Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
Yup, I was about 12 when I came to that conclusion: wondering if one could be certain of anything except one's own existance, then what if one was only part of a dream...
As I have the "sensation" of free will (sentience) I know that I do exist. I do not know whether my memories or recollections are true and if they ever existed, I am only certain that I /my current thoughts) exist now.
As you said flimflam_machine, this is relevant, as BF would have to put everything (other than his own existance) into the mystery category, which makes it fairly pointless.
I choose to live with the uncertainty, and for the sake of argument accept the existance of an external reality that (given minor illusions/halcinations etc) is as perceived (with tools). I also choose to accept causality, so I can function.
From this it is a minor step to accept some scientific laws, which are based on billions of observations.
Didn't BF think that pain was objective?
Yes:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2471414#post2471414
And people who are incapable of feeling pain, due to anaesthesia, or illness?
OS 0 1 2 for Slowpokes
An immediate empirical experiment to view the three values operating in your mind in a few simple steps.
1.) Simply stare at this text, while you read this text, do not look behind you. This text is the first value, 1, and is true. Your images and ideas of this text are confirmed by objective reality, you are viewing them with your eyes.
2.) Keep Staring at this text, but think about, without turning your head, what is behind you. What does 'behind' you look like without turning around? Perhaps you are at work or home, and are quite familiar with your environment enough to give a decent description of what is behind you right now. Yet, without turning around, 'behind you' is the third value, mystery, and your mental description of the mystery is from the past, an idea or conceptual construct that can serve the purpose of modeling what is unviewable unless you turn your head.
3.) This idea you have about what is behind you is the two value. The text you are looking at is the first value, and behind you is the unknown value.
4.)You have certainty about this text, you are viewing it in real time, in the present moment. You assume what behind you is similar to what is going on in your head, but your image is not what is really behind you, it's just an image.
5.)we have certainty with that which is viewable, it's form is what is present. we have 'closeness' with our two values, our images that we construct to 'fill in the blanks' of that which we cannot view. That which we cannot view holds us at no certainty as to it's condition in the present moment.
6.) Future is Mystery, Past is False, and Present is True.
7.) This is the realm of the three values in modeling and communication that OS 012 addresses. It is a perfect model of objective/subjective reality and the variations of truth that we use to navigate.
8.) I don't know what has taken many of you so long to address the fundamental points in OS 012, I will respond to your misunderstandings when I return. I am quite busy these days and apologize for my absence, this coming week you may not see so much of me, but i will try to keep up like I normally do with my busy schedule regardless.
9.) Dont let spelling errors or grammars confuse you, you dont need to express the three values in logical symbolism for them to be viewed, they are always occuring.
10.) Of course, blind people cannot perform this experiment, so it must not hold any objective truth value for us, eh Jimbob?
BF
An immediate empirical experiment to view the three values operating in your mind in a few simple steps.
1.) Simply stare at this text, while you read this text, do not look behind you. This text is the first value, 1, and is true. Your images and ideas of this text are confirmed by objective reality, you are viewing them with your eyes.
2.) Keep Staring at this text, but think about, without turning your head, what is behind you. What does 'behind' you look like without turning around? Perhaps you are at work or home, and are quite familiar with your environment enough to give a decent description of what is behind you right now. Yet, without turning around, 'behind you' is the third value, mystery, and your mental description of the mystery is from the past, an idea or conceptual construct that can serve the purpose of modeling what is unviewable unless you turn your head.
3.) This idea you have about what is behind you is the two value. The text you are looking at is the first value, and behind you is the unknown value.
4.)You have certainty about this text, you are viewing it in real time, in the present moment. You assume what behind you is similar to what is going on in your head, but your image is not what is really behind you, it's just an image.
5.)we have certainty with that which is viewable, it's form is what is present. we have 'closeness' with our two values, our images that we construct to 'fill in the blanks' of that which we cannot view. That which we cannot view holds us at no certainty as to it's condition in the present moment.
6.) Future is Mystery, Past is False, and Present is True.
7.) This is the realm of the three values in modeling and communication that OS 012 addresses. It is a perfect model of objective/subjective reality and the variations of truth that we use to navigate.
8.) I don't know what has taken many of you so long to address the fundamental points in OS 012, I will respond to your misunderstandings when I return. I am quite busy these days and apologize for my absence, this coming week you may not see so much of me, but i will try to keep up like I normally do with my busy schedule regardless.
9.) Dont let spelling errors or grammars confuse you, you dont need to express the three values in logical symbolism for them to be viewed, they are always occuring.
10.) Of course, blind people cannot perform this experiment, so it must not hold any objective truth value for us, eh Jimbob?
BF
Last edited:
The whole point is that I do not have *certainty* about what any of my sensations mean, however I choose to act (think that I act) as if I do.
Given that caveat, I can then decide that the above is a sterile area for discussion, and then accept that it is easier to assume a measurable, external reality. POMO gets boring after a while.
What does this mean? Why is past false?
I see what you are getting at with the other two, but think that this again adds little value to any assessment of past, present and future.
That wasn't my point.
You seem to be attempting to define certain sensations/opinions as being objective. The main criterion seems to be that these are universally experienced sensations.
Firstly I do not accept the existance of universally experienced sensations.
Secondly I would say that is not enough to define an objective truth.
Would everyone feel cold in an Antarctic blizzard in insufficient clothing? Would this sensation of cold thus be "objective".
If you get back to beauty and Angelina Jolie. You state that she is objectively beautiful, which I assume means that everyone would enjoy looking at her. You seem to equate female beauty in this case with cues as to reproductive fitness. Do you think that heterosexual women would all agree on AJ's beauty? Even by your criteria, how can something be objectively true if a large proportion of the poplulation doesn't agree on it?
If you get back to beauty and Angelina Jolie. You state that she is objectively beautiful, which I assume means that everyone would enjoy looking at her. You seem to equate female beauty in this case with cues as to reproductive fitness. Do you think that heterosexual women would all agree on AJ's beauty? Even by your criteria, how can something be objectively true if a large proportion of the poplulation doesn't agree on it?
I argue that sensations and aesthetic judgements are subjective. Objective truths are independant of the observer. Measurable quantities are by definition objective truths.
As I said before POMO is boring, so I choose a pragmatic approach to this, I would argue that some things can be objectively true or false, but probably unknowable for *certain*. Historical events for example; incidents in the US civil war did happen, but we can't be certain as to how or what.
Then there are some metaphysical questions that are unknowable. Does Thor exist? The answer is that he either does or he doesn't but we can't know for certain.
Jim
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Because if Rome defines future as unknown and present is true, past has to be false as he has to shoehorn everything neatly into his three values.
Z
Variable Constant
Well, thanks to putting Rome on ignore all this time, I've had time to finish writing my book. It's in the mail as of yesterday, off to the publishers. I've decided to call it "Ternary Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide for Pagans and Wiccans." Luckily, I got the in-depth stuff - Miss Tree was a big help - and since OS012 (which I am now calling Triptych) is open source, this ought to be a big money maker for me.
I see Bubble's not discussing music any more - conveniently for him. Having made his assertions and shown his chronic ineptitude for the umpteenth time we can pretend he never mentioned music. This is why he says the past is false. His past is false.
Bubble continues bubbling along on, drowning in a sea of his own falsehoods.
Btw, do we have any converts to BS 012 yet? After how many thousand posts is it?
As the man said, "there's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all".
Bubble continues bubbling along on, drowning in a sea of his own falsehoods.
Btw, do we have any converts to BS 012 yet? After how many thousand posts is it?
As the man said, "there's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all".
Last edited:
Z
Variable Constant
April's fool.
Actually his comment about me writing an idiot's guide version for Wiccans did make me think for a moment about something similar: a guide for Wiccans about critical thinking and logical thought. Just not sure how far it'd make it.
April's fool.
And there I was, thinking you were just being sarcastic...
Out of interest, apart from marketing and getting the book into the lucrative (Mind Body and Spirit, aka M BS) section of bookshops, are there any specific pagan/wiccan angles/requirements for critical thinking?
Jim
This is all I have time for now, Hopefully I can get to one or two tommorow.
I am quite consistant. It appears to you the way it does because you are attempting to frame this statically, and it is dynamic.
No. But you dont understand what the false idea is yet so it is understandable that you are confused here.
Your interpretting false as incorrect, and that is not what 'false' is in and of itself. The statement x is bigger than y is a formulation that presents a false idea as TRUE in relationship to y is bigger than x.
All ideas can be viewed through three values and pass through all three values. That's what your not accounting for. I dont have to attempt to be analytically true if I say the 'earth is bigger than the sun' if I address that idea creatively or falsely. I could use that in a poem, or a prose, or to explain some other point. That is when there is no conflict, because you dont assume I mean that literally.
Look up at the sky and see the full moon. It 'appears' the exact same size as the sun, the astronomical odds of such illusion is astounding but that's how it appears. If I point at a solar eclipse and state 'they are both the same size', that is a descriptive truth of the appearance, and is not in conflict with astronomy. Yet taken at face value, that statement is in conflict with 'the sun is bigger than the earth' or assumes then that the 'moon is therefore bigger than the earth'.
It is in conflict with those ideas in their 'true' values, not their false values or even unknown values. It's like we were talking earlier, about music and notes. One note implies all other notes and harmonies by default, even if they are niether heard nor composed. Any truth by default is accepted as true only through the conflict of idea epistemologically.
In OS 012, conflict is defined as two or more conceptual or physical distinctions that wish to occupy the same conceptual or physical space at the same time. When we consider truth, it's function in our psyche's, it allows only for one truth to govern one event in one moment, you dont have a set of options to play with, and if you have more than one truth competing, you have confusion or uncertainty. where as false ideas are not so strict, there can be an almost infinite number of false ideas to every true idea, each one a distinct 'riff' on the theme of true.
What do you mean 'naturally' arises?
In 2007, that conflict of idea has already been resolved ages ago, and 'the sun is bigger than the earth' is a master meme, an idea that defines reality about our astronomy more effeciently than the earth is the center of the universe and the sun is the same size as the moon. That idea defeated all ideas in conflict with it and continues to defeat all ideas in conflict with it, as I imagine our astronomy would still outcompete the astronomy of the bushman in africa, whom still may hold that the earth is the galactic center and the sun and the moon are the same size.
I would imagine 500 years ago, or more, the idea that the sun was bigger than the earth would have arisen much conflict, as astronomy was more mysterious and mystical.
the verb to be acts like the = operator. when we say 'it is', we are saying it is true and exists. Since it is true and exists, it is describing objectively viewable reality, therefore, any statement whose truth value is 'is not' is immediatly in conflict, and one must choose which truth they percieve or agree with, logically both cannot appear to be true unless you encounter paradox, right?
There is God. There is NO God.
There are WMD in Iraq. There are no WMD in Iraq.
Sunni's are the true inheritors of Islam. Shia are the true inheritors of Islam.
Sometimes the presuppositions of our beliefs conflict with the presuppositions of other beliefs, even though our arguments do not address the presuppositions.
For example, in world politics, evangelicals and Israeli Jews agree on Israel and have found a mutualy benificial relationship, yet the presuppositions of both's points of view completly conflict, and at some point, so will they, just as they have historically for over 1000 years.
Well, depends. what statement? 2 + 2 = 4, in princaple, is in conflict with 2 + 2 =5, yet who argues for that? Well, no one does after they learn addition, but while learning addition, that conflict of idea may occur in fundamental stages of learning, until the person 'upgrades' to the master meme of proper addition which we all can agree on.
The conflict of idea at some point produces what I call 'master memes', ideas which govern reality more effecienty and easier than all previous ideas in conflict with it. Master memes then synthesize with other master memes, producing what Hegel called the 'historical dialectic'. From simple addition and subtraction we slowly created higher maths, even to this day. Godel's theorums wernt considered as true immedialty by other logicians, a conflict had to occur, a paradigm shift (see Thoman Kuhn), which only occurs through a conflict of idea.
As a poet, I can use what ever I want. I can say 'the moon is the same size as the sun, only the gods would produce such perfect art' and that phrase could have relational truth in my composition, it would relate a higher meaning. It's not the statement, it's the meaning of the statement, how the truth value is used to communicate something.
The ternary logic of OS 012 is for ideas, not statements. Ideas are our 'meaning'. Our meaning can only be understood as either 0, 1, or 2 as defined in OS 012. The statements of our meaning are almost irrelevant.
Your interpretation of false is an idea which asserts a truth value that is incorrect. OS 012 definition of false is a subjective idea that models an soley internal event. OS 012's definition still would agree that a idea that asserts a truth value that is not represented in objective reality is still incorrect, yet it's value is then looked up at a higher metalogical level, and the pure 'false' meaning, which relates a different truth than it's actual phrase, is not in conflict.
It's not so complex as you query it to be. In princaple, as a rule of logic, when two or more conflicting statements hold the same = operator two distinct logical symbols, there is a conflict for the truth value, both can't possibly be true. The levels or layers of that are epistemological.
When ideas are asserted or believed to be true, there is conflict, it is no more complex than that. Stating 'the earth is bigger than the sun' is an assertion or a prosaic description. As an assertion, it is in conflict, as a prosaic description, there is no conflict.
The face value of x is bigger than y as opposed to y is bigger than x is the logical conflict. If one of those statements held a distinct creative description, then the conflict simply is not there.
Take for example the conflict of idea regarding the moon's composition.
http://www.objectivethought.com/science/cheese.html
Now, are you really going to say there is a real conflict of idea there, or was it used to communicate another truth in a playful and creative sense?
the true meaning or intention of the person making the claim. Take The Colbert Report. We DONT take his words at face value, rather, we take them at thier higher creative expression and get the joke, and often an objective insight.
For any number of reasons, welcome to the chaotic world of human communication, or human miscommunication if you will.
BF
I am quite consistant. It appears to you the way it does because you are attempting to frame this statically, and it is dynamic.
No. But you dont understand what the false idea is yet so it is understandable that you are confused here.
Your interpretting false as incorrect, and that is not what 'false' is in and of itself. The statement x is bigger than y is a formulation that presents a false idea as TRUE in relationship to y is bigger than x.
All ideas can be viewed through three values and pass through all three values. That's what your not accounting for. I dont have to attempt to be analytically true if I say the 'earth is bigger than the sun' if I address that idea creatively or falsely. I could use that in a poem, or a prose, or to explain some other point. That is when there is no conflict, because you dont assume I mean that literally.
Look up at the sky and see the full moon. It 'appears' the exact same size as the sun, the astronomical odds of such illusion is astounding but that's how it appears. If I point at a solar eclipse and state 'they are both the same size', that is a descriptive truth of the appearance, and is not in conflict with astronomy. Yet taken at face value, that statement is in conflict with 'the sun is bigger than the earth' or assumes then that the 'moon is therefore bigger than the earth'.
It is in conflict with those ideas in their 'true' values, not their false values or even unknown values. It's like we were talking earlier, about music and notes. One note implies all other notes and harmonies by default, even if they are niether heard nor composed. Any truth by default is accepted as true only through the conflict of idea epistemologically.
In OS 012, conflict is defined as two or more conceptual or physical distinctions that wish to occupy the same conceptual or physical space at the same time. When we consider truth, it's function in our psyche's, it allows only for one truth to govern one event in one moment, you dont have a set of options to play with, and if you have more than one truth competing, you have confusion or uncertainty. where as false ideas are not so strict, there can be an almost infinite number of false ideas to every true idea, each one a distinct 'riff' on the theme of true.
What do you mean 'naturally' arises?
In 2007, that conflict of idea has already been resolved ages ago, and 'the sun is bigger than the earth' is a master meme, an idea that defines reality about our astronomy more effeciently than the earth is the center of the universe and the sun is the same size as the moon. That idea defeated all ideas in conflict with it and continues to defeat all ideas in conflict with it, as I imagine our astronomy would still outcompete the astronomy of the bushman in africa, whom still may hold that the earth is the galactic center and the sun and the moon are the same size.
I would imagine 500 years ago, or more, the idea that the sun was bigger than the earth would have arisen much conflict, as astronomy was more mysterious and mystical.
the verb to be acts like the = operator. when we say 'it is', we are saying it is true and exists. Since it is true and exists, it is describing objectively viewable reality, therefore, any statement whose truth value is 'is not' is immediatly in conflict, and one must choose which truth they percieve or agree with, logically both cannot appear to be true unless you encounter paradox, right?
There is God. There is NO God.
There are WMD in Iraq. There are no WMD in Iraq.
Sunni's are the true inheritors of Islam. Shia are the true inheritors of Islam.
Sometimes the presuppositions of our beliefs conflict with the presuppositions of other beliefs, even though our arguments do not address the presuppositions.
For example, in world politics, evangelicals and Israeli Jews agree on Israel and have found a mutualy benificial relationship, yet the presuppositions of both's points of view completly conflict, and at some point, so will they, just as they have historically for over 1000 years.
Well, depends. what statement? 2 + 2 = 4, in princaple, is in conflict with 2 + 2 =5, yet who argues for that? Well, no one does after they learn addition, but while learning addition, that conflict of idea may occur in fundamental stages of learning, until the person 'upgrades' to the master meme of proper addition which we all can agree on.
The conflict of idea at some point produces what I call 'master memes', ideas which govern reality more effecienty and easier than all previous ideas in conflict with it. Master memes then synthesize with other master memes, producing what Hegel called the 'historical dialectic'. From simple addition and subtraction we slowly created higher maths, even to this day. Godel's theorums wernt considered as true immedialty by other logicians, a conflict had to occur, a paradigm shift (see Thoman Kuhn), which only occurs through a conflict of idea.
As a poet, I can use what ever I want. I can say 'the moon is the same size as the sun, only the gods would produce such perfect art' and that phrase could have relational truth in my composition, it would relate a higher meaning. It's not the statement, it's the meaning of the statement, how the truth value is used to communicate something.
The ternary logic of OS 012 is for ideas, not statements. Ideas are our 'meaning'. Our meaning can only be understood as either 0, 1, or 2 as defined in OS 012. The statements of our meaning are almost irrelevant.
Your interpretation of false is an idea which asserts a truth value that is incorrect. OS 012 definition of false is a subjective idea that models an soley internal event. OS 012's definition still would agree that a idea that asserts a truth value that is not represented in objective reality is still incorrect, yet it's value is then looked up at a higher metalogical level, and the pure 'false' meaning, which relates a different truth than it's actual phrase, is not in conflict.
It's not so complex as you query it to be. In princaple, as a rule of logic, when two or more conflicting statements hold the same = operator two distinct logical symbols, there is a conflict for the truth value, both can't possibly be true. The levels or layers of that are epistemological.
When ideas are asserted or believed to be true, there is conflict, it is no more complex than that. Stating 'the earth is bigger than the sun' is an assertion or a prosaic description. As an assertion, it is in conflict, as a prosaic description, there is no conflict.
The face value of x is bigger than y as opposed to y is bigger than x is the logical conflict. If one of those statements held a distinct creative description, then the conflict simply is not there.
Take for example the conflict of idea regarding the moon's composition.
http://www.objectivethought.com/science/cheese.html
Now, are you really going to say there is a real conflict of idea there, or was it used to communicate another truth in a playful and creative sense?
the true meaning or intention of the person making the claim. Take The Colbert Report. We DONT take his words at face value, rather, we take them at thier higher creative expression and get the joke, and often an objective insight.
For any number of reasons, welcome to the chaotic world of human communication, or human miscommunication if you will.
BF
April's fool.
Actually his comment about me writing an idiot's guide version for Wiccans did make me think for a moment about something similar: a guide for Wiccans about critical thinking and logical thought. Just not sure how far it'd make it.
Then you should just write a book about critical thinking, for, by default, critical thinking would be the same for everyone that it is for wiccans or James Randi, it's just objectivity and rational thinking, one for all.
I already told you you're cleared to write OS 012 and the Occult. If your book doesnt contain the ternary elements of OS 012, then your book will be a bizzarre contradiction that will hardly illuminate either critical thinking or wicca. I have had a few occultists really dig OS 012, and supposedly, according to them, combining OS 012 on the tree of life was, and I paraphrase; 'so synergistic it even scared them'.
Not according to the Witch School which Z has gone on record as endorsing.
http://www.witchschool.com/
Only a ternary philosophy or framework can honestly make a bridge between the esoteric and exoteric, the objective and the mystical.
The only Occultist that I know of that insisted on critical or analytical thinking was Alister Crowley. His 'Thelema' was also a ternary framework. Robert Anton Wilson, whom I would not describe as an occultist but certainly explored the occult also insisted on deep skepticism and critical thinking. He also started 'Maybe Logic', again, a ternary framework. So they already beat Z to the punch.
Last edited:
Oh, silly, silly me.
Z
Variable Constant
Not particularly... in fact, critical thinking is almost taboo among the Pagan/Wiccan followers. Suspension of disbelief is necessary all too often dealing with the New Age crowd. You think the Christians are hot on faith over evidence? Pheh.
Sadly, if there's one place a wishy-washy 'philosophy' like this one could gain ground, it's the New Age crowd. Remember, these are some of the same people who believe strongly in the threefold law of karma - that every good or ill that you do comes back to you threefold.
Isn't that kind of like an overenergy claim? It certainly goes against the idea of universal balance that many of them also hold dear...
I have a feeling that any treatise on skeptical thinking published for the New Age section would gather a goodly amount of dust.
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
I find it really telling that, although this discussion has spiralled off into some really fascinating areas such as logic, epistemology, objective reality, subjective experience etc., whenever we get back to the fundamentals of OS012 it becomes mind-numbingly mundane and trivial.
Following Bubb's OS012 for dummies (is there any other kind), what I've learnt is the following. For clarification items that I already knew are marked with "*"
*Bubb insists on not using "true" and "false" in the generally accepted way. Many of the links posted on philosophy point out that phrases like "Tigers are true" are essentially meaningless if they simply mean "Tigers are real". Yet, Bubb insists on using the word "true" to describe all things that exist.
*The content of conscious experience at any one time is a representation of only part of external reality. We can't be absolutely sure that what is outside of that representation hasn't changed in an unexpected way.
*It person A expresses a statement and person B expresses the negation of that statement then there is potential for conflict. For example: A says "the moon is made of rock", B says "the moon is not made of rock".
*However if person B makes a statement that only implies the negation of the first statement e.g., "the moon is made of cheese" [and therefore not of rock], it is possible that they are using it in a figurative, metaphorical or poetic way. In this case it is not worth person A getting into conflict about the clash of statements, since person B's statement was not a serious, scientific claim about the composition of the moon.
New understanding of OS012 = nil.
Understanding of the world gained via OS012 = nil.
I'm waiting for his interesting responses to my restating of Z's model and our points about his failure to understand the cogito.
Following Bubb's OS012 for dummies (is there any other kind), what I've learnt is the following. For clarification items that I already knew are marked with "*"
*Bubb insists on not using "true" and "false" in the generally accepted way. Many of the links posted on philosophy point out that phrases like "Tigers are true" are essentially meaningless if they simply mean "Tigers are real". Yet, Bubb insists on using the word "true" to describe all things that exist.
*The content of conscious experience at any one time is a representation of only part of external reality. We can't be absolutely sure that what is outside of that representation hasn't changed in an unexpected way.
*It person A expresses a statement and person B expresses the negation of that statement then there is potential for conflict. For example: A says "the moon is made of rock", B says "the moon is not made of rock".
*However if person B makes a statement that only implies the negation of the first statement e.g., "the moon is made of cheese" [and therefore not of rock], it is possible that they are using it in a figurative, metaphorical or poetic way. In this case it is not worth person A getting into conflict about the clash of statements, since person B's statement was not a serious, scientific claim about the composition of the moon.
New understanding of OS012 = nil.
Understanding of the world gained via OS012 = nil.
What fundamental points? All that Bubb has done is swung wildly between stating the blindingly obvious and vastly overstretching his understanding of many fields and redefining words to try to mask his failure to understand.
I'm waiting for his interesting responses to my restating of Z's model and our points about his failure to understand the cogito.
Last edited:
|
..
..
Last edited:
"Right now, the Sun is bigger than the Earth"
How is this different from saying, "'The Earth is bigger than the Sun' is false"?
What benefit do you gain from this obfuscation? I think you are damaging your ability to think clearly by unnecessary levels of indirection.
I'm sorry, for some reason your meaning is not clear. What do you mean by 'internal event'? Where is OS012's definition? Are you saying that subjectively true statements are false in OS012? If so, what do you gain by classifying subjectively true events with subjectively and objectively false (real-world definition) statements?
And how does this relate to your example of looking at a screen, and events in the past being 'false'? That seems to be claiming that only what you are subjectively experiencing right now is true.
Exactly how large is the set of 'true' things in OS012?
(If you are going to come up with esoteric concepts, I would suggest you invent new words for them, rather than appropriating ones with a very useful and well understood one. (But then, you've been told this before.) )
How do you represent the difference between the definition of 'false' used by OS012 and that used in the real world (sorry, 'higher metalogical level')?
And when you say 'in conflict', do you just mean 'opposed to'? Is this any more than stating the obvious? What use are you making of this odd way of stating it?
I wonder; perhaps it is because you have yet to state OS012 in any coherent manner?
ETA - Flimflam_machine has addressed a lot of the same points simultaneously.
You tell me, you were the one who introduced the phrase.
BF said:
How is this different from saying, "'The Earth is bigger than the Sun' is false"?
What benefit do you gain from this obfuscation? I think you are damaging your ability to think clearly by unnecessary levels of indirection.
Mine and, I would hazard, 99.9999% of the English speaking world, in the context of the current thread. And I would say 'definition' rather than 'interpretation'.bf said:
I'm sorry, for some reason your meaning is not clear. What do you mean by 'internal event'? Where is OS012's definition? Are you saying that subjectively true statements are false in OS012? If so, what do you gain by classifying subjectively true events with subjectively and objectively false (real-world definition) statements?
And how does this relate to your example of looking at a screen, and events in the past being 'false'? That seems to be claiming that only what you are subjectively experiencing right now is true.
Exactly how large is the set of 'true' things in OS012?
(If you are going to come up with esoteric concepts, I would suggest you invent new words for them, rather than appropriating ones with a very useful and well understood one. (But then, you've been told this before.) )
How do you represent the difference between the definition of 'false' used by OS012 and that used in the real world (sorry, 'higher metalogical level')?
And when you say 'in conflict', do you just mean 'opposed to'? Is this any more than stating the obvious? What use are you making of this odd way of stating it?
I wonder; perhaps it is because you have yet to state OS012 in any coherent manner?
ETA - Flimflam_machine has addressed a lot of the same points simultaneously.
Last edited:
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
Good point zoot! Some further thoughts: wouldn't the past also being false mean that you could never finish reading Bubb's text. You could never even finish a sentence since by the time you'd got to the end of it you couldn't be sure that the words at the beginning were "true" whatever Bubb's using that to mean. Just how long is the "true" present, given that we have evidence that our experience is at least 80ms behind reality?
How on earth do we have objectivity relating to mutual viewability? To confirm that we've all mutually experienced something we have to communicate. By the time we've communicated the experience that we're communicating about will be in the past, and hence "false". If our confirmation that the event was mutually viewed qualifies that event as being "true" (real), does that mean that the event has been shifted from the past into the present?