So your idea that "BF is not a troll" is true and thus in conflict with your idea that "BF is at ease with grammar"?
Or are all ideas not actually in conflict?
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
So your idea that "BF is not a troll" is true and thus in conflict with your idea that "BF is at ease with grammar"?
Or are all ideas not actually in conflict?
This is the kind of thing that finally convinced me there was nothing left in trying to actually discuss things with BF. He repeatedly brought up Z's personal beliefs as a central point in his posts, even though they had absolutely nothing to do with Z's arguments. He then used it to more broadly accuse him of "magical thinking" without providing any additional evidence that Z was propping his arguments up with magical thinking.
Automatic Response From The Bubblefish Management Agency, referred to as ‘The Agency’.
Bubblefish’s current time and schedule does not permit him to entertain emotional, flabbergasted, or magical statements.
OS 0 1 2 as a dialectic makes a distinction between objective and subjective reality.
If you are confused about this distinction, please format your questions to address the subject that perplexes you.
Regards,
The Agency
Automatic Response From The Bubblefish Management Agency, referred to as ‘The Agency’.
Bubblefish’s current time and schedule does not permit him to entertain emotional, flabbergasted, or magical statements.
OS 0 1 2 as a dialectic makes a distinction between objective and subjective reality.
If you are confused about this distinction, please format your questions to address the subject that perplexes you.
Regards,
The Agency
Automatic Response From The Bubblefish Management Agency, referred to as ‘The Agency’.
Bubblefish’s current time and schedule does not permit him to entertain emotional, flabbergasted, or magical statements.
OS 0 1 2 as a dialectic makes a distinction between objective and subjective reality.
If you are confused about this distinction, please format your questions to address the subject that perplexes you.
Regards,
The Agency
Automatic Response From The Bubblefish Management Agency, referred to as ‘The Agency’.
Bubblefish’s current time and schedule does not permit him to entertain emotional, flabbergasted, or magical statements.
OS 0 1 2 as a dialectic makes a distinction between objective and subjective reality.
If you are confused about this distinction, please format your questions to address the subject that perplexes you.
Regards,
The Agency
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!
Bubblefish has decided to start spelling management correctly.
My work here is done.
Bubblefish has decided to start spelling management correctly.
My work here is done.
That is a false idea, however, the idea is in conflict with the other idea regardless.
"Jesus is the Son of God" is in conflict with "Jesus is a Muslim", and both may be false, but both may believed to be true to another point of view.
All ideas are in conflict or have the potential for conflict. Ideas that are true, or believed to be true, are in conflict with other ideas that are true or believed to be true.
The second the verb 'to be' is introduced into a sentence structure, there is a truth value related. The conflict is built into the semantical structure.(see E Prime)
So if I say "The Earth is a Sphere", that is naturally in conflict with all other ideas that claim a distinct geodesic shape. The fact that those ideas are false doesnt mean anything, there is a conflict in the ideas when a truth value is placed on them.
'The Earth is a Sphere" has already trumped in the conflict of idea hundreds of years ago. The idea that 'The Sun is Bigger than the Earth" is an idea that already trumped in the conflict of idea ages ago. It was in conflict with the idea that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun hangs in the sky suspended by the gods, and is the same size as the moon.
The idea that 'Rudy Guiliani is a man' is in conflict naturally with the idea that 'Rudy Guiliani is a woman'. Yet there is no conflict there because the truth is self evident.
On some occasions, however, it isn't;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
Not according to Bubblefish, who said:
You can send the check/cheque to the same place as last time, thanks.
Yet one can come discover the beauty in a composition that others find beautiful after contemplation. For example, I dont really like hard metal, thrash, all that kind of genre. But you know what? There were many occassions when the environment I was in, and the mood, allowed me to find that sort of adrenalized rush in music 'beautiful'.
Our appreciation of music is all about time and place. Perhaps many dont like 'rave' or electronic house music. But you know what? Under the proper circumstances, that music is *perfect* and easy to appreciate.
These are more 'common' or 'vulgar' examples, however, take classical music. It hardly has the popularity of pop, and bores the bejesus out of many people, but with proper education and study, many people come to discover that beauty.
Beauty in music is discovered. The essence of music is harmony and syncopation. I am not going to use 'syncopation' anymore, because that's confusing you to mean something else. Rather, let's just say the essence of music is harmony and rythym. It is the 'arrangment' of harmony and rythym that is subjective, and thus the appreciation of arrangment is the subjective side to beauty.
I used 'variance' as an 'arrangment'. One piece of music, or a set of notes, can be arranged in countless ways.
Exactly. The 'note' itself is pleasant. You can hit b flat on the piano, and it will sound beautiful all on it's own. People with 'perfect pitch' will have a natural deeper appreciation of music than people with 'relative pitch'. 'Beauty' is embedded into music because music is a construction of tones. One 'note' immediatly has 'harmonics' embedded into it.
I believe it was in a Kubrick movie, I think 'eyes wide shut', where he has one simple note hit on the piano over and over throughout the whole scene which communicates such tension in the scene, yet he would have failed to have that tension if the sound was anything other than tone.
Not true. I dont need to play #E with #C for #C to have that harmony. It's embedded into the structure and hiearchy relative to the key of the piece. In the 'circle of fifths', a beautifull and symmetrical 'map' of all places and harmonies all notes and chords can move through exists in every single piece of music.
You dont naturally find it beautiful, no, but you in princaple could come to find that appreciation if you so choose. Yo Yo Ma clearly is not western, yet he plays classical music and finds it beautiful.
I dont know exactly how objective beauty in music can be 'measured' only defined. I put a link up a few posts back of a group of people who are attempting that. The objective beauty in music exists in the notes, harmonies, and rythyms. So in princaple, 'sheet music' is that measure in princaple. Angelina's beauty is symmetrical to her centerline. There is a computer program already in existence which can measure those things.
A symmetrical face and body, which we find in many 'super models' holds it's symmetry from many angles. For example, you or me may have a 'good side' for photographing, yet a supermodel, regardless of the angle, is beautiful from ALL possible angles.
I dont know how many perfectly beautiful women you have been around. I am here in Hollywood, and work in various forms of media, from music to film, so I have been around hoardes of them, even have had a few as girlfriends in the past. They can be hypnotic to stare at in intimate occasions. Their beauty is there when they are sleeping, crying, eating, what have you. The elegance of their angles is always present. It's actually a blessing and a curse to hold such physical beauty. I know one girl, so beautiful it's scary, literally. And the odd thing is her beauty in person is more stunning than her beauty in front of the camera. People can generally only relate to her in terms of her beauty, for her beauty is a piece of her knowledge.
So far, to my knowledge, all arguments on the subjectiveness of beauty have been unable to address certain questions, such as 'Please explain AJ's commoness or ugliness in apperance, or justify rationally how she is not beautiful'. They end with a subjective exclamation, such as Z's " Beauty is subjective, get over it!" They argue with thier opinions about beauty, but no objective rational for beauty's pure subjective quality.
Symmetry and harmony are embedded into those objects, be they physical or sonic. We do not 'illusion' them, we discover them. When they are obvious, they are naturally more acceptable as beautiful.
Yes, I was a music producer/arranger/composer for over 10 years, and worked with many musicians who are considered some of the 'tops' here in Los Angeles. I use 'syncopation' to express something that is a result of rythym, but perhaps that is confusing, so I will just say 'harmony and
harmony and rythym is in all music. syncopation is a result of rythym, and perhaps confused you to my meaning, sorry.
If I play simply the C note over and over, all those C's are in harmony with each other, and 'over and over' is a rythym.
BF
hardly, you have to argue how the idea I put forth is not in conflict. if you dont understand how to 'read' the conflict of idea, then you cant claim to have refuted the proposition. The conflict of idea covers ALL knowledge in historical epistemological terms. The idea that the 'earth is flat' is false, yet once believed to be true, and even still is by a small few people.
I find how many of you react to dialectic very funny. You assume that because you have an anti-thesis, it immediatly disqualifies the thesis! It's as if it is a boxing match, and the first boxer throws a punch, and then the second boxer blocks it and then declares victory.
You hardly recognize that your own anti-thesis is PROOF of the conflict of idea. Funny, almost recursive in a way, a proposition makes a statment about the conflict of idea, and then an anti-thesis tries to prove it wrong!
congradulations on your Victorey
Jonny, I dont believe you.
His personal beliefs about reality have nothing to do with a discussion ABOUT reality? that's irrational
Z repeats his propositions over and over, and that makes them true in his mind. Z also sees that others repeat his propositions over and over, and then assumes that verifies them.[edit: yet fails to argue them in dialectic]. That's magical thinking.
I have said that over and over;-)
Last edited:
so?
that is what I am saying.
Automatic Response From The Bubblefish Management Agency, referred to as ‘The Agency’.
Bubblefish’s current time and schedule does not permit him to entertain emotional, flabbergasted, or magical statements.
OS 0 1 2 as a dialectic makes a distinction between objective and subjective reality.
If you are confused about this distinction, please format your questions to address the subject that perplexes you.
Regards,
The Agency
Automatic Response From The Bubblefish Management Agency, referred to as ‘The Agency’.
Bubblefish’s current time and schedule does not permit him to entertain emotional, flabbergasted, or magical statements.
OS 0 1 2 as a dialectic makes a distinction between objective and subjective reality.
If you are confused about this distinction, please format your questions to address the subject that perplexes you.
Regards,
The Agency
That's socratic dialectic, crudely put
Notice i said 'crudely put'.
Then I would say that was an incomplete definition. That doesnt surprise me that he left it incomplete. The socratic irony is a marker for one's sense of 'certainty'. I can be certain that I do not know. What other truths can I percieve can hold this same standard? Only truths that are mutually observable to me and my opponent in dialogue. Therefore, the complete definition would b e
Socratic dialectic is ‘the process of eliciting the truth by means of questions aimed at opening out what is already implicitly known openly, and unknown privatly, or at exposing the contradictions and muddles of an opponent’s position’”
Are you actually that delusional to assume that Socrates was simply UNAWARE of the higher ordering philosophical value that is assosciated with his own Irony?
Are you actually relegating his statement to the equivalency of cocktail party conversation?
Please dont tell me that's what you really mean.
A man deeply humble to the power of the third value
That Blackburn's description of the Socratic Method is incomplete.
it IS the third value.
I guess you already know, eh?
BF
Well, I was using your own definition, that a false idea cannot be in conflict with a true idea. "Right now, the Sun is bigger than the Earth" is, you admit, a true idea. If "Right now, the Earth is bigger than the Sun" is not false, please explain how.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Nope, it's perfectly rational. What is relevant to the discussion is what he posted in the discussion.
His personal beliefs were introduced to the discussion by you as an ad hom argument.
As I am a bear of little brain, who has been less antagonistic to you than others (I believe that you are sincere, but with an overdeveloped belief in your competence) could you please remind me what arguments I have missed.
Aesthetically I find that computer screens are not the place for long screeds of text, which is why I *try* to limit the size of my posts. Otherwise the key points get lost in the noise.
ETA:
Where have I changed my arguments after you have "refuted" them?
And Jimbob thinks it is really witty to refer to himself in the third person, and even better to introduce an imaginary authority...
Last edited:
http://www.highintelligence.com/OS 012 basic.html
"Investing too much faith in an authority figure is dangerous."
"A society where women are subjugated has less merit than one where women have equal opportunity as men."
I believe both those views, they are subjective vioews, but why should anyone need to say that these ideas are in conflict?
I *can* think of views that are in conflict with these, but so what?
Or did you mean something else.
Are all ideas that are bbelieved to be true in conflict? Or do you just mean that "ideas that conflict with each other are in conflict"?
That is no more than a tautology.
Jim
"Investing too much faith in an authority figure is dangerous."
"A society where women are subjugated has less merit than one where women have equal opportunity as men."
I believe both those views, they are subjective vioews, but why should anyone need to say that these ideas are in conflict?
I *can* think of views that are in conflict with these, but so what?
Or did you mean something else.
Are all ideas that are bbelieved to be true in conflict? Or do you just mean that "ideas that conflict with each other are in conflict"?
That is no more than a tautology.
Jim
It's not me that's confused. "Syncopation" is not a synonym for "rhythm".
Yes, I could, in principle, but I don't at the moment. If I don't find something beautiful, am I wrong? Who decides? Is every piece of music beautiful? If so, what's the use of the concept of beauty?
Those are aspects that people may find contribute to the beauty they perceive, but one person may feel a piece is too slow, for example, which another person finds movingly largo. It's all subjective.
I'm pretty sure we could find some symmetrical faces that are not beautiful. And would you say Cindy Crawford was beautiful, with that asymmetric mole?
One of the things about subjective opinion is that it is not necessarily rational. Most people don't look at someone and analyse them for symmetry and other attributes. They look and then usually form an opinion straight away.
Thank you for your concern, but I'd be more concerned about those musicians who were probably laughing behind your back if you make such elementary mistakes as you did to start with; you're much closer with this definition of syncopation.
Yes, I suppose you could look at it like that, but normally harmony involves chords, i.e. more than one note at a time.
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
But even "crudely put" neither of the things that you classified as the "Scoratic Dialectic" actually are. It is a much more complex and subtle process than the classification of statements into "things that I know are true", "things that I know are false" and "things whose truth value I don't know" nor is it the simple statement "I know that I do not know".
Well, where to start? Why does it not surprise you that he left it incomplete? Are you implying that he had some ulterior motive for doing so? The "Socratic irony" may well be a marker for one's lack of knowledge. It can serve as a reminder that most do not know as much as they think they do, and that an awareness of our lack of knowledge is knowledge in itself (note it is knowledge in itself, not "truth" in itself):
"'I know nothing (he says in the Apology), and if I really am the wisest person in the world, as the Delphic oracle suggests, then it is just because of the difference between me and others - they all think they know things, whereas I am aware that I know nothing'."
This doesn't imply that "not knowing" is in any way a truth value nor a resolution in the way that you're implying. People already deal with uncertainty Bubb, as has been pointed out to you before. How does your system add anything?
Finally, what makes you think that you can be certain of mutually viewable things to the same degree as your certainty of your own lack of knowledge? Beyond "I exist" there is very little that we can know, and even mutually viewable things provide little certainty.
No Bubb, this is not a "complete definition" it is simply you mangling the definition to try to support your argument. Firstly if all you and your opponent can be certain of is what is mutually observable then there is nothing that is "unknown privatly" [sic], a thing is either known to both, or unknown to both.
Secondly, the Socratic Dialectic aims to reveal truth from things that are implicitly known i.e., things that the person knows but may not be aware that they know, or may not have applied to this problem. Your addition of the word "openly" is either entirely tautological or completely contradictory to that.
Finally, you cannot draw truth out of what is unknown (whether "privatly" [sic] or not).The fact that it is unkown does not in itself constitute a meaningful objective truth value.
No, I'm sure he was aware of the irony. Are you delusional enough to try to use this comment to build an entire philosophy and a dialectic? A quick thought: since it was Socrates that said this, and since he had his own dialectic, and since he was considered to be reasonably clever; don't you think he would have included a third value in his own dialectic if he though it actually existed or was of any value?
No, a man who was aware of his own limitations. Something you could really learn from Bubb.
And yet Bubb (who has admitted that he knows very little about philosophy outside of the one that he has made up for himself) has come up with a better one. Hmmmmmm...
Yup, unknown as a third value in ternary logic system. Fine, how does your system actually make this useful again Bubb? Oh, I forgot, you're refusing to tell us.
Nope, I'm only reasonably certain that you don't have anyone else of any value working on your little vanity project, and that it is all bollocks.
Last edited:
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
Again, *sigh* something cannot be objective and subjective. The two terms are mutually exclusive and contradictory.
Beauty exists only in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is only a person's perception but the perception of beauty can be caused by the thing in the external world. Where's the inconsistency? I can also imagine something beautiful that I have never seen before. How does that relate to beauty being objective?
So you accept that beauty is only a perception then, it's not objective.
Let's take pain as another example. If I put my hand on hot saucepan I feel pain. But is the pain in the saucepan? Is it objective, or is it just a subjective experience. Someone with more heat resistant hands (a trait that many mothers have) might not find it painful.