Skepticism and The Normal

[flimflam_machine]

That's like saying true isnt a truth value either because some people believe that God is true and others God is false.

Further misuse of the words "true" and "false" noted. Anyway "true" and "false" remain as possible values for the statement "God exists" because either s/he does or s/he doesn't. No support for "unknown" as a third truth value there.

Of course questions are ideas, what else would they be?

They would be questions. For me "God exists" is a very different animal from "Does God exist?" since the former is a statement about how reality is, and the latter is a question about how reality is. If they're both "ideas" within your model, fine. But I think there's a lot of noise being added.

Yes, it's [the cogito] incomplete.

How is it incomplete? Bearing in mind that the cogito is an assertion of that of which we can be certain, rather than a guide for living. All the cogito states is that the only thing that escapes hyperbolic doubt is our certainty of our own existence (I don't buy the subsequent arguments about god).

But it's NOT your proof, your proof [of your existence] is your 'being'.

Given that "being" and "existence" are pretty much synonomous, this is a circular argument.

You just need the thinking to acknowledge that in language and meaning, which you arrive at with others.
...
You have enough juice of your own existence to know that I too exist. If I dont exist, then you are a solo mind, and you are the universe. If your too afraid to make that leap in your philosophy, then your philosophy is stuck in your mind.

You still don't get it Bubb. My thinking is proof of only my existence. My experience of communicating with you could have been created many different ways, it could be real, it could be an hallucination, it could be part of a simulation.

"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."

Right, got that the first time. It's FLAT OUT WRONG. It's not fully considered. I stated my argument, and then you just repeated your same argument over. That's not how it works, you have to then refute my refutation with ANOTHER argument. Copy and pasting the same argument I already contradicted wont keep you afloat in this discussion.

Frankly, you've already sunk. You haven't stated a convincing argument Bubb, and you still don't get it. My thinking proves my existence because thoughts entail a point of view, an "I" to do the thinking. I have no access to any thoughts outside of my own consciousness (yours included) so I do not have the same level of certainty of your existence as I do of my own.

well, it explains everything to you, but your easy and dont question reality much.

No, it doesn't explain everything to me. It gives me a baseline level of certainty about my own existence. In any case the whole point of the cogito is that it arises from questioning reality, or at least what I perceive to be reality.

Why dont you consider more than one hypothesis? If you consider more than one hypothesis, you dont have many to choose from, there is either mutual existence or there isnt. If there isnt, then you can come to make certain predictions that may or may not come true, and vice versa.

I do consider many hypotheses, and, like jimbob, I choose to live my life as if external reality does really exist. What predictions would you make if external reality doesn't exist? I'd think that all bets would be off, and in any case, what would you measure these predictions in, since there is no reality in which to make the measurements?

Not to me it isnt. For your hypothesis to be objectively true, then I must be apart of your simulation, your brain. So therefore I can argue for the contrary hypothesis, and then someone else can argue for YOUR hypothesis, and then you can watch our argument. try to explain that one to yourself after awhile, and see how many contradictions start to fly.

What's to explain? You're all just constructs of the vast simulation in which I'm being held by the all-powerful evil being. That's the point of the cogito Bubb, it only works in the first person: I can be sure of my existence, but not of yours; you (assuming you actually exist) can be sure of your existence but not mine. I choose to act as if you exist, but I cannot be as sure of that as I am of my own existence.

huh? all parties can verify thier own existence to themselves. If your insane, I probably cant prove to you I exist, but that hardly makes for a philosophical impact.

Yeah, that's more like it, you obviously sort of get it. But you seriously underestimate the philosophical impact. None of what you say lends any weight to your assertion that communication and dialectic are necessary or even valid for confirming one's existence.

a omnipotent being is not a rational possibility in either a simulation or a reality, so you might as well be arguing for elves and fairies to prop up your philosophy as well.

We're talking about absolute certainty here Bubb. The point is that my existence is the only thing about which I can remain certain even if everything else that I think I know is completely wrong and elves, fairies and homoeopathy actually exist.

So only you and this omipotent being exist, how do you know your not being imagined by the omnipotent being?

I don't. But as long as that thought, that doubt, exists then I know that there is an "I" to have that thought.

Your knowledge of self exists in your thinking, yes, but not your EXPERIENCE of being. That has nothing to do with thinking, that has to do with FEELING, and that's where it all begins. Learn to distinguish, please. EXPERIENCE and THINKING. They are not the same thing.

I do distinguish experience from thinking. But my experiences may not be a veridical representation of reality. What is it that you think "begins" with feeling?

And while your at it, distinguish KNOWLEDGE from UNDERSTANDING. See, you can understand you exist long before you can think you exist, dig?

Clarification required here Bubb. Are you simply saying that we perceive ourselves as independent volitional beings before we have the mental capacity to ponder the philosophical consequences of our own existence?

What a bunch of stiffs. So I guess intuition plays no role in our philosophies, eh? Even though our intuitions lead us to so many truths day in day out with the natural understanding that we exist with others, you stiffs are still trying to negate the neccesity of your own personal truth values for the sake of a dull philosophical argument from the 17th century.

Only a dualistic of bivalent philosophy would be so crude as to choose one over the other. The full expression of human being is found both in thinking and feeling, experiencing and percieving, knowledge and understanding.

Don't try to reverse this discussion Bubb. We're talking about your assertion that we only come to be sure of our own existence through communication and dialectic with others.

 

[flimflam_machine]

That's truly then a sad result of your tired philosophy if true, but I dont believe you. Are you certain that the word at the end of this sentence is the word this? Come, are you? Are you just a little certain of that or absolutly certain of that?

Not as certain as I am of my own existence.

Then how come he [Socrates' opponent] didnt know the answer to his question then, Einstein?

He did after Socrates had indicated how what he suggested was self-contradictory when considered in a way that he had not previously encountered. Like I said, implicit knowledge.

This piece of knowledge has been forwarded to me by a well known professor of neurobiology at a university here in so cal. PM me if you want to learn more.

No thanks, I have no desire to get into personal communication with you. If the work has been published then there's no problem with you referencing it here. If there's a lab webpage with informationthen, likewise, you can post it here. If neither of those things are the case then I can't see what more useful information you could give me other than a repeated assertion that it is the case.

Be honest. How much do you really understand about language, cognition, logic, and perception to make a statement like that which limits a field of mathematics and logic so much?

Well I studied two of them at university. What's your background again Bubb? You've repeatedly said "I'm not a mathematician/linguist/logician/philosopher" and then gone on to argue as if your opinion actually holds any weight in those fields.

Like I said, believe what you will. This is an experiment that in my eyes is going quite succesfully, and I am committed to staying in this discussion until you either agree, leave, or for some reason I am prevented from communicating.

I put this through a Bubblefish-to-English translator and apparently what you're saying is "La la la la la, not listeniiiiiiiiing!" You're just committed to keep typing what you've already decided and not actually considering any other arguments and you've just admitted as much.

 

[Mojo]

That's the point of the cogito Bubb, it only works in the first person: I can be sure of my existence, but not of yours; you (assuming you actually exist)...

He doesn't.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Thought I'd just jump in on Prof. Yaff's point and Bubb's reply.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html I remember coming across that a few y ears ago. I though it was very interesting, but not fully considered philosophically.

First off, such a simulation would be a perfect copy,

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Erroneous assumption, all further arguments rendered meaningless. A simulation doesn't have to be a perfect copy. For example, MMORPG's occur in simulated realities that are not perfect copies of our own.

 

[zooterkin]

Consider, there are no CD's topping the charts of people burping, therefore, there must be some distinction in people burping than people singing. I wonder what it could be?

I don't know if you had it in the US, but in the UK, Australia, India, New Zealand and most of Europe, there was a chart topping act that was not a million miles removed, in most people's opinion, from burping.

The Crazy Frog was at number one in the charts in 2005.

Anyway, I think you need to think this through more. If I understand you correctly, you are saying because generally music is thought to be beautiful, that beauty must be objective even if any one particular piece of music is not agreed to be beautiful by all listeners. Obviously the beauty doesn't reside in a particular piece of music (otherwise all would agree it is beautiful), but in the idea of music. I don't see how the idea of music can be objectively beautiful.

I can see you are trying a slightly different tack from that which you used with physical beauty. I'm not quite sure why you view music differently, though, surely the same argument applies to both. (Perhaps you are tacitly admitting that Angelina Jolie is not objectively beautiful, after all?)

 

[sinnikal]

I'm waiting with bated breath to see how Bubb's going to reconcile plainsong with harmony, rhythm and indeed, beauty. A musical form that eschews harmony and rhythm.
Beauty? well that's in the ear of the beholder when it comes to plainsong.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Back to Z's model.

Quote:
If we introduce a point of view into it you can simply add the known/unknown factor.

Is that the argument? That's not an argument, that's a choice you make.

And as far as I can see it is simply your choice to use ternary logic. We are considering another possible model for comparison with yours.

You can choose to model that in some nonworking bivalent excercise, yes, so? What is the argument against ternary dialectic, modal logic, ternary logic? That hasnt been made clear.

Well we've yet to see whether this bivalent exercise works since we haven't tested it. But so far it seems to hold up logically. I'm not arguing against ternary logic, nor modal logic in their place so we'll ignore that strawman. At present, we are discussing the validity of the assumptions you have apparently made for developing for your dialectic. At present there's little need for an argument against ternary dialectic itself since you haven't actually provided a substantial argument for its validity nor explained how it works.

The 2 x2 model is NOT USEFUL.

We have as much evidence for its usefulness as we do for the usefulness of OS012.

What is the logic of 'she may come, she may not come'? Where is your 2x 2 now?

Let's pick this one apart shall we? Firstly, it's tautological. "She may come" indicates a finite possibility (0 < p < 1) that "she will come", which in turn necessarily implies a finite probability for the opposite outcome: "she will not come". Likewise "she may not come" simply implies non-zero and non-unity probabilities for both outcomes. So we can shorten it to "She may come" with no loss of information. The statement is equivalent to "There is a non-zero and non-unity probability that she will come". Then we have to define "she", and what qualifies her as having "come". Assuming that neither of those things necessarily imply a zero probability (e.g., "she" is dead and therefore cannot come), nor a unity probability (e.g., “she” is defined as whatever “comes”), then the statement is true. There is a finite, non-zero and non-unity probability that she will come. Whether it is known or unknown depends on the person and our agreed definitions of "she" and "come".

And niether you nor Zaay were able to address the ternary structure in the known/unknown coupling. what is known is known in terms of true and false. That is how 'known' is distinguishable INSIDE of Bivalency. How do you account for the fact that ternary logic is IMPLICIT inside of known/unknown?

What you appear to be saying is that if something is unknown to me it is neither true nor false to me. So what? Nobody disagrees with that and chillzero worked that out in his second post. But it only works from a subjective viewpoint: the truth value of a statement within your model depends on the knowledge of the relevant individual. The reason why this does not generalise is that not knowing does not change the state of reality (except your brain state). As you have stated yourself: 2+2=4 whether you know that or not. To put it in our language, the objective truth of a statement doesn't depend on anyone's knowledge.

You have to b e able to account for ALL STATEMENTS and IDEAS for your 2x 2 statement to hold more rational consideration than ternary. If your 2x2 logic doesnt do that, then it's simply your choice to continue to use it, but that doesnt mean it's rational.

I can account for all statements within a 2x2 framework. Do not confuse this with the claim that I, personally, can accurately place any statement into the correct one of the 4 resulting categories. My knowledge is limited and I don't know the truth value of all statements. In which sense, from an individual point of view only, the 2x2 system does collapse into a ternary system: statements I know to be true, statements I know to be false, statements whose truth value I don't know. Remember this is the thing that you bizarrely dismissed as the Socratic dialectic (crudely put).

But, and this is a big but, Z's model is actually more powerful than a personal-only ternary logic since it can be abstracted to an independent viewpoint. It has an objective component (true vs. false) whose value depends only on the state of reality and a subjective component (known vs. unknown) that depends on an individual's knowledge. If you use your personal-only ternary logic you actually lose power compared to a 2x2 model for this reason: in your model, once something is unknown it ceases to be true or false; in a 2x2 model it can be simultaneously unknown and true or false. For example I know that the statement "flimflam's trousers are blue" is true and that the truth value of that statement is unknown to you, and known to me. Using a 2x2 model I can put myself in your place, I can, my limited knowledge notwithstanding, model the ternary process going on in your head.

So what is actually happening Bubb, is that the model you have come up with is actually contained within a 2x2 bivalent model that contains objective and subjective components. Your model is what appears when you collapse the 2x2 model to a single person's point of view.

 

[Z]

Flim, I am truly impressed. That is the best-stated and most impressive deconstruction and comparison of logical value systems I've ever seen.

Of course, Rome will now ignore the deconstruction completely, since he's now admittedly ONLY here to troll.

Please note, the moderators have been asked to look into this claim, made by Rome several posts back (though exactly where, I'm unsure) that he is going to remain here until everyone admits he's right, or leaves, or he's somehow prevented from being here. THAT is a solid admission that he's NOT here to discuss, that he'll NEVER admit to being wrong on any point, and that he's only here to advertise - to troll.

Sad, sad Rome - proven wrong in this thread over and over and over, and now revealed to be an empty and pointless troll. So much for his 'win win' scenario - at this point, he's completely lost, and this thread is so much hot air.

But, please, ANY of you that disagree - step forward now and demonstrate your support for Rome's thread! ANY of you! Now's the time to defend this bloated, empty, meaningless troll thread... if you can.

Flim, sinn, Zoo, Mojo, Hok... et. al... I think this thread would be best served if you each posted a finalized assessment of what happened in this thread, state clearly whether you find Rome's arguments to be right, wrong, or whatever, and step out. Understand that after you step out, Rome's just gonna come in and claim flawless victory, but understand also that the Reader knows quite well how the argument has gone. Rome's ship sank about 60 pages ago, and he's been sailing along the briny bottom thinking he's still in the race.

In my opinion - your mileage may vary.

(Interesting note: Rome's attempts to redefine beauty and subjectivity are pretty transparently done to attempt to place people in categories of right and wrong... if you disagree, for example, that A.J. is beautiful, you're WRONG. This is a very religious way to look at things. Personal tastes are always subjective, and beauty is always a matter of personal tastes. Don't ever let other people tell you what you should find beautiful.)

 

[Z]

Bringing the issue of musical beauty closer to home, the Boston Pops' performance of the soundtrack for Close Encounters of the Third Kind was hauntingly beautiful. Yet it contained as a whole no overall rhythm, meter, melody, harmony, or syncopation. These existed within the theme in small clusters, but were not solely responsible for the piece's beauty.

 

[Mobyseven]

Go ahead, argue how harmony is not an essential feature of music.

Gregorian Chants.

Argue how harmonies and chords are not IMPLICIT in musical structure, regardless of the arrangment.

Firstly, it's a little bit redundant to talk about 'harmonies and chords' for one - a chord is simply an arrangement of different intervals to produce either consonant or dissonant harmonies.

Secondly, harmony is not 'implicit in musical structure'. It is in fact perfectly possible to have music that does not include any harmony in it, excluding the natural harmonics that occur in different instruments to give each instrument an individual timbre. But as for harmony as it is generally accepted, it is possible to have a song that is entirely melody and no harmony. Autumn Leaf Cannonball (by Lauchlan Davis I think - it's been a while since I played it) is a song for solo saxophone. No other instruments. And a saxophononist cannot play more than one note at a time (certain brass instrumentalists can, but that is a WHOLE other thing and an explanation about how the harmonics I mentioned earlier work).

Argue how you cant hit a tone without hitting a beat (my meaning of 'syncopation' that went over your head).

That makes so little sense I'm not sure where to begin...

Syncopation is when a note, excluding a passing note or a run, occurs on an off-beat (rather than on the beat). For those who have never had any musical training, think of it this way: Count 1 - 2 - 3 - 4. Those are your beats. Notes occuring there are 'on the beat'. Now count 1 -and- 2 -and- 3 -and- 4 -and-. The 'and' occur halfway between beats. A note occurring on an 'and' is off-beat, and so provided it doesn't form part of a run or is a passing note, a note occurring there would be an example of syncopation.

Understand that that is a VERY simplified explanation that doesn't take into account the general tempo or feel of the music.

But your description of syncopation is just completely not right. I don't know where you got that idea from.

Also, it is very possible to hit a note without hitting a beat. You may be slightly out of time, there may be syncopation, you may be playing a run, you may be playing a passing note...I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here, but I would suggest that you not use music to make it.

If you cant argue for the above, THEN YOU HAVE NO FREAKIN' ARGUMENT and your wasting my time.

I am going to continue to ignore your boring, unconsidered, poorly thought through knee jerk reactions until you SPECIFICALLY address my query. If you cant address my query, THEN YOU HAVE NO FREAKIN' ARGUMENT and your wasting my time.

As for the rest of it - it seems like you are addressing the problem of vagueness and indeterminacy in a two-valued system of logic, correct? And it seems that you are proposing a three-valued system of logic as a solution to this, correct?

These are things that have been addressed many times in the past. The three-valued system is not such an out there idea as you may think, and has been proposed as a solution for both the problem of vagueness (by assigning vague propositions a value of 1/2) and the problem of future predictions (by assigning a value of 1/2 to predictions relating to specific future events - they are not yet either true (1) or false (0) ).

This has its benefits, but it also draws many criticisms of which I don't have time to address them all here. Primarily for the problem of vagueness (for examples, the sorites paradox - where a large enough series of material implications can lead to a valid argument with seemingly true premises but a seemingly false conclusion), the argument can be brought both ways. Some say that the point where we start assigning a value of 1/2 should be the point where we actually assign a value of 0, as if we cannot be sure of the truth of a statement we should assume it as false. Unfortunately for this position the same can be said when working backwards from a false proposition - the point at which we are unsure as to whether the proposition is false or not we should consider it to be true. As such, this is a rather weak argument.

The rather stronger argument is the one for multi-valued truth systems. The argument there is that 1/2 does not accurately reflect the possible truth of a statement. For example there may be a case that, while vague, seems more likely to be true than false and another similar case where it seems more likely that the proposition is false, not true. Would it accurately reflect this if we are to assign the values of 1/2 to both of them? What if we assigned .6 and .4? Or .7 and .3? And even when we do this, isn't it now a subjective judgement? How will that change things?

Does that help the discussion at all?

 

[Mobyseven]

Flimflam:

That was...incredibly well stated. Well analysed.

Well done.

 

[zooterkin]

It seems to me if this thread is going to produce posts of the quality of that one from Flimflam, there is some value in it.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Does that help the discussion at all?

Sadly, interesting though your points were, I think this "discussion" is beyond help. Most of us are still in it because of a morbid fascination with interacting with a man who never, ever admits that he was wrong.

This thread has covered several areas including logic (binary, ternary), metaphysics, epistemology, objectivity vs. subjectivity, notions of beauty, and dialectic. However the whole thing has hovered around Bubblefish's new universal internet dialectic "OS012". This is apparently based on a ternary logic which appears to depend on classification of statements from the point of view of an individuals, who necessarily have limited knowledge. I'm not going to try to explain further what the system is because the one consistent feature of this thread has been Bubblefish's refusal to explain how it actually works.

I don't think that anyone has a particular problem with ternary logic, but we do have many issues with how Bubblefish appears to apply it as a justification for his dialectic. If you have a read of his OS012 homepage: http://www.highintelligence.com you can see that it essentially uses a lot of words to say not very much. The main problems that have still not been resolved with the system are:

-It uses language in a bafflingly non-standard way
-It claims to work even if people don't engage with it
-It appears to be completely subjective despite making claims to provide objective certainty
-There is no detail of how it works
-There is no evidence that it works

I would strongly suggest not getting into discussing it since as an idea in itself it hasn't really stood up to much scrutiny. For me it is telling that the most interesting sections of this debate have occurred when we've moved onto discussing questions (in the areas listed above) that do not actually refer to OS012.

More importantly Bubblefish has an extreme reluctance to change his viewpoint about anything. He has vaguely admitted that he may have forgotten to write something on a couple of occasions over the last few months but has never really changed his opinion on anything. He has repeatedly displayed a rather limited understanding of the numerous fields that he has referred to in an attempt to support his position. Recently he has explicitly stated that he will not stop posting unless we agree with him which, unless any further interesting areas of discussion arise, seems like a good cue to leave.

 

[flimflam_machine]

P.S. Thanks folks. I'm glad you thought it was clear.

Moby, nice descriptions of both syncopation and multi-valued logic. I never knew that it was called the sorites paradox.

I'm not sure whether the quick summary was appropriate. It was mainly directed at Mobyseven since I can't remember whether he has been involved in this discussion before (or indeed in the original thread). It was also partly in response to Z's suggestion as a reminder of all the problems that have not been resolved with OS012. It seemed timely since we've got to a point, following Bubb's claim of infallibility, at which ducking out seems like a sensible and justified move.

Plus, I really can't be bothered discussing the cogito with someone who genuinely appears not to get it.

 

[sinnikal]

I'd like to add my appreciation of your summary flimflam, top banana!
Z, I accept your invitation.
As long as I have been aware of it, Bubb has been busy polishing the turd otherwise known as BS012. Instead of producing gleaming clarity this has just revealed layer upon layer of faecal matter.
However I have enjoyed joining the JREF 'community', were it not for Rome I may have remained a lurker. For that, at least, I am grateful to him.
There are some great minds at work on here, good work fellas.
I'm outta this thread now, I hope this gives Twat Man the opportunity to declare his victory (or should that be his win-win?).

 

[flimflam_machine]

However I have enjoyed joining the JREF 'community', were it not for Rome I may have remained a lurker. For that, at least, I am grateful to him.

Seconded!

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, same here. In fact, he not only made me aware of the JREF forums, but sufficiently annoyed me that I persisted in trying to join when my first applications were refused (with no reason given).

Of course, I might choose to continue with the thread while there's still $100 at stake

 

[pv+]

Personally I think Bubblefishes credentials have been well established in this forum and recognised by all - except for Bubblefish, that is. His only defence of everything boils down to claiming, whiningly and condescendingly, that no-one is intelligent enough to understand him.
To point out that he is an arrogant, ignorant troll risks the wrath of, and banishment by, the moderators, yet we have 66 pages here as a testament to the bankrupt inanity of his assertions and his almost complete lack of knowledge of practically every subject on which he cares to pronounce. There seems to be nothing about which he doesn't have an opinion and, at the same time, no subject with which he has anything more than the most superficial acquaintance. He's barely on "hello" terms with his own language. In the starkness of the real world, away from this forum, one would be permitted, indeed have no option other than, to declare Bubblefishes ramblings as stupendously pointless drivel.
Unfortunately in this forum one is sometimes compelled by the rules to refer to a spade as a small earth moving implement, for fear of upsetting grannies, babes in arms, serial killers, religious zealots and, not least, the digging implement community.

 

[Diva Ex Machina]

It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

How did THIS get to 66 pages?

 

[sinnikal]

Yes, yes I know I said I'm outta here, but Diva's comment leads me on to this:
http://graeme.woaf.net/otherbits/jelly.html