And you are not answering my question.
How does a 3 value syllogism yield a binary response?
ETA: Programming is a language dialect in of itself. The comparison would be clear to you if you bothered to answer the question.
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
And you are not answering my question.
How does a 3 value syllogism yield a binary response?
ETA: Programming is a language dialect in of itself. The comparison would be clear to you if you bothered to answer the question.
oh brother, have i really made that big of impression on all of you that you now follow me around the internet AFTER you all insist I get banned from discussing at badscienc?
Look DM, if I misrepresented your remarks about Sheldrake, I apologize, but I dont think I did, as I participated in the thread where both you and wholly were banned because there was LEGAL ACTION being discussed due to your remarks about Sheldrake from sheldrake!
And we dont have the benifit of checking, because ben had to delete those remarks from his forum to prevent libel.
If you wish everyone to believe that there was legal action being discussed because one lone poster said "I consider Rupert Sheldrake a psuedo-scientist" you're going to have to present a better argument, that one doesnt float.
But I also dont care, that's not what this topic is about.
I was already requested and warned not to discuss on badscience, and gave my word to stever I would not return, and I wont.
I am answering your question. I am explaining a framework. It's semantic structure is dialectic. By dialectic i mean what socrates, attorneys, Hegel, and marxists mean.
I dont know, in boolian maybe? I'm not a logician, so I dont know.
How is a three value dialectic a syllogism? Dialectical Semantics would be 'arguing' not 'argument'.
Can you explain to me how you understand 'dialectic'?
computers dont argue, they negotiate and agree.
If you bothered to read my arguments instead of react, I think you would comprehend my arguments better.
Dean, nice to see another familiar name around here! It's so sweet that all TM's old friends have taken the trouble to find him over here.
toucing indeed. say old friend, care to clarify your argument regarding the third value so I can see what you mean?
I just want to see what my old friend means, and surely an old friend would respect a polite request?
BF
Basilio
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 139
For our viewers at home...
Play by play: "well Jim, I think we've come to an improtant crossroads in tonight's debate.
Color commentator: I agree Bill, I believe I can sum it up for our fans at home in a few concepts. It all boils down to the "third value" or 'mystery" value" which is attached (per Bubblefish's view) to statements in an argument.
Play by play: Ah... I see... (some perplexment)
Color: In short, anyone who try's to deal with his nebulous argument is told that it doesn't take into account the "third value" and therfore it crumbles like a vampire in the sun, and so he is ALWAYS right.
Play by play: I see, so he has been totally wasting our time?
Color: Exactly!
Play by play: (aside) Cheeky monkey! (aloud) So, never mind folks, and Good Night from everyone her at the Professional Bull****ers Tour.
produce by Roone Arlidge and Wide World of Sports.
Submitted for your consideration by basilio
Play by play: "well Jim, I think we've come to an improtant crossroads in tonight's debate.
Color commentator: I agree Bill, I believe I can sum it up for our fans at home in a few concepts. It all boils down to the "third value" or 'mystery" value" which is attached (per Bubblefish's view) to statements in an argument.
Play by play: Ah... I see... (some perplexment)
Color: In short, anyone who try's to deal with his nebulous argument is told that it doesn't take into account the "third value" and therfore it crumbles like a vampire in the sun, and so he is ALWAYS right.
Play by play: I see, so he has been totally wasting our time?
Color: Exactly!
Play by play: (aside) Cheeky monkey! (aloud) So, never mind folks, and Good Night from everyone her at the Professional Bull****ers Tour.
produce by Roone Arlidge and Wide World of Sports.
Submitted for your consideration by basilio
Last edited:
your not responding to my post like you kindly as me to respond to yours.
please supply critical answers, thank you
It is Boolean. And unlike using a structure that requires a binary response, as you linked to ternary logic I assume you understand that it deals in three value responses. Yet you applied it in a way that suggests you don't understand the concept. When you have an evaluation of x being either 1, or 0, then x is 1 or 0. if x can be 0, 1 or 2, then you have three possible outcomes. You have talked at great length about your third value, yet you discount that third value in the conclusion of your syllogisms.
So again, how does a 3 value syllogism give a binary answer?
I most certainly did. The post you quoted was not directed at you.
metaphors, ad hom, personal assumptions are not aspects of critical argument and thought.
let the record note the ratio between my respectful rational questions and replies and each individual poster in relationship to thiers.
I would imagine that could be quantified, eh?
let the record note the ratio between my respectful rational questions and replies and each individual poster in relationship to thiers.
I would imagine that could be quantified, eh?
Bubblywubbly, think of it as the attraction of a freak show. Or maybe a sort of cross between the fascination of a slow-motion traffic accident (in which you are the bicycle) and the entertainment of shooting fish in a barrel (in which you represent...). Anyway, since you were so nice to everyone over at Badscience how could we let you go without showing our appreciation?
I can certainly provide you a cross and three nails if you feel so persecuted.
Dean Morrison
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 54
Okay Bubblefish let's discuss 'LEGAL ACTION' - you've just suggested I made some comments that were in fact illegal and were removed.
Where is your evidence for this?
Ben never accused me of any such thing - If you can't back up your assertion then you should withdraw it. As JREF is an American site - and they have some regard for free speech there I don't think you'll find the same nervousness about the mere threat of LEGAL ACTION from a joke pseudoscientist.
Sorry if I'm interrupting anything here ladies and gentlemen - I'm assuming Bubblefish/TM is simply trolling.
Hi pv+! - good to see you around!
What language is that supposed to be?
And I do have a hammer handy!
First off fowlsound, your not addressing my complete response, rather, you're cherry picking like Dick Cheny, and yes, that's a metaphor.
hmmm, so I was right.
Yes, I assume that ternary logic deals in three value responses. That is how i came to link it in response to the propositions "There is no third value", or "the third value is meaningless".
Clearly, if there is a formal system of logic that deals in three values, and it defines the third value as unknown, the third value can't be considered to be nonexistant or meaningless in the objective sense of the word, no?
Look, I just gave you a singular uni-air-ee response! Yes, I know that's most likely not a word, but you know what I mean, right? Can you explain how dialectic can not be allowed to do this but also not allow for a binary response?
I may make misappropiations here and there, and I dont mind them being pointed out, yet is it fair to assume that what you percieve is a misappropiation of text and not possibly a misappropiation of meaning?
you're confusing dialectic with logic. logic is merely a tool inside of dialectic, as is metaphor.
at least if I take your text at face value, it is true to me that you are not distinguishing between dialectic and logic.
boolean!
BF
hmmm, so I was right.
Yes, I assume that ternary logic deals in three value responses. That is how i came to link it in response to the propositions "There is no third value", or "the third value is meaningless".
Clearly, if there is a formal system of logic that deals in three values, and it defines the third value as unknown, the third value can't be considered to be nonexistant or meaningless in the objective sense of the word, no?
Look, I just gave you a singular uni-air-ee response! Yes, I know that's most likely not a word, but you know what I mean, right? Can you explain how dialectic can not be allowed to do this but also not allow for a binary response?
I may make misappropiations here and there, and I dont mind them being pointed out, yet is it fair to assume that what you percieve is a misappropiation of text and not possibly a misappropiation of meaning?
you're confusing dialectic with logic. logic is merely a tool inside of dialectic, as is metaphor.
at least if I take your text at face value, it is true to me that you are not distinguishing between dialectic and logic.
boolean!
BF
again, further proof that you are not critically considering my posts. I have absolutly no personal experience of being persecuted. I have stated over and over that my sole goal is seeking truth and uncovering my delusions.
My personal experience is thrilling, you're all really trying to help me!
And not to get all woo woo on you, but I love all of you for it!
A persecution complex is an example, by the way, of false bivalency, it's a simple reverse of the win-lose model, I lose so all of you can win, and in case your not able to discern this yet, this framework of dialectic that I introduce is a win win framework.
When I use it, I am always winning. I am constantly always winning truth.
Last edited:
Not a very good one.
No, you were wrong. It is boolean.
But the third value is not unknown. This is what you are missing.
Because if your evaluation is based in a three response system, then three responses are a possible outcome. you cannot discount any of those possible answers. Did you figure out why I brought up programming yet?
No it is not fair. To those that understand ternary logic your third value is completely meaningless. In fact, you consistantly demonstrate that you are working from a different set of understanding than anyone else.
No, I believe the confusion is yours. Establishing propositions and counter-propositions is not the same as ternary logic, yet you use ternary logic as a basis to drive your dialectic. Do you see the problem with that?
It may be true to you, but it would be true only to you. Unless you want to claim sophistry that only your truth exists, you would be wrong.
Do you even know what that word means?
Or it was just a snarky joke on your claims of persecution and you decided to over analyze it.