discussion can finally come to an end. ( love, mom)

 

[WWHP]

Jimbob's NEW argument number #341

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

Yes, ideas *believed* to be true 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?

Yes

And are they in conflict with each other?

no

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

ideas that are true or believed to be true are in conflict with other ideas that are true or believed to be true.

true ideas are not in conflict with false ideas or mysterious ideas, and vice versa.

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

ALL IDEAS ARE IN CONFLICT OR HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT.

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

If you find ONE idea without a conflicting idea to it, I will write you a check for 100 bucks and include a special prize in the package.


By the way, the agency is starting to warn me about you. They claim you jump all over the discussion and change your argument after I refute them. If you dont stay with me inside the tit for tat, the agency may come in and start editing my replies to you, sorry.

 

[WWHP]

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.

*yawn*. anyone else care to lecture on game theory?

 

[WWHP]

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.

Since both CHOMSKY and OS 012 agree, meaning is distinct from grammar, and grammar and words can be deceptive, elusive, then meaning can only be understood through tit for tat dialectic, deconstructing each other's meaning which is limited to three values.

You're the ones who are making this take so long.

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

 

[WWHP]

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

No, OS 012 makes a distinction between grammatical meaning and meaning.

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

I'm not clear about "autonomous syntax" so I cant say one way or another. Perhaps you missed it when I wrote I am not qualified to lecture on Chomksy, NLP, or linguistics, only note similarities?

Yes, you must have missed that.

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

By similar I mean that I note similar observations in the frameworks. OS 012 was not evolved from Chomsky, NLP, or linguistics, but I have noted similarities. Meaning and grammar are one SIMPLE one. NLP's 'meta model' i believe was developed from transformational grammars and semantics. I stumble across similarities all the time.

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

Well I 'get' his meaning

"Grammaticalness"

Chomsky argued that the notions "grammatical" and "ungrammatical" could be defined in a meaningful and useful way.

In contrast an extreme behaviorist linguist would argue that language can only be studied through recordings or transcriptions of actual speech, the role of the linguist being to look for patterns in such observed speech, but not to hypothesize about why such patterns might occur, nor to label particular utterances as either "grammatical" or "ungrammatical". Although few linguists in the 1950s actually took such an extreme position, Chomsky was at an opposite extreme, defining grammaticality in an unusually (for the time) mentalistic way.[7] 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". [edit: here I would disagree with chomsky, that could poetically be meaningful] 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.
.

again, dr. kitten, you always seem to perfectly argue the ancedotals.

But you admit that Chomsky's views are totally and completely irrelevant, how does that make them "similar" to OS/360?

Strange how you would interpret such 'meaning' from my grammars, eh?

(The answer I like is that they're both totally and completely irrelevant, but I suspect that's not where you're going.)

Then that must be what's stopping you from understanding me. Your fishing for something and your not finding it. Sorry.

.

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

catch the above wiki quote. the distinction between meaning and grammar is a presupposition. A presupposition is an NLP term. I call it a 'neccesary truth'.


I'm not here to argue chomksy or NLP, so please dont try to trick me into an off argument where my knowledge is limited like you normaly do.


BF

 

[WWHP]

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.

Well enlighten me, please, I am looking for further elucidation here.

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.

Tit for tat can expand to scenarios outside of the prisoner's dilemma, and just because Mojo stated that doenst mean I buy it. Forgive me for being skeptical about how you are Mojo interprets it.

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.

From what I understand, Tit for Tat was victorious in prisoner's dilemma, wasnt that axelrod's story there?

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.)

I'm sorry, I dont agree. I think that's flat out wrong. Of course tit for tat is a model.

How do you define 'model'?

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.

I'm not quite so sure about that. communication is naturally reciprocal by default. We argue and communicate in 'truths'. I dont agree with your conclusion here.

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.

I am still constructing the TFT model in OS 012. again, I dont say it IS game theory TFT, I say it is similar to it. Similar enough that it can be a foundational model for online communication. There are a few layers to it, however, that cover psychology and behavior, and those I am still wrangling out.

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

i dont think you know what to look for. We are looking at two entirely different things. You are looking for one outcome, and I am OBSERVING another.

This is a succesful discussion in my book of the tit for tat methodology I employ

-- and earned you a disciplinary suspension from the forum moderation team.

oh the horror of peer review psychology! Big deal, the JREF mod team are just as reactionairy as any body else, so?

got a run, get back to the rest later.

Doc Kitten, why dont we get into this a bit more considerately? I could learn allot from you, and OS 012 may surprise you. Can you suspend your 'teacher-student' role playing game and simply discuss this between two equal points of view?

I think we all would benifit from it.


BF

 

[WWHP]

Doc Kitten,

Sorry, I had an interuption previously so let me recontinue.....

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.

Well you can't imagine it, but I can, and rationally so. To begin with, the conflict of idea is eternal and thus re-occuring, so we already begin 'off the pitch', as you put it. The problem is not being 'off the pitch', but navigating through the 'pitch', and then concluding and resolving the 'pitch', and then allowing the most rational ideas from the 'pitch' to define our shared 'meme' or administrative decision.

What does 'tit for tat' have in common with all usages of 'tit for tat'? This is an important philosophical question that i request you ponder, not react to.

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.

That's a bloated reaction. Full of hyperbole. Lacking anything concrete or reasonable. Self important.

Please stop confusing your profession with your level of universal understanding, it's obnoxious to say the least.

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

Yes, I understand PERFECTLY dialectic, and OS 012. That helps me understand ALL things that I do not understand.

Is there anything in your self-sense of academic importance that you DONT understand?

Of course there is. Can you admit it? -with difficulty, it would entail you transcending your teacher-student role playing game that you HIDE behind.


Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

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.

the man has an eye.

Yes, this is true, and this is still what i am working on formalizing. First, the tit for tat relates to perception. So, if my opponent appears to me to be rude, then I respond in a way where I will appear 'more' rude than he, yet still within reason of a rational response. This i call 'mirroring', and is highly intuitive.

For example, on badscience, there was the pleasant and reasonable Wholly Bully, who wondered why I was not rude to him! I mirror my opponent, this is one element of this tit for tat methodology. There is complexity here, because this also addresses the phenomenon of 'projection' in the Freudian sense. The tit for tat seduces us to 'project' our innermost selves into 'text' for mutual observance.

One of the other distinctions in this method is counter intuitive at first. In many semantics, E Prime for example, we are discouraged from the conflict of idea, discouraged from argument. This is not the case with this methodology. So when I tit for tat someone, I make sure to isolate the conflicting idea and confront it directly (which is often the misinterpretation of me being 'rude' or 'arrogant'). This is tit for tating truth values in perception. When I counter boldly with a conflicting truth, I am also at the same time tit for tating something in the perception of the opponent. This is very difficult to explain formally, and i am still working out it's parameters.

Basically, in EPRIME, we are told to remove the verb 'to be', which produces reaction. In OS 012, we INSIST on the verb to be in the tit for tat methodology, we state BOLDLY what we think the truth is to invoke the conflict of idea. If we are mistaken, all the better, if we are correct, all the better. It's just dialectic, a game to uncover truth, and the truth most certainly 'is', 'is' most certainly is the foundation of all truth.



BF

 

[WWHP]

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?

well of course by default I was denying them, but also showing them to be contradictory or misinformed.

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

sure, they can be contradictory. For example, an ID'er can refute neo darwinism and do so without providing any contradiction to reality what soever. Tom Delay can go on FOX news and 'refute' the fact that he was found guilty of.....whatever he was found guilty of, yet reality teaches us differently.

Contradict means to 'oppose' most importantly. If you are opposing something and are irrational, you are not consistant with reality, and thus contradictory to what contradictory can mean!

BF

 

[WWHP]

Tit for tat, part 450


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).

Okay, that's your opinion. My opinion is based on over 4 years of applying this in informal and heated discussion with similar results, what's yours based on?

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.

Yes, there is a difference between online discussion and the prisoner's dilemma, so?

Tit for tat is a natural strategy, it has to be a natural strategy, and thus a strategy unto itself. The prisoner's dillema is simply an application of tit for tat, and is not tit for tat in and of itself.

What is important is it's 'reciprocalness'. Exchange. Back and forth. Dialectic. synthesis. In a succesfull tit for tat strategy in any environment, behavior changes. That change is a synthesis in both party's behaviors. That synthesis is a dialectic, and exchange of values between two points of view.

The value is in the exchange. tit for tat is a strategy for exchange. I imagine it can be expressed in many different ways.

Mojo, your statements, questions, and comments, if you dont mind me saying, are getting more refined and expansive.

Do you mind if I ask you a question?

What do you think of the idea of 'co-intelligence'?

Bubblefish

 

[Professor Yaffle]

*yawn*. anyone else care to lecture on game theory?

I think this is an example of what BF calls refutation (or is it refuttation?)

Correct, only truth goes on regardless of redicule.

So does David Icke speak the truth? He is still going on, and he has certainly been ridiculed for his ideas for the last decade or so.

I am just heckling from the sidelines now, as I don't have the time at the moment to make detailed comments.

 

[Mojo]

No, just your comments about it. O/S is part of the structure of OS 012. OS 012 falls along the natural couplings of O/S. If i am contradictory to reality with O/S, then OS 012 is false.

By "O/S", I assume you mean your classification of statements as objective or subjective. Correct?

Yes, I remember refuting each and every one of them.

Which definition of "refute" are you using here?

Yes, I did make that claim. It's true, he projects heat from his hands. I dont know how he does that, but he does. If your in Los Angeles, you can go to his office and get a treatment in Medical Qi Kung for about 90 bucks (session lasts about 50 minutes)

I'm not in Los angeles, and I don't see why anyone should pay out money to support your claim. Can you provide any evidence?

This whole thread is me backing up that claim! Are YOU applying skepticism equal to Randi's claim about Steorn as you are to Steorn itself?

I've looked at the evidence. They have chosen a highly unusual means of demonstrating that their device works. They have chosen to advertise for scientists in a financial journal. They have hand-picked the "scientists" to inspect their device. they have those scientists under a non-mutual nondisclosure agreement. They claim to have a working device working at 285% efficiency; why not just demonstrate this to the world rather than messing about with their "validation"?

Sometimes I will even post something I am speculating about as a truth so I can get an argument going and uncover further truth.

And then you wonder why some people consider you to be a troll.

See, no matter what, i win truth. If I make a mistake, i win a new truth. If I dont make a mistake, then I retain and refine a previous truth.

But you don't do this: you hang onto your mistakes, or claim that you didn't make them, but that everyone else has misunderstood what you posted.

When did I define contradictory as being 'wrong'? I defined it as in 'opposition to objective reality' or 'contradictory to reality.

and, as I said, that's a pretty good definition of "wrong".

That's not my opinion, it is an objective fact. So much so that if you go to answers.com and look up 'symmetry', you get ....

http://www.answers.com/symmetry

Beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement.

That is a definition of "symmetry" (and a subjective one at that). It doesn't mean that your claim that beauty can be objectively defined as symmetry is true, just as a definition of a duck as a bird doesn't mean that all birds can be defined as ducks.

 

[Mojo]

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

yes

Which ones?

 

[Mojo]

sure, they can be contradictory. For example, an ID'er can refute neo darwinism and do so without providing any contradiction to reality what soever. Tom Delay can go on FOX news and 'refute' the fact that he was found guilty of.....whatever he was found guilty of, yet reality teaches us differently.

Contradict means to 'oppose' most importantly. If you are opposing something and are irrational, you are not consistant with reality, and thus contradictory to what contradictory can mean!

Here you're using "refute" in the sense that politicians use it: to give their unsupported denials a spurious air of authority. When a politician says they "refute" something by unsupported assertion, they are using the definition meaning "deny", not the definition meaning "disprove". Words with more than one possible meaning take on a particular one of those meanings according to their context. The fact that there is an alternative definition of the word may give rise to ambiguity, but that's not the same thing as contradiction.

In the case of the word "refute": if I deny that something is true, and also prove that it is not true, these are both meanings of the word "refute" and in no way contradictory.

If I "refute" something by simply denying that it is true while failing to prove that it is not true, there is still no contradiction, because only one definition of the word, the one meaning "deny", comes into play.

 

[pv+]

Mildew are grey. Everything grey is mildew. An elephant is mildew.
What's more, grey is symmetrical therefore beautiful. Mildew is beautiful, obviously.
Bubble's twitterings are boring, featureless, vacuous and very grey. Everything in Bubble's world is mildew, although lacking the wit and intelligence. Carry on Bubble, it's a free world and you are free to continue to humiliate yourself as much as you like.
Buon lavoro!

 

[WWHP]

I think this is an example of what BF calls refutation (or is it refuttation?)

Nah, that was a personal comment

So does David Icke speak the truth?

according to you, he makes objective statements

He is still going on, and he has certainly been ridiculed for his ideas for the last decade or so.

Do you actually think that I am suggesting that rediculing an idea makes it true?

Do you actually think Icke could have a 5 month long debate with educated critiques and not produce contradictions?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Quote:
He is still going on, and he has certainly been ridiculed for his ideas for the last decade or so.

Do you actually think that I am suggesting that rediculing an idea makes it true?

You said

Correct, only truth goes on regardless of redicule.

Thus implying that anything that goes on in the face of ridicule must be truth. If you didn't mean this, what did you mean by the exact phrase you used above?