Skepticism and The Normal

[Z]

ouch, ouch, ouch, z.

If you could somehow get grand larceny and murder one in there as well, you'd have the full set.

No, don't see those. Jaywalking, maybe? Perhaps a speeding ticket?

But to be honest, this isn't the first time this has happened to me - on another forum one time, I suddenly became the subject of an onslaught of vile and baseless anonymous allegations....

I thought you said this isn't the first time this has happened to you.

My allegations are not vile, they're true; not baseless, but well-founded; and certainly not anonymous. Anonymonkey, perhaps...

... made me hoppin' mad, I can tell you...

Better be careful - remember what happened to Rumpelstilskin...

... and as God is my witness, if I ever get my hands on those alligators....

I'd like to see that witness statement.

Alligators... heh. I'll give you this much - you have a sense of humour.




.[/QUOTE]

 

[WWHP]

Okay, officially back. I am going to read the past 10 pages of this discussion that I have missed since my absence and respond in kind.

 

[WWHP]

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.

To address the music argument and where objective beauty is found in music. My argument regarding musical structures relates a certain truth about music, that regardless of arrangment or voicing, all music contains the potential of harmony and syncopation, regardless if it is referred to or not in the composition's arrangment. Any piece of music can be arranged in virtually unlimited ways. One note contains the potential for harmony with other notes. Harmony is essential IN music, and syncopation is simply an arrangment of rythym. It exists in ALL music potentially, and it is the choice of the arranger to use those possibilities, or not.

thus, we find objective beauty in music BECAUSE of harmony and rythym. Thus my argument, beauty is a harmony, an objective harmony, and wherever beauty is found, either objectively or subjectively or both, a harmony is in occurance, either internally, externally, or both.

Dont know where this discussion is at now with all of this, still on page 64.

 

[WWHP]

"Harmoniously"? How quaint! And I'm sure you are trying to be patronising. Instead you betray your own limited musical knowledge and ability. Yes, we all know Bubblefish has "composed" music for films (should that be "a film"?). So what!

I stated my musical experience to show understanding. To make music, one must understand how to make music relative to the composition. I know I understand something for certain when I can apply it and make something with it.

What of Cage? Stravinsky, even? Stockhausen? How about what the Masai regard as music in Kenya? Tibetan chanting?

That's music too.

How ignorant can you possibly be to come up with such a pathetically inept definition of music? Don't you know anything? Have you ever visited the world outside the confines of your skull - apart from Wikipedia?

I'm not here to define 'music' in any formal sense, however, I can deconstruct music into it's basic components, further than the current definitions of music provided. 'Melody', for example, can be deconstructed into 'notes' [anagram TONES] and 'rythym'. The point is, music is an objective harmony of two or more distinctions occuring, a simple melody is BOTH tone and rythym.

Nice to see your grouchy-ness still a factor in this discussion. I look forward to taking our show on the road one day.

 

[WWHP]

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...

If I am a part of a greater dream, then that implies two points of view by default, me and the dreamer who is dreaming about me.

As I have the "sensation" of free will (sentience) I know that I do exist.

ahhh, sensation eh? sensation is FEELING, therefore, you agree, we know that we exist because we both THINK and FEEL.

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.

but they can function as 'true' regardless..

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.

Please stop modeling things so statically! It's all relative to a point of view with mutually repeating objective categories. Sure, at a higher level of perception, it is all 'mystery'. Yet this is an experience and perception beyond language, and a place that visionairies, artists, mystics navigate. It's relative to that point of view. Yet, when it is all 'mystery' at a higher level, then it is (1) true that is is (0) mystery, and any ideas I have about that mystery are (2) false by default. The 0, 1, and 2 still continue into the higher abstractions.

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.

so you can see that things can 'function' as if they are true, irregardless of the arguments for or against thier own existence.

From this it is a minor step to accept some scientific laws, which are based on billions of observations.

agreed perfectly. we want 'truth' so we can function in our perceptible environments. If it works as true, then it is true or becomes true within certain limits.

Didn't BF think that pain was objective?

Again, please stop modeling my arguments so statically! Pain is both objective and subjective in some sense. The experience is purely subjective, yet the description and result of the experience is mutually shared amongst all of us, and therefore we can refer to pain in some objective sense, we know that 'pain' exists as an experience that relates to our physical existence.

And people who are incapable of feeling pain, due to anaesthesia, or illness?

Their nervous systems have been compromised and are not existing in thier full potential. Just like blind people do not see color or have qaulia for color, because thier biology is not operating at it's potential.

 

[WWHP]

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.

that's not the whole point. the whole point is that your sensations, regardless of thier meaning, exist as feelings. Feelings are Completly impossible to experience as anything else other than feelings, meaning that feelings are not parsed into propositions and refine themselves into language, rather, they always exist as sensations, and are thus personal evidences of our existence beyond thinking.

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.

agreed.

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.

Keep in mind that this dialectic is for the exchange and deconstruction of ideas into a ternary category. Past is 'false' because we can only and soley model the past in terms of our ideas, we have no 'existence' in the presence to verify them, and any ideas we have about the past are soley confined to our subjective process.

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.

that is what gives them thier objective quality, the fact that they are universal experiences.

All things are objective and subjective in some sense. Nothing is purely objective OR subjective, rather, some combination of both, with either one have a dominant side.

'pain' is SUBJECTIVELY dominant, yet it's objective component is a universal experience that we all can relate to.

'Circle' is OBJECTIVELY dominant, a circle exists outside of us and all can mutually view it. It's subjective component is the simple fact that the circle is still a construction of our nervous systems and brains, and we 'percieve' the circle and 'experience' our visual results.

Firstly I do not accept the existance of universally experienced sensations.

Secondly I would say that is not enough to define an objective truth.

opinions submitted, arguments requested.

Would everyone feel cold in an Antarctic blizzard in insufficient clothing? Would this sensation of cold thus be "objective".​

YES, and.....ummm, that's MY argument! What's the point of arguing with me when you agree with me?

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.

Potentially, yes, everyone COULD come to enjoy looking at her, she is 'easy on the eyes', her form is symmetrical in ways that are commonly accepted as beautiful and pleasant.

You seem to equate female beauty in this case with cues as to reproductive fitness.

I dont find the reproductive fitness argument to be very enlightening, it's a philosophical argument trying to wear science clothing. The only people that can relate to it are test tube nerds stuck in a laboratory.

We can agree on 'atheletic beauty', right? An atheletic, slim body, male or female, has qualities that all can agree on. In atheletic movement, we all can agree that certain movements are visually 'stunning' and captivating, such as a ballerina's twirls, Michael Jordan's Dunks, etc etc.

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?

first off, your question assumes some truth that a large proportion of the population of women dont agree on AJ's beauty. Secondly, YES, I do think that ALL WOMEN and ALL MEN can POTENTIALLY come to agree on her objective qualities for beauty.

You are assuming that

A.) people are honest and self aware.
B.) that when asked for opinions, people can accuratly and honestly asses their reactions.

I argue that sensations and aesthetic judgements are subjective. Objective truths are independant of the observer. Measurable quantities are by definition objective truths.

I agree that you have a standard and working definition of objective and subjective. It's just limited, does not stay consistant. It's not a complete definition.

Right now, I am exploring 'category theory', which I was recently made aware of due to Prof Chris Isham's work in phyics. I am defining a higher abstraction of 'objective and subjective' that continues in all 'meanings' of those terms. You are using a small category of 'objective/subjective' that works in a limited sense, but not in a universal sense.

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*.

Ahhh, so we agree again! Amazing how you find POMO boring, yet you find arguing with someone you agree with stimulating!

Historical events for example; incidents in the US civil war did happen, but we can't be certain as to how or what.

AGREED!! So we only have our 'ideas' about the past to go on, their are no 'experiences of the civil war' floating around anymore. IDEAS ABOUT THE PAST ARE FALSE BY DEFAULT.

By 'false', I mean it's higher abstractional category, not the limited category of 'not true', or 'wrong', or 'incorrect'

Then there are some metaphysical questions that are unknowable.

Some may be objectively unknowable but personally experiential

Does Thor exist? The answer is that he either does or he doesn't but we can't know for certain.

BULLPOOP! We can know that 'thor' exists in the very least as an FALSE IDEA, and owes his existence to the realm of our inner mechanisms/imagination. We can then come to know what those inner mechanisms come to 'mean' objectively, and see 'thor' as a false idea about something very 'objective' in our psyche and nature. 'Myths' may very well tell us something objective about nature using metaphor as it's sole method of communication.

Orwell's Animal Farm doesnt exist, right? it's fiction, yet does it not communicate something objective about human nature?

Note how 'art' can express something that is difficult to define in other terms.


BF​

 

[WWHP]

edit double post

 

[WWHP]

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.

that's because you are still modeling OS 012 in a really mundane way, and then you blame your own subjective process on OS 012! tsk tsk tsk..

rather, you fail to note that those topics that have been stimulated by OS 012 are neccesary truths of it's environment.

*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.

Again, your model is faulted, but at least it's getting closer. the essence of truth is 'existence' and all things that are related to 'true' mean they exist. I am attempting to explain that 'true' is the root of all of our meaning, and can be deconstructed into three categories, objectively true, objectively false, and objectively unknown.

*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.

close, but no cigar. rather, the content of conscious experience is a value of CERTAINTY that we can distinguish at a metalogical level, meaning that it's certainty is embedded into itself, where as certainty is not embedded into things outside of our content of conscious experience. (by the way, I like how you phrased that 'content of conscious experience, nice work there!)

*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".

no. conflict is embedded into assertions. any assertion of a truth value will/have recieve an antithesis. the content of the assertion is irrelevant.

*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.

kind of, but that's not a very complete description, rather, our 'meaning' is comprised of relative usages of language, each usage of each work based on personal experience, and thus, we confuse 'OUR' objective and subjective with 'YOUR' objective and subjective, and produce conflicts where essentially none exist, and ignore them where they do actually exist.

New understanding of OS012 = nil.
Understanding of the world gained via OS012 = nil.

then you need to start being more honest with your questioning, stop making assertions about OS 012 to yourself until you u nderstand it.

I'm waiting for his interesting responses to my restating of Z's model and our points about his failure to understand the cogito.

will address those, thought I already did


BF

 

[WWHP]

I thought i addressed this before my absence, but maybe I didnt and therefore shall address it again!

Ok, let's refresh Z's model by taking 4 statements:

first off, let's address Z's argument, which is 'there is NO THIRD VALUE', and that 'NO THIRD VALUE is neccesary to model reality because TWO VALUE model reality perfectly fine'. (and also keep in mind that after he 'asserted' this, he then went on to say that two values cannot model reality, for reality is too complex for just true and false, which can only mean that reality is too 'mysterious' for two values, which completly means he retracted his own argument)

Flimflam is wearing blue trousers
Flimflam is not wearing blue trousers
Bubb is wearing a green shirt
Bubb is not wearing a green shirt

Now all those statements are either true or false. If we introduce a point of view into it you can simply add the known/unknown factor.

Consider, if you add the 'known/unknown' factor, you have added a third value, so right there the model itself is contradicted. 'known' is REDUCIBLE to true and false. unknown is not reducible, thus you have Known (true/false) and unknown. How do you account for that? Z could not account for that, I hope you can.

This separates the truth of statements as they relate to objective reality and knowledge quite neatly. As far as I'm aware you haven't come up with a coherent argument why this is invalid.

first off, it's not 'invalid', it's just static and the third value is embedded into it, making the argument redundant.

Secondly, he added that there are 'false' unknowns and 'true' unknowns, completing his 2x2 logic, suggesting that unknown is knowable still as either true or false. Yet he failed to provide the steps taken to conclude such a thing other than epistemalogically after the fact, which means that it's USELESS, because how can we determine true of false meaning from assertions where it is simply unknowable, such as assertions about our future?

Unknown is a knowledge value not a truth value.

and what in the hell is a 'knowledge value'? I find this assertion to be bizzarely irrational, for true and false would be 'knowledge values' as well if such an objective category for values was ever bothered to be defined by either you or Z

To say something is unknown is to say that a specific individual doesn't know whether something is true or false, not to say that it is neither true nor false. Unless of course you're stuck in some sort of trivalent loop.

Your misapplying and mistreating the information given. OS 012 is for ideas, or our 'meaning'. There are many things where the 'meaning' is unknown yet still under consideration. Life after death, ideas about life after death, what 'meaning' can they hold?

Keep it simple. We integrate and communiate, consider and contemplate reality through three distinctions of 'meaning', true meaning, false meaning, and mysterious meaning. those categories of 0, 1, and 2 are higher abstractions, they contain 'meaning' that exists in ALL understanding by ALL points of view.

ETA: to put in terms that are closer to what you use. The objective part of the model is the truth value i.e., whether the statement is accurate in describing reality (objectively true, objectively false). The subjective component is whether a particular individual knows the objective truth value (true or false).

Last week, a gunman at Virgina Tech killed 32 people and left messages for the world to ponder. What was his meaning of those messages? we can never know, we can never know what his 'experience' was, it is clouded in mystery, and when we consider his meaning, we can consider it in a state outside of true or false, and continue to contemplate it

So it's just your opinion. My opinion is that he doesn't manipulate people. End of discussion. If it's just an opinion then mine is as valid as yours, a bit like beauty really.

It's Z's opinion as well that he manipulates people, so I am just calling him on his words. He says he plays people like violins. That's a confession. You dont want to consider that because Z is supporting your belief system in your mind, and he is part of your structure of truth. take away z, and you take away part of your structure. You need Z.

Again, if you don't believe what he writes, nor consider the validity of each statement only for the statement and not entangled with the beliefs of the writer what hope do you have of actually taking part in a discussion?

Perhaps you are not following very closely. I am not interesting in words as much as meaning. I can only go on words, however, to deconstruct 'meaning'. I get to what people 'mean', not what they 'say'.

people use language very deceptively and for very personal reasons. Z's 'meaning' and his words are not consistant, yet he fails to be honest about his 'meaning' because his language would reveal that he doenst believe his own assertion, and his own 'belief' is that he accepts 'mystery', indeed, he WORSHIPS it!

If I say that the Pacific Ocean is only 3ft deep and really believe that it is true, how does my belief change the fact that my statement is demonstrably false?

It's not just your statement, it's your meaning that is false. Your 'meaning' is your personal environment, your personal experience of truth. Now if you were to argue that the ocean is two miles deep, but really believe it is three feet deep due to your belief system, I can assure you I will eventually find that out in this dialectical process! and simply point out your hidden argument. if on top of that you claim that you 'play people like violins', then I can assume your deceptive and manipulative, and your argument holds some private value that you unconsciously use to seperate yourself from your fellows.

 

[zooterkin]

. My argument regarding musical structures relates a certain truth about music, that regardless of arrangment or voicing, all music contains the potential of harmony and syncopation, regardless if it is referred to or not in the composition's arrangment. Any piece of music can be arranged in virtually unlimited ways. One note contains the potential for harmony with other notes. Harmony is essential IN music, and syncopation is simply an arrangment of rythym. It exists in ALL music potentially, and it is the choice of the arranger to use those possibilities, or not.

No, you said that harmony and rhythm were essential to music, which is simply not true.

thus, we find objective beauty in music BECAUSE of harmony and rythym.

But harmony and music are not essential for music, and music can exist and be found beautiful without them. Therefore your argument falls apart.

It falls apart anyway, since beauty, in music or people, is subjective.

 

[jimbob]

AGREED!! So we only have our 'ideas' about the past to go on, their are no 'experiences of the civil war' floating around anymore. IDEAS ABOUT THE PAST ARE FALSE BY DEFAULT.

By 'false', I mean it's higher abstractional category, not the limited category of 'not true', or 'wrong', or 'incorrect'

Ah, I was using "false" in the conventional fashion. What is "it's higher abstractional category"? (or even "its higher abstractional category").

My great-great-great-great-grandparents lived, but I know sod all about them. However I am certain (with the usual caveats) that they did.

Is this idea "False by default"?

 

[WWHP]

How is this different from saying, "'The Earth is bigger than the Sun' is false"?

dude, you have to do some work here. A false idea in and of itself holds personal or creative meaning, and holds no conflict unless it is asserted as true. when we parse meaning into language, that distinction is not neccesarily present.

The MOON is MADE of CHEESE asserts something because of the connector 'is'. it can hold an assertion of truth or a expression of some creativity.

What benefit do you gain from this obfuscation? I think you are damaging your ability to think clearly by unnecessary levels of indirection.

Not interested in personal opinions, dont have time to address each petty concern, sorry.

Your interpretation of false is an idea which asserts a truth value that is incorrect.

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'.

Ask youself, challenge yourself to define what false is without referring to 'true'. Go ahead, see what you come up with. The truth is, we have no collective understanding, no category for false that elucidates any understanding whatsoever on what the hell it means when something is 'false' in and of itself. OS 012 defines a higher abstraction for false that allows us some understanding of what it means without contradicting or taking it away from it's commonly accepted usage.

I'm sorry, for some reason your meaning is not clear.

THAT's THE THIRD VALUE YOU JUST STATED. Consider your contemplation of my meaning, you are able to consider it outside of a binary set, correct? what value would you place on that consideration?

When encountering a third value event, a mystery so to speak, we 'naturally' begin to ask questions, as you have proven to yourself below....

What do you mean by 'internal event'?

some experience or qualia.

Where is OS012's definition?

Dont understand your question.

Are you saying that subjectively true statements are false in OS012?

yes

If so, what do you gain by classifying subjectively true events with subjectively and objectively false (real-world definition) statements?

the ability to map communication and reality, conflict and confusion, with greater understanding.

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.

what we are experiencing is CERTAINLY true, ideas about the past are CERTAINLY FALSE, and their truth value in certainty is debatable, we just assume what is true about the past relative to what works in modeling the present.

Exactly how large is the set of 'true' things in OS012?

infinite. any boundry/finite is illusory and only neccesary for refrence in communication

(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.) )

OS 012 is NOT AN ESOTERIC SYSTEM, it is an EXOTERIC system, and defines higher abstractions, higher dimensions, metacategories for our common usage.

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')?

the 'distinction' is that common usage of false is simply 'incorrect' or not true. OS 012 definition doesnt negate that, but it allows us a higher perspective for false which makes distinguishing true, false, and mystery VERY VERY SIMPLE.

Consider, at first, we only have two perceptions of environment to play with, internal and external. If an idea does not properly define external reality, then by default it must be defining an internal reality unknowingly. The internal reality is FALSE relative to the external reality. It's still not 'true'.

"The opposite of truth is falsity. The opposite of one profound truth, however, is another profound truth" -Niels Bohr.

And when you say 'in conflict', do you just mean 'opposed to'?

OS 012 defines conflict as any conceptual or physical distinctions which are trying to hold the same place at the same time.

I wonder; perhaps it is because you have yet to state OS012 in any coherent manner?
.

Again, you are assuming that because you are still trying to make sense of this, you are still integrating it's truth, that the 'incoherence' lays in some objective way in my language, rather than in your own mind.

String theory looks incoherent to me, does that mean that it's incoherance is due to itself, or my lack of knowledge and education in physics?


BF

 

[drkitten]

Again, you are assuming that because you are still trying to make sense of this, you are still integrating it's truth, that the 'incoherence' lays in some objective way in my language, rather than in your own mind.

Except that no one has succeeded in making sense out of the incoherent pile of pig droppings that you keep calling a system.

]
String theory looks incoherent to me, does that mean that it's incoherance is due to itself, or my lack of knowledge and education in physics?

I would say that both your lack of understanding of string theory and zooterkin's lack of understand of OS012 derive from the same fundamental inabiility:

The complete and total inability of Bubblefish to reason coherently.

 

[WWHP]

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?

dude, c'mon, try not to react so much, your smarter than that.

THIS TEXT IS RECORDED IN MUTUALLY OBSERVABLE SPACE. IT EXISTS AS LONG AS THIS FORUM EXISTS.

and I note about a gazillion times that when you all refer to my words WRITTEN, for example at Badscience, you dont go back and check the page for my words, but rather your memory banks, and thus CONFUSE MY WORDS because y ou assume the words in your head were my words on the page.

How on earth do we have objectivity relating to mutual viewability?

this text is existing moment to moment, and you can go back and verfiy what my text is each moment, although I wrote it in the past, it is recorded FOR THE PRESENT.

sheesh, you really are still stuck in the newtonian push/pull universe, arnt you?

 

[WWHP]

Except that no one has succeeded in making sense out of the incoherent pile of pig droppings that you keep calling a system.

oh doc kitten, still making the assumption that you are the universe. is your head that big?

there are quite a few people who can make sense of OS 012, and some can explain it better than me.

I would say that both your lack of understanding of string theory and zooterkin's lack of understand of OS012 derive from the same fundamental inabiility:

The complete and total inability of Bubblefish to reason coherently.

hey doc kitten, when are you going to stop making that silly irrational elmer fudd error in your head that ideas are people?

If I cant explain string theory, then that's MY problem in communication or understanding, yet string theory may still be viable.

Your being a silly academic bully again. Please directly confront my assertions with REASONABLE arguments in a RATIONAL tit for tat exchange. I'm really bored with your false sense of understanding and your ability to hide behind your profession. Your turning academia into a religion, and that is a boring philosophical arguement.

IF you dont understand what I write, then your first RATIONAL response is to ask a reasonable question. You have continually failed to do that, and all we get is a fundamentalist reaction.

Your own recorded behavior of how you react to this idea is PROOF of your thinking process. For such an educated fellow, you certainly are an irrational emotional feely type!

BF

 

[WWHP]

enough for now, more later.

IT's real nice to be back. I'm sure you all 'feel' the same;-)

 

[drkitten]

there are quite a few people who can make sense of OS 012, and some can explain it better than me.

Then why haven't you cited any of them?

If I cant explain string theory, then that's MY problem in communication or understanding, yet string theory may still be viable.

Yes. And the clearest proof of that is the fact that there are demonstrably some people who can explain string theory, and others who demonstrably have obtained an understanding of string theory after it was explained to them.

.... neither of which holds for BS123 or whatever it calls

Please directly confront my assertions with REASONABLE arguments in a RATIONAL tit for tat exchange.

Certainly. Your theories are a combination of vacuous truism mixed with a serious misunderstanding of some fairly fundamental aspects of reality. It's demonstrably not only not led you to greater understanding of the world, but has quite probably led you to misresprent and misundersand other areas of the world that are unrelated to your theories (such as the nature of beauty and or the relationships between music, harmony, and rhysim.

IF you dont understand what I write, then your first RATIONAL response is to ask a reasonable question.

I have. I've satisfied myself on the course of this thread that you do not have the capacity rationally to answer reasonable questions.

However, since you asked nicely, I will give you one more chance to answer a reasonable question.

What verifiable evidence is there that the adoption of this framework will have any positive benefits at all for the adopter?

 

[WWHP]

OS 012 for OBJECTIVISTS

(take the honesty test! the only sure fire way to apply the scientific method to subjective experience and arrive with a perfectly objective conclusion)

Taking the OS 012 honesty test is unique, for it is a test which is not requesting any answers, provides no symbolic value for a succesfull adventure, and soley depends upon you to objectively confirm your own score.


Step 01:

Consider the possibility that OS 012 as an idea is conceptualy both 'attractive' and 'repulsive' at once.

Query:

Step 02: Can you honestly model such a possibility in your mind rationally to yourself in a way that makes sense?

Query:

Step 03: Do you find yourself both attracted to and repulsed by the idea of OS 012?

Query

Step 04:Would you consider that your behaviors, which are recorded on this forum with date and time and expressed into text, be regarded as objective evidence for your true thoughts on the matter?

Query

Step 05

How honest do you think you are in your evaluations to your considerations to this test, and how do you know?


Enjoy.


Bubblefish

 

[drkitten]

Step 01:

Consider the possibility that OS 012 as an idea is conceptualy both 'attractive' and 'repulsive' at once.

Considered.

Step 02: Can you honestly model such a possibility in your mind rationally to yourself in a way that makes sense?

Yes. There are any number of physical models that could be applied to such things.

Step 03: Do you find yourself both attracted to and repulsed by the idea of OS 012?

No. It has no attractive features whatsoever.

Step 04:Would you consider that your behaviors, which are recorded on this forum with date and time and expressed into text, be regarded as objective evidence for your true thoughts on the matter?

Yes.

How honest do you think you are in your evaluations to your considerations to this test, and how do you know?

I believe I am completely honest. I have no rational basis for regarding OS012 as anything other than a load of pretentious codswollop, and I've been fairly forthright in my characterization. I have no reason to believe that my characterization is in any way untrue. Absent any evidence that suggests that OS012 does, in fact, manage to achieve the value of a half cup of warm spit, I see no reason to believe that I am in any way misrepresenting my complete and total contempt for it.


So, BF -- when were you going to provide the verifiable evidence of OS012's worth?

 

[Gnu Ordure]

hi guys,

I see that bubb has returned.

As I said before, this is his thread and I have no wish to hi-jack it.

So I will leave you.

I am still interested in continuing our discussion on consensus reality, though, to see where it goes...

I've written a rather lengthy (sorry) riposte to z and zooterkin, but also addressing contributions from mojo, the professor, and hokulele, and drk , and possibly others...

.... and put it on another thread...

I would be very happy to continue the discussion with you guys over there....

And I'd like you to know that if NONE of you go over there and talk to me, I will be psychologically devastated by the rejection, and you'll have to live with the fact that you've put my rehabilitation back YEARS, do you hear me, YEARS !!!

Sorry, where was I ?

Oh, right, the link ...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80358