Skepticism and The Normal

[zooterkin]

Did he ever pay up the $100 he lost on the bet on Bad Science?

Yes, he did, though I'm still waiting for confirmation from my bank that the cheque has cleared.

 

[WWHP]

Yes, he did, though I'm still waiting for confirmation from my bank that the cheque has cleared.

dude, how long ago did you deposit that thing? that was like three months ago!

 

[WWHP]

Well if you can find a good managment course, I promise I will go to it with you.

cocktails afterwards?

 

[WWHP]

EDIT" Clearly the mod realized his error, and this post now is irrelevant

 

[WWHP]

I said all beauty was subjective, including that of music.

Yes, I know what you said and i deconstructed it. It's contradictory. If beauty 'of music' is a subjective property, then there is no beauty of music, there is only beauty of the ear.

Which means that any beauty found will vary according to the person experiencing it, and does not preclude the possibility that the amount of beauty found may be zero.

Although it may vary, that is irrelevant. Each variance carries the same theme, harmony and syncopation. All musical tones are 'beautiful' to the ear because they are harmonius, and the flavor of their arrangments is what is subjective.

it is the nature of subjective experience that it varies between people.

That's obvious, hardly illuminating, and not under contention. What is under contention is the idealism of your argument, the assumption that because a subjective experience has varience, there is no central objective theme.

I already posted a link earlier to a paper where a computer identified beautiful faces. Here is another paper where they are working on a computer recognizing beauty in MUSIC.

http://www.cs.cofc.edu/~mccauley/TReports/2002-7-1.pdf

to quote

Research in fractals and chaos theory suggests that aspects of
our perception of beauty, balance, and harmony in nature
may be guided by inherent, subconscious processes [12, 19].
Specifically, it appears that the design and assembly of man-
made or natural objects (complex systems) is guided by
hidden rules that impose constraints on how structures are
put together [7, 8, 18].
All of these rules can be found – once one knows how to
look for them – in traditional art and architecture. The
rules guarantee a connection to the human observer, who
notices (albeit subconsciously) the mathematical
ordering inherent in a pleasing design. For example,
design units are very rarely single; they usually recur
with some multiplicity. Another way of saying this is that
[our inherent] need for ordering leads us to make certain
subunits similar to each other. The amazing thing is that
nature also creates structural subunits that are similar

Again, your philosophies are stuck in the 19th century. Your arguments on beauty are not balanced.

Ah, so you're trying a different tack from physical beauty, where you alleged that Angelina Jolie was objectively beautiful, and are now saying that because the idea of beauty exists, whether musical or physical, it must therefore be an objective quality?

the idea of beauty is not the essence of beauty. people can have subjective ideas about beauty that can cloud them seeing the objective component. Beauty is objective/subjective harmony, balance, symmetry. beauty is NOT just an idea.

Sorry, just because most people agree that the idea of beauty exists, that doesn't make the beauty of a piece of music, or even of all music, an objective quality.

Sure it does. It most certainly does. When i was a kid, I didnt find classical music beautiful at all, I found it boring. It was only after years of making music and learning to appreciate it that I began to uncover it's true beauty from what my own false idea about what makes music beautiful.

Are you saying that Bach and Beethoven did not make beautiful music? If so, then your lying or ignorant, and I predict you would be unable to rationalize your argument that the beauty in beethoven's music has nothing to do with his compositions.

Beauty is both EXTERNAL and INTERNAL

Internal in what way? To the subject or the object?

"Internal" means our subjective environment

This argument is that beauty is BOTH objective and subjective, both INTERNAL and EXTERNAL.

There's your problem, right there (it shouldn't be a surprise, it's been explained several times by people better at it than me).

No, that's not my problem, that's my solution to the o/s problem regarding beauty. And no one has been able to stay consistant inside of thier argument regarding beauty's sole subjectivity

By definition of the terms subjective and objective, beauty cannot be both objective and subjective, it has to be one or the other.

that's an example of bivalent delusion. Tell me, how does the dictionary presribe what beauty must be again, can you explain?

Syncopation is not an essential for music; nor is harmony, for that matter, though it is more commonly present than syncopation.

huh? Ever hear of 12 notes? Ever hear of quarter notes, half notes, and whole tones? ever hear of chord progressions? do you know what a metronome is? do you know what rythym is? You do know that rythym is present even if there isnt drums, right?

Sheesh, not only are your arguments not founded in science, but they are not founded in musical theory either!

And back to the English, what you said was "What is music but syncopation and harmony?", which is another way to say that music is just syncopation and harmony.

Yes, music is harmony and syncopation (rythym). Any variance of that is disharmony, and in music we can often use dissonance, but we cannot have dissonance without the harmony built into music's structure.

Take away harmony and syncopation, and music does not exist.

I love it. I love how the fundamentalist disbelievers are really idealists at heart, and avoid science in guiding their idealism and seek mysticism to prove it!

How ironic. I find irony beautiful,how about you?

BF

 

[WWHP]

EDIT: Clearly the mod realized his error, and this post now is irrelevant

 

[WWHP]

zoo, pardon me for quoting your post, but I have Rome on 'ignore'.

Meaning that he continue to read everything I write and kicks himself for bunting himself out of this discussion.

There's a fascinating side-note to this line of inquiry - 'flat ear' syndrome. This syndrome comes in several strengths - from simple tone-deafness to more complex hearing anomalies. The movie A Knight's Tale (though pretty lame) had an interesting deleted scene at the dance, when the bad guy leaves the dance and complains to one of his companions about 'that horrid noise'. Where others heard beautiful music, he could only ever hear a cacophany of noise.

so I guess red isnt really red because color blind people see dark grey?

This actually exists in a tiny fragment of the population.

Like color blind people, so?

Some people loose thier taste buds, so I guess 'sweet' and 'sour' are subjective too.

Basically, any quality that is proven to be subject to individual tastes is subjective - beauty being the most subjective of all. I find beauty in music by The Art of Noise, but my wife cannot stand it.

*yawn*

Congratulations, by the way, to Rome for drawing me back once more to this otherwise dead thread with more foolish commentary on the nature of beauty.

Dont thank me, thank the conflict of idea, that's what got you back here.

BEAUTY IS SUBJECTIVE.

YOU ARE WRONG, ROME.

Get over it.

nice fundamentalist argument there. repeat that 15 more times and it still wont be complete. Complete the formula.

Beauty is internal and external, objective and subjective. Beauty is Harmony, Balance, Symmetry.

If what I am saying is not true, then i challenge anyone here to maintain an argument where they can rationalize Angelina Jolie's commoness or ugliness, or Beethoven's Fifth to be a 'cacophony of noise'.

BF

 

[WWHP]

"Right now, the Sun is bigger than the Earth"

Right now, the earth is bigger than the sun.

Edited by tim: 

Rule 8, plus civility.

 

[Mojo]

all of them

It doesn't seem to work very well then. Well over 2,000 posts in this thread, for example, and no sign whatsoever of agreement.

 

[sinnikal]

Objective evidence:
http://www.gooogIe.co.uk/?gid=88183&hl=en&meta=o&q=A%20new%20global%20internet%20dialectic%0D

 

[flimflam_machine]

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.

Riiiiiiight. So using Z as an example: he called you a hypocrite because you had broken one of your own rules and conflated him with his ideas. Specifically you had suggested that his being a wiccan had removed the validity from his arguments (and hence any need to refute them). So you called him a satanist, which in addition to being grossly offensive didn’t address his conduct or arguments here in any way but referred instead to his religious beliefs. That’s not “teasing” Bubb, unless you’d like to come up with a new definition of that one too.

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

Very true in one sense: I had thought that, deep down, everyone was mostly rational. It turns out that you are living disproof of this.

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

Aaaaah, right. So because I disagree with you, you conclude that I didn’t understand it. Another example of magical thinking there Bubb. I also think you’re projecting since I’ve probably done a buttload more maths than you.

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.

Well I’ve been asking you to give a decent clear, consistent explanation of OS012 in part or in whole for several months now. You haven’t done it so far, why should I expect you to do it now? Care to prove me wrong and explain it from the ground up in one post. I understood the models that Z and Arkan proposed in about 6 lines each.

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.

So you’re saying “If you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you.” That sounds like a fantastic way of disseminating you dialectic! There was nothing to provide an antithesis to since you didn’t provide a compelling thesis for why 0, 1, 2 are any better than -1, 0, +1 or 33, 64, 0.078.

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

Well so far you haven’t done either of those.

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.

Wrong Bubb, I didn’t bring contempt. I’ve had many civilized discussions online even when I disagree with people, that wouldn’t have happened if I’d simply brought contempt to the discussions. Nor should the clarity of your arguments be dependent on my approach. What I have done is developed contempt for you because of your failure to provide clarity, your offensive conduct and your blithe dismissal of the multitude of arguments put against your system.

 

[flimflam_machine]

I thought this little gem was worth a separate post:

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".

Your confused again.

Am I? Let’s take a look at page 26~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As far as I can tell it [Bubb’s system]comes from people classifying statements as follows:

(i) Statements that I know to be true
(ii) Statements that I know to be false
(iii) Statements whose truth value I do not know

That's socratic dialectic, crudely put.

Lying Bubb? Or just confused again about what you’ve written and what you think (I only use the word “think” very loosely here).

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"

Is it now? Let’s have a look at this from here:

http://www.lilt.ilstu.edu/critique/spring2002docs/rcanney.htm

“Philosopher Simon Blackburn describes the Socratic dialectic as ‘the process of eliciting the truth by means of questions aimed at opening out what is already implicitly known, or at exposing the contradictions and muddles of an opponent’s position’”


Here’s a classic example of the Socratic dialectic in action from wikipedia:

“In Plato's dialogues and other Socratic dialogues, Socrates attempts to examine first principles or premises by which we all reason and argue. Socrates typically argues by cross-examining someone's claims and premises in order to draw out a contradiction or inconsistency among them. For example, in the Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro to provide a definition of piety. Euthyphro replies that the pious is that which is loved by the gods. But, Socrates also has Euthyphro agreeing that the gods are quarrelsome and their quarrels, like human quarrels, concern objects of love or hatred. Therefore, Socrates reasons, at least one thing exists which certain gods love but other gods hate. Again, Euthyphro agrees. Socrates concludes that if Euthyphro's definition of piety is acceptable, then there must exist at least one thing which is both pious and impious (as it is both loved and hated by the gods) — which, Euthyphro admits, is absurd. Thus, Euthyphro is brought to a realization by this dialectical method that his definition of piety is not sufficiently elaborate, thus wrong.”


Socrates said “I know that I do not know” in a different context when comparing himself to another, having been told that he was there was nobody wiser than him.

“Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know.”


So what have we discovered?

Bubb like quoting Socrates. He also likes using the paraphrased “I know that I do not know” as support for his system despite the fact that it is a relatively uncomplicated warning that is wise to be aware of the limits of your knowledge, rather than an argument for Bubb’s third value.

Finally we have discovered that, despite trying to set up a new internet dialectic, Bubb doesn’t actually now what the Socratic dialectic is. You’d think that his frighteningly qualified academics would have pointed that out to him. Unless, of course, they don’t actually exist.

 

[flimflam_machine]

so I guess red isnt really red because color blind people see dark grey?

"Red" is the perception of an invariant external physical property i.e., wavelength (of about 650nm). The wavelength is the actual physical thing whereas the "red" is the perception. Similarly, physiognomy and physique are physical things, "beauty" is the perception.

Beauty is Harmony, Balance, Symmetry.

Nope, beauty may be perceived becuase of harmony, balance and symmetry (if you could define objectively what they are and not resort to circular, subjective definitions). But that's not what you're saying.

You are wrong Bubb, and you should get over it.



Edit: More stuff that you are wrong about:

Yes, music is harmony and syncopation (rythym).
...
Take away harmony and syncopation, and music does not exist.

Syncopation is not the same thing as rhythm, it is a rhythmic style or device:

Syncopate:
• verb usu. as [SIZE=-1]adj.[/SIZE] syncopated (of music or a rhythm) having the beats or accents displaced so that strong beats become weak and vice versa.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] syncopation [SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE].



And since harmony means this:

Harmony:
• noun ([SIZE=-1]pl.[/SIZE] harmonies) 1 the combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions having a pleasing effect.


You can still have basic melody without harmony. So you can remove syncopation and harmony from music and still have a rhythmic melody, which would still be music. This is yet another area where your attempts to use terminology that is beyond you betrays your ignorance.

You really do know sod all about pretty much everything don't you Bubb.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Well if you can find a good managment course, I promise I will go to it with you.

cocktails afterwards?

Yup, you can't spell, and you don't care. But then again, you're very obviously wrong and you don't care; and you're making yourself look like a delusional fool, and you don't care. So I guess the spelling is a pretty minor issue eh?

 

[WWHP]

It doesn't seem to work very well then. Well over 2,000 posts in this thread, for example, and no sign whatsoever of agreement.

You don't know what to look for, and plus, your not looking for agreement or resolution, your looking to make me wrong, and for over 2000 posts +, you have failed to satisfy that desire.

 

[WWHP]

Flim, your getting obsessed and straying away from the actual topic.

Riiiiiiight. So using Z as an example: he called you a hypocrite because you had broken one of your own rules and conflated him with his ideas.

I didnt conflate Z with his ideas, Z wasnt arguing his ideas, he was hiding them for some strange sociopathic reason. His intial arguments were so bizarrly contradictory it was apparent that he wasnt arguing his real truth values.

And I did argue the ideas he put forth, and challenged him to put forth his true ideas, which are closer to a ternary structure. Z believes in mystery, is a wiccan. Wiccans are most certainly considered 'woo' by all of you fundamentalist disbelievers, yet Z found it neccesary to 'bash' woo in some strange attempt to justify himself to all of you.

Specifically you had suggested that his being a wiccan had removed the validity from his arguments (and hence any need to refute them).

No, again, your living in your i nterpretations. Because he is a wiccan, the things he was arguing for are contradictory to his wiccan belief structures. He wasnt arguing for what he truly believes, he was hiding it. He admits he manipulates people like violins. Well, he does, he has manipulated all of you quite perfectly.

So you called him a satanist, which in addition to being grossly offensive didn’t address his conduct or arguments here in any way but referred instead to his religious beliefs. That’s not “teasing” Bubb, unless you’d like to come up with a new definition of that one too.

I did call him a satanist, first as a joke and a rib, and then as a refrence to his behavior. Z uses his occult knowledge to manipulate and decieve, and to some people, that qualifies as satanic. It's certainly dark.

But I also refuted his ideas, questioned him, and he failed to be able to respond to my rebuttals, and then continued to post lies about our exchange to damage control how people view him here. He has absolutly no integrity, and his words are worthless.


BF

 

[Mojo]

I think you're projecting again.

 

[Mojo]

You don't know what to look for, and plus, your not looking for agreement or resolution, your looking to make me wrong, and for over 2000 posts +, you have failed to satisfy that desire.

You're not still claiming that Aristotle murdered the man who tried to introduce zero to maths, are you?

 

[zooterkin]

Right now, the earth is bigger than the sun.

Edited by tim: 

Rule 8, plus civility.

Sorry, that is a false idea, and by your own definition cannot be in conflict with a true idea.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, I know what you said and i deconstructed it. It's contradictory. If beauty 'of music' is a subjective property, then there is no beauty of music, there is only beauty of the ear.

It is not contradictory. There is the beauty which is found in music, and many people may share the same appreciation of the same music, but that is still a subjective experience, and resides essentially with the person who experiences it. Other people do not find the same music beautiful; the beauty does not exist in isolation.

Although it may vary, that is irrelevant. Each variance carries the same theme, harmony and syncopation. All musical tones are 'beautiful' to the ear because they are harmonius, and the flavor of their arrangments is what is subjective.

I really don't know what you mean. "Each variance carries the same theme, harmony and syncopation." Each variance of what?

"All musical tones are 'beautiful' to the ear because they are harmonius, and the flavor of their arrangments is what is subjective." Not sure where to begin with that. A 'musical' tone probably does sound pleasant, if not beautiful, by definition, otherwise you wouldn't call it musical. A tone can't be harmonious on its own, it needs something to be harmonious with. You've lost me at 'flavor of arrangments".

Are you saying that Bach and Beethoven did not make beautiful music? If so, then your lying or ignorant, and I predict you would be unable to rationalize your argument that the beauty in beethoven's music has nothing to do with his compositions.

I enjoy listening to music by Bach and Beethoven, and find some of it beautiful, but I've been brought up in Western Europe where music of that form is part of the culture. I don't find Chinese opera beautiful at all, but I'm sure many people in China do.

Beauty is both EXTERNAL and INTERNAL

Again, that's where you are mistaken.

This argument is that beauty is BOTH objective and subjective, both INTERNAL and EXTERNAL.

How do you objectively measure the beauty of Beethoven's 5th, or Angelina Jolie?

No, that's not my problem, that's my solution to the o/s problem regarding beauty. And no one has been able to stay consistant inside of thier argument regarding beauty's sole subjectivity

Who has failed, and how?

that's an example of bivalent delusion. Tell me, how does the dictionary presribe what beauty must be again, can you explain?

What bivalent delusion? Beauty is a quality perceived to be in an object by the perceiver.

huh? Ever hear of 12 notes? Ever hear of quarter notes, half notes, and whole tones? ever hear of chord progressions? do you know what a metronome is? do you know what rythym is? You do know that rythym is present even if there isnt drums, right?

Do you know what syncopation is? Harmony + syncopation does not include all those things you now mention, yet you claimed those two things comprised all of music.

Yes, music is harmony and syncopation (rythym). Any variance of that is disharmony, and in music we can often use dissonance, but we cannot have dissonance without the harmony built into music's structure.

Take away harmony and syncopation, and music does not exist.

You can have a simple melody at a fixed rhythm, giving no syncopation and no harmony, yet I would say it was musical. You accuse me of having no musical knowledge while exposing your own shortcomings.

ETA: Flim_flam got there first on the musical definition