Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

BZZZZZZZZZZZT! Ad hom.

I'm not going to respond to your ad hom insenuations until you define what ad hom is. Please look it up before you do,thanks

So do you: you claim, for example, that OS 012 is a means of manipulating people into continuing an argument.

I never said it is a means of manipulating people, that's a false idea you have in your head.

OS 012 contains a process that invokes the conflict of idea, which we all respond to naturally. I'm not manipulating that, I am opening that up and trying to make you aware of it. OS 012 doenst manipulate that, OS 012 is just an idea.

I am honest and upfront, I tell you what I am doing and I explain how it is effecting OUR behavior. I tell you what I am doing and you still respond the same way. I tell you that sometimes I play jokes, and I tell you that I will always try to mirror your behavior back to you.

ALL MY MOVES ARE OUT IN THE OPEN.

You have stated that it would have failed if it produced a thread of "one or two pages in length".

Yes, a small or insignificant discussion would be proof to me that the process of tit for tat does not do what I say it does. Since this discussion has been going on since late oct or early nov of 06, and it's now passed into a THIRD season of our discussion, I can declare a succes there, yes? Is not a benchmark for science the ability to make predictions?

Predictions of behaviors are not manipulations of behaviors.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Bubb, this is really pathetic. If you assume that you know what everyone believes about everything based simply on one of their beliefs, then there's no point in having this discussion. You can just claim that all Wiccan's support you, this is just one long "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Really dont follow you, and I dont think you are following me about what I am saying about Z and his ideas.

Z was very clear that when discussing matters here he puts his beliefs to one side and argues from a rational, logical and fact based standpoint.

Sure, he says he puts his beliefs to one side, but I dont think that is what he does, not at least in this discussion. This is a philosophy discussion, and I dont understand how you can have one set of philosophical understanding, claim it's not rational, and then argue for another set of philosophical ideas that you dont even believe in.

You refused to engaged him on this level but dragged his Wiccan beliefs back into the debate.

HUH? Boy he did a good job on you! I refused to engage him? I addressed every single one of the man's points, and he didnt respond to those at all, rather, he started posting that he 'ripped my ideas' to shreds over and over (the magical thinking), yet he failed himself to even respond directly to my rebuttals. And he tricks you into thinking he is some sort of religious persecuted victim because I pointed out contradictions not only in his supposed 'logical' argument, but how is own 'logical' argument contradicted his own set of beliefs which embrace MYSTERY.

You posted a long list of "woo" beliefs that you suggested Z adhered to which proved that he should support you.

No, that wasnt my intention of posting those beliefs, your not understanding me here yet. My posting of those beliefs was to show the contradictions in the man's own values

Unfortunately for you he then pointed out that the vast majority of them he didn't actually believe, for example:

If you want to believe the man's words, go for it. I personally dont believe anything he writes, and wont take him at his word when he says he doesnt believe those things. The man is a woo. a big beautiful woo who has deep issues about his wooness.

I think you're just pissed off because someone you think should support you, absolutely doesn't.

Well your mistaken. I dont think Z should accept OS 012 because he practices esoteric practice. OS 012 is not esoteric. It is exoteric. And woos struggle with it the same way that you all do. They have reactions to the third value the same way.

You've not pointed out any contradiction in Z's model other than saying "if it's unknown, then you don't know its truth value", which is kind of his point.

Then if that is his point, why does he disagree with me? And that is hardly the contradictions I pointed out. Those pages are waaay back there, I dont need to dig them up. If you feel I didnt contradict him, then repeat his argument as you understood it and then I will show you the contradictions or inconsistancies.

His argument holds together just fine: "mystery" is a knowledge value, not a truth value.

That's not an argument. That is a claim. Can you define what a 'knowledge value is? Knowledge is known in terms of true and false. Does that mean that mystery is a value of true and false?

Please make your argument, not state your claim. Stating a claim is not an argument.

I cannot believe that you didn't actually choke on the vast quantity of irony in this post!

So in what way have I either decieved people, manipulated people, or refused polite requests in polite environments?

I am virtually an open book.

Z uses his occult knowledge to manipulate and decieve, and to some people, that qualifies as satanic. It's certainly dark.

Would you like to provide some evidence for this, the latest in a long line of personal slurs?

I have a right to have an observation about someone who not just argued with me, but was openly hostile and insulting to me. I have that right to state my HONEST opinion about his character. That is my honest opinion. Am I wrong? Sure, I could be wrong, but that is HONESTLY how he appears to me.

And I didnt invent that, I simply took his own words at face value. Consider, the man brags about 'manipulating people like violins'. Let me repeat that once again. the man brags about 'manipulating people like violins'. Just take that at face value. What value can be said about a man who brags about 'manipulating people like violins'?

He also claims to not only be a wiccan, a practioner of magick, but also a priest, claiming to have obtained a higher degree of understanding of the practice more so than your average New Age Bookstore groupie.

Are you familiar with magick? I have a different view of magick than I would say occultists such as Z do. Magick is about the power of language, words, and feelings. Magicians begin to tap into mental phenomenons that address our responses to words that we believe to be true. Magic is about causing 'change' in reality to effect the will. It's psychology, perhaps sometimes dark and bizarre, perhaps sometimes not, but when you combine that 'knowledge' or practice, regardless if it's BS or not, with the fact that you enjoy manipulating people like violins, you have the workings of a mind that is one the one hand seeking out higher knowledge yet has no morals for it, no sense of service to humanity, but rather service to the self, via 'manipulating' people.

Some people call that Satanic. It's practicing the art of deception. Karl Rove fits this bill too, and he is no wiccan. I dont believe in a satan and dont take satanism seriously. I called him a satanist first as a rib and a dig, since he was ribbing and insulting me and lying all over the place. He acts so indignant when his own style of communication was reflected back onto him.

Z is no victim here. I began quite polite and respectful with him, and he intentionally disrespected me and insulted me continuously. I call him a satanist as a joking response and everyone gets so alarmed!

Again I think that you're just jealous and pissed off.

Get real.

We (at least Jonny and I) liked and understood Z's model and rejected yours.

WHAT MODEL?????? Tell me what model Z proposed, please! Show me how it works, he certainly couldnt, he didnt even believe in it!

Of course this shouldn't have happened because your idea is right!!

your still living in your interpretations. You keep looking for something in this discussion to match your own false ideas about it, so you will latch onto Z, Jonny, or anyone else who comes along, hoping that they can 'put me straight' since you have thus failed to do so.

(cue foot-stamping and throwing toys from pram). So Z must have manipulated us through some dark power, rather than just providing a clear, intuitive and logically sound idea.

If Z's idea was so sound and logical, then explain how his idea negates the third value. Remember, Z said the third value DOESNT EXIST AS A TRUTH VALUE. That is his argument. If you agree with him, then you must agree that the third value DOES NOT EXIST.


And if it doestn exist as a truth value, then what the hell are all those modal logic and ternary logic people doing formalizing them?

Z's arguments had so many holes and I showed every single one of them. NO ONE RESPONDED TO THOSE. but everyone kept on repeating Z's magical thinking, and you still are!


Please, Z doest have you duped because of any 'dark powers', he has you duped because he manipulates people just like any other politician.

If I use words like 'satanism', and 'dark'', please remember the following table

0=meaning
1=text
2=interpretation.

when something is 'dark', it means objectively ONE THING, it means you CANT SEE IT. SUbjectively, for most people it means some sort of mystical evil. Z is dark because he WITHHOLDS his truth and argues for another. His darkness is his deception, not his tarot deck or whatever he does that gets him off.

 

[WWHP]

It's yet another example of you refusing to admit you are wrong. You used the wrong word, yet you won't simply come clean, you have to prevaricate.

Zoo, grow up and find a real argument.

You used the wrong word. Syncopation is not the same as rhythm. Syncopation is not necessary for music. Your term was not confusing me. Your use of the wrong term, particularly in a field you claim expertise in, tends to undermine all your other arguments. And the fact that you won't admit you've got it wrong says a lot about your unwillingness to properly engage in a debate.

dude, I clarified my meaning of that word after I realized it failed to communicate my meaning.

The word 'may' be inappropiate or not, but MY MEANING IS INDEED SOUND.

You seem insistent that you know about music, to the level of producing it, yet don't have an elementary grasp of the basic concepts. They appear to be a mystery to you.
Fine, but we are not making music here, we are talking about it. The tool we use for that is language. I presume you are using your own definition for 'distinctly'. My guess, 'wrongly' would be a close approximation?

Get a real argument, stop harrassing me for using a 'word' that is used in a different context to my meaning. I clarified my meaning, that is all you need.



BF

 

[WWHP]

I am a scientist, which is why I, unlike you, am keen on rigid definitions for words e.g., synthesis. The whole point here Bubb is that the pain doesn't exist in the saucepan.

so what? the 'pain' experienced is a result of extreme heat, which is 'potentially painfull' by itself and 'painful' when someone touches it. 'pain' is a result of a hand and some form of extreme heat. no extreme heat, no pain.

by the way, what field are you in?

It does not exist in the absence of your hand and more importantly in the absence of your consciousness.

so what?

the statement "Getting needles poked into our eyeballs is painful" is an objective statement, it is not a subjective statement. It is mutually painful to all of us to have needles stuck in our eyeballs. The neccesity of pain is universal, the 'sensation' of pain serves an objective function, and has objective criteria for it. Sure, pain is an experience, but so is you reading this sentence and experience.

We have a word for that kind of thing: subjective. That it is caused by an object does not make the experience of pain any less subjective.

I understand that usage in science, sure. But that doesnt mean there isnt something objective going on when we experience pain and what causes pain. Pain is a survival reaction for a mutually avoidable event. We all avoid physical pain because it causes discomfort and potentially threatens survival. That's objective.

It hurts when your legs get blown off from a bomb in Iraq. We may individually experience that horror uniquely, but it isnt uniquely horrible.

What? No. What? and What? in that order.

Let's just deal with 'Human Beings are both objective and subjective'. What about that appears contradictory to you? Clearly human beings exist as objects in reality, so they are objective. Yet we only can view human beings or have ideas about human beings via our subjective experience, and all human beings contain subjective experience. We are objects that contain subjective realities.

What about that don't you understand?

One note cannot set a tempo since without a pre-determined rhythm you cannot say whether it is a crotchet, a minim, a quaver or whatever

Yes you can, musicians do it all the time. If I hit one single note on the piano, even accidently, a musician can immediatly answer that back with a complimentary note and continue a rythym. A drummer can hear one simple down beat and jump right in. A beat is just a beat. a quarter note is a beat. rythyms are made of 'beats'

Notes do exist by themselves Bubb, I've heard them, and you mention one above. The fact that you anticipate the 3rd and 5th means nothing, and in any case, what happens if a minor chord is then played.

I assumed you understood that it was me hitting the note and me playing the chord I heard to it. I used that chord as an example, there are innumerous harmonious options to choose from, all exist the second I hit C.

Doesn't that then clash with the major chord that you are automatically hearing?

your missing the point. All chords exist potentially within each note, it's up to the 'feeling' of the player what he hears next, but they all exist. have you ever seen a musical mandala of the circle of fifths?

BF

 

[WWHP]

And what you just restated is not true, either. Syncopation and harmony are not 'neccesary truths of music'. (Only one 'c' in necessary, by the way.)

yes they are neccesary truths of music. any piece of music has the potential to be arranged with numerous voicings in numerous ways due to it's harmonicstructures.

If you are going to counter me, make your argument, dont just make a counter claim, that's not an argument. I say they are neccesary truths in music due to music's harmonic structures, they exist in princaple and are applied relative to the arrangment.

What's your counter?

This is, as far as it is about anything, about you claiming that OS012 can do something.

No, this is not about me claiming what OS 012 can do, that is ancedotal. This is about the theoritical structure of OS 012, that is what this is about.

One of the steps in using it, as far as I can tell, is to classify things as objective or subjective.

to classify 'meaning' into objective AND subjective, to be clearer.

We are trying to explain to you what these terms mean.

I dont think you all understand what objective and subjective really means, and it is me trying to explain to you what they mean. Clearly, we have some discrepancy in the conversation, no?

You have introduced music, claiming it is objectively beautiful.

I have introduced music claiming it's beauty is BOTH objective and subjective.

We (i.e. just about everyone else who didn't give up on this thread due to having a life) are attempting to explain that beauty is subjective, and that by the very definitions of the terms, as used in philosophical debate rather than journalism, photography or some other unrelated field, something cannot be both subjective and objective.

That is what your claiming, that is not what you are arguing.

So, you must find something beautiful in order to be attracted to it?

I guess by definition alone, yes, but your not defining attraction and you havent once yet defined beauty, so I doubt we are talking about the samething.

Name one, and please state here their definition of beauty.

I have already listed many links to formal papers, experiments, philosophical studies, contemplations, etc etc about this. I am not your librarian. I have already posted those links and will not summarize them for you, I dont have that kind of time.

Here is a google link which will help you find some of those.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Objective+Beauty&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

If there was an objective definition of human beauty, I think we might have exposed it by now.

We do, it's called symmetry.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-362X(197706)74:6<372:ANTOB>2.0.CO;2-0

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Objective+Beauty++symmetry&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Go on, give an example.

http://www.fractalzone.be/images/spirals/Symmetry-640x480.jpg

Measured how, exactly?

Visually by it's planar, radial, and geometrical harmonies. Sonically by it's aural harmonies. Subjectively by it's internal harmonies (thinking and feeling)

Gibberish.

Number Theory

You categorically stated what you believed music was composed of. You were wrong.

Music is composed of notes and beats arranged harmoniously. You failed to comprehend my meaning because you are stuck on language. Music is comprised of 12 notes that can be expressed in multiple harmonies, phrases, octaves, voicings, and rythyms.

The natural voicing, singing, when performed with perfect pitch, is objectively beautiful.

A note on its own has no rhythm. And I don't know what you mean by it being a rhythmic reference to a tone.

when I hit a note, I hit a beat by default.

The arranger or composer may make use of subjective experiences, but the arrangement itself is an objective construct.

so what? it's an subjective arrangement of ONE OBJECTIVE pattern of musical possibilities. Look at a musical mandala, the circle of fifths. Every single note and chord there is represented, and all music follows that pattern in some manifistation, whether the arranger or composer is aware of it or not.

It can be written down in musical notation, and the performance can be recorded and replayed. What is not objective about that?

It's objectfied on paper, and also on recording, but the process of choosing that particular arrangment was not objective, it was subjective.

In which case, I would submit that you would not describe that performance as 'beautiful'.

Beauty is both objective and subjective. I can say 'that's not beautiful to me' and still hold my meaning.

Since objective beauty does not exist, I'm not to worried about not being able to spot it.

Not interested in your claims or opinions, only your arguments.

You are currently the person whose posts I'm replying to (perhaps I do need to find a therapist). And you consistently misspell words which are a key part of your arguments, so it is particularly noticeable.

spelling is not a key part of my argument. In case you havent noticed, I have more than 10 people I have to keep up with here, dont have much time to post, and am dyslexic. Your observations about my spelling are irrelevant to my argument. I apologize for them, I know it takes one outside of the argument, but I also allow that to occur to make a further point about meaning. If you focused on meaning as much as spelling, you would get this much faster.

 

[WWHP]

To expand on my earlier succinct post that may have been overlooked.

Nope, wasnt over looked, it was deconstructed and refuted.

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

that a false idea cannot be in conflict with a true idea

So, how am I misinterpreting that statement?

By framing it statically.

The proposition in OS 012 says that all ideas are in conflict, or have the potential for conflict. Is that what you are refuting?


The statement "the earth is bigger than the sun" is contradictory to the statement "the sun is bigger than the earth" and is logically conflicting by default as an idea alone. It doesnt matter if no one believes it to be true, that's irrelevant. what is relevant is that it is logically contradictory and cannot function as a true idea with our current knowledge, and we know this through the conflict of idea.

when the verb to be is thrown into the mix, the conflict naturally arises, one must choose one over the other, they cannot simulataneously exist as true. Yet, if the phrase 'the earth is bigger than the sun" is used with the meaning that 'to our point of view, it appears the sun is much smaller than the earth, yet this is only illusion" it is not in conflict. Nor is the phrase "the earth is bigger than the sun" in conflict when viewed as an 'artistic expression' in a poem of some kind, which is an element of the FALSE value in OS 012.

The statement opens with 'Right now', placing us in the present.

yes, I got that, so? The idea is still in conflict with it's opposite for truth evaluation.

It's no longer debated because it is demonstrably true. There is no conflict

THere is no serious conflict, no, but in princaple, and in logic, those truth values conflict, regardless of the 'artistic' meaning of any possible usage.

The sentence reflects a logical meaning at face value, and is thus in conflict at face value. If the sentence holds a higher creative expression, it's meaning as true is thus not considered, and the ideas are not in conflict. They only conflict when they are considered for the same truth value.

Please send the $100 to the same place as before, assuming you still don't have the facility for online transfers.

Get a real argument first.

 

[WWHP]

If Bubblefish didn't want to discuss music, he shouldn't have introduced it into the thread, or made so many unsupported and incorrect assertions about it.

This discussion is about the objective/subjective qualities of music's beauty, it is not about musical theory. If you wish to continue to discuss music, that's fine, i dont mind, but ADDRESS The argument, not the single solitary confusion that was CLARIFIED numerous times.

By the way, are you or Bubblefish aware that it is against the forum rules for an account to be used by more than one person?

Shhh! Don't tell a soul! We have 5 people a day working on this thread;-)

The Agency

 

[WWHP]

Interesting. I've been reading a book "Imaginary Weapons", and have just gotten to the part where the terms "pseudo-science", "junk science", and "pathological science" are defined.

Pseudo-science is non-science veiled in scientific terms.

Junk science is science that uses questionable methods.

Pathological science revolves around a person who says that his ideas cannot be understood or his experiments replicated because everyone else is too stupid/incompentent to grasp it.

Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical statements

The agency

ETA: As a former music theory major, I'm really sorry I missed this discussion before BubbleSort clamped down on all dissent. However, the end result would undoubtedly have been the same.

Jump on in. My argument is that beauty is both subjective and objective. I introduced music as an example. harmony is naturally found to be pleasant to the ear, and is perfectly objectified in musical theory.

I would love to hear the musical theory that suggests music's beauty is purely subjective, cant wait to hear your argument.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Re being attracted to someone you don't find beautiful... Obviously BF has never heard of Borderline Boilers (The eye's say no, but the nuts say GO!).

then one is attracted to another beauty, another harmony, the beauty of sexual union, and it's third value result, orgasm. Sex is beautiful and alluring to every sexually healthy person that indeed we all have made mistakes in that department.

ahh, here is another one.

Sexual experience is two values at once. It is both an objectifiable event and a subjective experience.

"sex feels good" is an objective statement, and that is true. Yet there are those who are unable to enjoy sexual release (wont embaress any of you by mentioning your names here), yet this should not be considered as contradictory to the statement, for they are not sexually healthy. Sex feels good in healthy human beings because we are designed to experience erotic pleasure, yet if we are not in health, then our design is not able to compliment itself. Does that mean that sexual pleasure is not an objective qaulity of sexuality?

The sexual feeling, in a healthy human being, is both 'pleasure and pain' at once, highly contradictory it would appear, but perfectly explanatory as a description. It appears dopamine is the culprit. If our brains/nervous systems can handle two distinct contradictions at once, then so can we in our language and meaning.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=1003

 

[WWHP]

Just a small note: attraction starts with the visual, so they say; but it's clues about fertility, not symmetry or syncopation, that gets things rolling. If you're in close proximety to a person giving off the right pheremones at the right time, she could look like Phyllis Diller and you might find her attractive.

beauty is not neccesarily assosciated with sexual attraction. I am not homosexual, yet I can find a man's healthy physique to hold beauty, doenst mean I am attracted to him sexually.

As to discussion of Rome's unfounded and childish personal attacks: it is very telling that his OS012 discussion has pretty much broken down over his immature behavior. Further, he is only more deeply demonstrating his own hypocracy and simple-mindedness, by attacking others for 'magical thinking' when he himself has repeatedly discussed magical notions such as 'spiritual symmetry'.

Hey, your back to being satan guy again!

If your going to quote me, do it right. I never mentioned 'spiritual symmetry', I said 'metaphysical symmetry'.

Isn't it also interesting, that after accusing me of a personality disorder - well, before AND after, actually - that he himself has been posting in a purely bipolar fashion (i.e. The Agency)?

bubblefish is not responding to magical statements.

Regards,
The Agency

Are there any depths of hypocracy and childishness that OS012 does NOT bring a person down to?

are their any MORE deceptions you can try instead of the same tired old ones?

I noticed someone asked if they would be wrong to NOT consider Jolie beautiful, and it appears as if Rome answered that they would be incorrect, that they merely were unable to discover her beauty.

or that they were perhaps a delusional manipulator who holds a very subjective idea about beauty that is not even consistant with any notion of beauty.

Perhaps this is the wrong question. The right one should be, is it possible to find beauty where none exists?

no

If it is possible, then there should be established, explicit indicators of what is beautiful and what is not - which, by the way, there are not.

which by the way, there are. symmetry, harmony, and balance are found to be beautiful

If it is NOT possible, then Rome is faced with the very real possibility that, because different people find different things beautiful or NOT beautiful, accordingly, and because there is absolutely no universal agreement, then beauty must be subjective.

That doesnt follow from your premise. If it is not possible to find beauty where none exists, then it means it is only found WHERE it exists, either in objective reality, in subjective reality, or both in objective reality and subjective reality.

And all the waffling in the world about beauty being both subjective and objective is clearly nonsense.

Well then clearly it isnt.

In other words, if beauty is that which has to be discovered, then there must also exist those things in which no beauty may be discovered, which in turn means there would be universal agreement over things which are not beautiful.

If I find the beauty in poop, that beauty may rest soley inside of me (pardon the pun;-)

If beauty lies ready to be discovered in all things, then beauty becomes a useless term.

It is a usefull term to describe what one is discovering.

I find it interesting that this discussion is still continuing, though, even though from what evidence I gather, not one of his arguments is advancing.

The evidence of my arguments advancing is my ability to have futher rationalizations about beauty's o/s qualities while your rationalizations for it's pure subjective qualities cannot maintain themselves in continual tit for tat.

 

[WWHP]

Referring to himself - not only as The Agency, but as if he were distinct from the poster making the Agency posts.

Recall that Mojo jokingly pointed out that it's against forum rules for more than one person to use his account?

Bipolar Disorder manifests in this way, I've been told, among others...

Please show me the study which says that sarcasm and or role playing on message boards is evidence of bi polar disorder.

and while you searching for that paper, look up one or two on sociopathic disorders.


BF

 

[WWHP]

I just think that he is a pompous twat...

ahh, being called pompous by british academia is such a compliment.

 

[zooterkin]

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

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

The proposition in OS 012 says that all ideas are in conflict, or have the potential for conflict. Is that what you are refuting?

Make your mind up. Are true ideas in conflict with false ideas, or not?

The statement "the earth is bigger than the sun" is contradictory to the statement "the sun is bigger than the earth" and is logically conflicting by default as an idea alone. It doesnt matter if no one believes it to be true, that's irrelevant. what is relevant is that it is logically contradictory and cannot function as a true idea with our current knowledge, and we know this through the conflict of idea.

So, what do you do with this assertion, that any idea, however obviously true, is in 'conflict' with all the possible ideas one might construct which would imply its falsity?

What exactly do you mean by 'in conflict'?

when the verb to be is thrown into the mix, the conflict naturally arises, one must choose one over the other, they cannot simulataneously exist as true

Given the sentence, "Right now, the Sun is bigger than the Earth", what conflict 'naturally' arises? What must one choose over what? What are the 'they' which cannot simultaneously exist? Once we establish the truth of the statement, what conflict is there?

Yet, if the phrase 'the earth is bigger than the sun" is used with the meaning that 'to our point of view, it appears the sun is much smaller than the earth, yet this is only illusion" it is not in conflict. Nor is the phrase "the earth is bigger than the sun" in conflict when viewed as an 'artistic expression' in a poem of some kind, which is an element of the FALSE value in OS 012.

How about using the normal meaning of 'bigger', and not getting sidetracked into poetry. Note that the statement says 'is bigger' rather than 'looks bigger'.

yes, I got that, so? The idea is still in conflict with it's opposite for truth evaluation.

But one of the ideas is true, and one is false, and you stated that true ideas are not in conflict with false ideas.

THere is no serious conflict, no, but in princaple, and in logic, those truth values conflict, regardless of the 'artistic' meaning of any possible usage.

So, there's not a serious conflict. How many levels of severity are there? How are they judged? How do you make use of these different levels of conflict?

The sentence reflects a logical meaning at face value, and is thus in conflict at face value. If the sentence holds a higher creative expression, it's meaning as true is thus not considered, and the ideas are not in conflict. They only conflict when they are considered for the same truth value.

At conflict at face value with what? What is a higher creative expression? Why would its truth not be considered if it has one? What are 'they'?

 

[zooterkin]

yes they are neccesary truths of music. any piece of music has the potential to be arranged with numerous voicings in numerous ways due to it's harmonicstructures.

Harmony and syncopation are not necessary, since you can have music without them.

If you are going to counter me, make your argument, dont just make a counter claim, that's not an argument. I say they are neccesary truths in music due to music's harmonic structures, they exist in princaple and are applied relative to the arrangment.

What's your counter?

I, and others, have already given it. A single voice singing a nursery rhyme in strict time has no syncopation or harmony.

No, this is not about me claiming what OS 012 can do, that is ancedotal. This is about the theoritical structure of OS 012, that is what this is about.

since you haven't stated the theoretical structure of OS012, it's hard to see how we can discuss it.

to classify 'meaning' into objective AND subjective, to be clearer.

Define 'objective' and 'subjective' for us again, go on, I could do with a laugh.

I dont think you all understand what objective and subjective really means, and it is me trying to explain to you what they mean. Clearly, we have some discrepancy in the conversation, no?

I think you'll find, as has been stated several times before, that we all do understand objective and subjective. You are the one who doesn't.

I have introduced music claiming it's beauty is BOTH objective and subjective.

Claiming anything is... Sorry, I just can't be bothered, you've heard it all before and won't listen.

 

[WWHP]

That doesn't make it a universal truth value Bubb, those things are just unknown at the moment, so what?

Do you know what universal means? It means in this sense the same for everypoint of view. Every point of view has something that is either unknown, known to be true, and known to be false. There is not ONE POINT OF VIEW that does not share those functions of our metalogic.

Try looking at T,F, and M not as things, but as 'functions' of our brains/minds. They are things in and of themselves.

I still don't know how that relates in any way to a third value of truth. You are simply asking someone to convey their knowledge to you, so what?

You asked me to show how the third value relates to the socratic method. So I asked you a QUESTION.

A question IS A THIRD VALUE IDEA. A QUESTION IS A MYSTERIOUS IDEA.

I know I exist not when I think, nor when I feel, but when I both think and feel.

Sorry Bubb, more basic wrongness on your part. From here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4

"I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (Med. 2, AT 7:25)
As the canonical formulation has it, I think therefore I am (Latin: cogito ergo sum; French: je pense, donc je suis)—a formulation which does not expressly arise in the Meditations."

Nothing about feeling in there.

Of course not, that's the problem, like I said, it's not COMPLETE. OS 012 completes the cognito. our feeling is the essence of our 'being'. To feel is to 'be'. Yet we cannot know that is 'being' without thinking. So your old school flat philosophical argument that you posted is lopsided and unbalanced.

If it's unbalanced, it's simply not a beautiful philosophy. guess why?

It sounds to me Bubb like you fundamentally have not understood the problem of the cogito.

The problem with cogito is that it is unbalanced and not complete. OS 012 completes it. There is no longer any more problem.

Have a read here Bubb: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4

The most fundamental thing is this: I know that I exist since, if I think then there must exist an "I" to do the thinking, but I cannot be sure about anything other than that.

You know you exist long before you discover the cognito. It's called your feelings. Metaconsciously, you know you exist, it is implicit, yet there perhaps is no language or logical structure that you can relate it too until you discover cognito.

Once i am sure I exist, I am sure you all exist too with the same equal certainty of my own existence. My own existence presupposes a reality in which to exist in. I exist in an environment. I am certain about that. I am just as certain about that as I am existing. There is no philosophical cut of point for certainty, there is only the foundation for certainty, which is being.

We all 'be' because we all think and feel. I am certain that you think and feel. Absolutly certain of it.

I don't know in what form I exist since I may only be dreaming that I have a body.

Through the process of discussion with others (my philosopher buddy calls it 'triangulation') you can come to see that you are not dreaming for certain.

More crucially for your argument, I certainly cannot be sure that you, much less “all of us”, exist since there is no possible argument that can prove to me that you are not a figment of my imagination. Try it. Try to prove to me that you (and therefore we) exist.

Language is proof that we exist. It's only function is too transmit information from point of view to point of view. If there is no mutual existence, there is no knowledge of self, no language to model self, no realization of self.

If only you exist, from whom did you learn language or develop your knowledge of self? If you are imagining this, from where did you develop the concept 'imagination'?

Dialectic certainly cannot be used to prove that you or anyone (anything) else exists since its very nature presupposes the existence of someone to have a dialectic with.

Dialectic itself is evidence of mutual existence. There can be no exchange of points of view if there are no points of view to exchange.

All your arguments about objective reality go completely out the window since if you cannot prove to me that you exist then proving that reality exists through mutual viewability is impossible.

language and meaning is my proof that I exist. I wish I could transcribe my friends triangulation argument right now, it's so simple and elegant, but I forget his points. He says that as long as there are two points of view that appear in your 'illusion' about existence, you can determine through a set of questions (ahem, dialectic) to the points of view and find either proof of the dream or proof of objective reality.

I cannot know who I am without you. You cannot know who you are without me. Without each other, none of us exist.

BF

 

[Mojo]

Without each other, none of us exist.

Are you saying that, for example, without my brother, I wouldn't exist?

 

[flimflam_machine]

That doesn't make it a universal truth value Bubb, those things are just unknown at the moment, so what?

Do you know what universal means? It means in this sense the same for everypoint of view. Every point of view has something that is either unknown, known to be true, and known to be false.

Taking the statement "flimflam's trousers are blue" that statement is unknown to you but false to me (if we slip into ternary logic for a moment). So unknown is demonstrably not a universal truth value, since it differs according to the point of view. That statement is objectively false, it can't be objectively unknown.

A question IS A THIRD VALUE IDEA. A QUESTION IS A MYSTERIOUS IDEA.

So questions can be "ideas" too. So "flimflam's trousers are blue" and "are flimflam's trousers blue?" are both ideas? Muy confusing Bubbster.

Of course not, that's the problem, like I said, it's not COMPLETE. OS 012 completes the cognito. our feeling is the essence of our 'being'. To feel is to 'be'. Yet we cannot know that is 'being' without thinking. So your old school flat philosophical argument that you posted is lopsided and unbalanced.

If it's unbalanced, it's simply not a beautiful philosophy. guess why?
...
The problem with cogito is that it is unbalanced and not complete. OS 012 completes it. There is no longer any more problem.

Firstly it's "the cogito" not "the cognito" since it is "cogito ergo sum".

Secondly, it's incomplete? Possibly the best known philosophical argument in history that has been debated for hundreds of years by some of the greatest minds we have ever known is incomplete, and your system has completed it? If I didn't already think that you were wildly delusional Bubb, this would just about put the tin lid on it.

You know you exist long before you discover the cognito. It's called your feelings. Metaconsciously, you know you exist, it is implicit, yet there perhaps is no language or logical structure that you can relate it too until you discover cognito.

That is the point of the cogito Bubb, that my thinking is proof of my (and only "my") existence. The fact that it is summed up in "cogito ergo sum" is nice but in many ways it's a surprise that nobody came up with it before Descartes.

Once i am sure I exist, I am sure you all exist too with the same equal certainty of my own existence. My own existence presupposes a reality in which to exist in. I exist in an environment. I am certain about that. I am just as certain about that as I am existing. There is no philosophical cut of point for certainty, there is only the foundation for certainty, which is being.

No Bubb, you have clearly missed the point here. To quote from the link that I posted (which I'm not convinced you've read):

"First, a first-person formulation is essential to the certainty of the cogito. Third-person claims, such as “Icarus thinks,” or “Descartes thinks,” are not unshakably certain—not for me, at any rate; only the occurrence of my thought has a chance of resisting hyperbolic doubt."

So I do not have the same level of certainty of your existence as I do of my own. A quick thought experiment: Imagine that I do not actually exist. Imagine that I am merely an alien brain in a jar and all my perceptions, experiences and feelings are produced by some all-powerful being manipulating the brain. That hypothesis explains everything (yes, everything) that I feel, experience and think just as well as the hypothesis that I am a homo sapien male sat in front of a computer on Earth. My entire perception of reality including this discussion and any conversation that I might get into could all be a feature of that simulation. So dialectic, in as much as it involves communication between two parties is no proof of the nature of objective reality since it cannot be proved that the communication, nor the parties involved, actually exist

We all 'be' because we all think and feel. I am certain that you think and feel. Absolutly certain of it.

Then you have not understood that the cogito implies a complete level of certainty beyond what you feel here.

Language is proof that we exist. It's only function is too transmit information from point of view to point of view. If there is no mutual existence, there is no knowledge of self, no language to model self, no realization of self.
...
Dialectic itself is evidence of mutual existence. There can be no exchange of points of view if there are no points of view to exchange.

Nope, because the point of view with which you exchange points of view could conceivably be a construct of a simulation by some cruel omnipotent being.

If only you exist, from whom did you learn language or develop your knowledge of self? If you are imagining this, from where did you develop the concept 'imagination'?

The knowledge of language is just another part of the simulation by the cruel omnipotent being. My knowledge of self exists only in that I think, and by the very act of thinking, I prove to myself that I (the thing that thinks) exist.

language and meaning is my proof that I exist. I wish I could transcribe my friends triangulation argument right now, it's so simple and elegant, but I forget his points. He says that as long as there are two points of view that appear in your 'illusion' about existence, you can determine through a set of questions (ahem, dialectic) to the points of view and find either proof of the dream or proof of objective reality.

If he has a solid refutation for the cogito I'd be interested to hear it, but this really doesn't sound like one. Any conversation that I have and any answer that I get to any question that I put could simply be part of the simulation. Have you never had a conversation in a dream?

I cannot know who I am without you. You cannot know who you are without me. Without each other, none of us exist.

As you would say: a claim; not an argument. In this case it is a completely nonsensical claim too.

 

[zooterkin]

dude, I clarified my meaning of that word after I realized it failed to communicate my meaning.

The word 'may' be inappropiate or not, but MY MEANING IS INDEED SOUND.

How can the meaning be sound when you are using the wrong word?

Get a real argument, stop harrassing me for using a 'word' that is used in a different context to my meaning.

No, you used the wrong word, repeatedly.

I clarified my meaning, that is all you need.

You did no such thing, you even repeated your mistaken assertion several times after having been given the opportunity to correct it. As I believe you Americans say, you were called on it. I'm not harrassing you, I'm attempting to get you to recognise what you are doing.

It's just another example of your apparent inability to understand that communication depends on a common understanding of the words being used. If you have your own private definitions of words, then you need to provide those definitions when you use the words. If you are privately using 'syncopation' to mean what everyone else calls 'rhythm', and 'harmony' to mean 'melody' (which seems to be the closest meanings I can think of that would make your statement anywhere near valid), then you need to state that, otherwise everyone will assume the generally accepted meanings, and point out the flaws in your statements.

However, I wouldn't recommend persisting with this, as others will find it tiresome.

This is not simply picking at nits. You make the claim that music is objectively beautiful. If you then say that the minimum for music is 'syncopation' and 'harmony', beauty must detectable in that combination. So the next step would be for you to propose some way of identifying beautiful combinations of syncopation and harmony. This rather falls apart since not all music contains syncopation and harmony, so the assertion fails.

You are the one proposing that beauty is objective, so the onus falls on you to demonstrate this. What value for beauty do you place on "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who? What about Beethoven's 5th symphony? How does each value vary with the performance? If beauty is objective, it must be quantifiable, since independent observers must be able to reach the same conclusion. (We're ignoring, as you seem to, that quite clearly different observers disagree about the beauty of different pieces of music, as they do about the beauty of different people. But, hey, that's what subjective means.)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Oh my goodness - he doesn't even understand "I think, therefore I am"? He thinks it can be extended to mean that we can be absolutely sure of other people's existence?

*shakes head in utter dismay....*

 

[flimflam_machine]

One note cannot set a tempo since without a pre-determined rhythm you cannot say whether it is a crotchet, a minim, a quaver or whatever

Yes you can, musicians do it all the time. If I hit one single note on the piano, even accidently, a musician can immediatly answer that back with a complimentary note and continue a rythym. A drummer can hear one simple down beat and jump right in.

Missing the point again! You can jump back in with further notes and a beat but the point is that with just one note any beat and any melody would be valid because there is no established structure. If you just play a C for one second I could reply with a beat or melody that is 4/4, 3/4, 2/5, 5/4, 13/8 or whatever. I could play the next note quickly and make it allegro or wait a bit longer and make it adagio. I could make the next note an E and imply a major key or Eb and imply a minor key.

A single note does not specify any of the ways in which the following music will procede. Syncopation and harmony are possibilities, but the music can procede quite happily without them.



ETA: Yes indeedy Prof Yaff. My first thought was "Holy f&*k, I'm discussing certainty with a man who doesn't understand the cogito!"