Skepticism and The Normal

[Mobyseven]

Bubblefish:

You have completely ignored my post...please respond?

 

[WWHP]

hey moby, havent ignored by any means, just trying to catch up, and hopefully will get to it in the next hour.....

 

[WWHP]

edit

 

[WWHP]

OS 0 1 2 for Slowpokes, Part Deux


On a table in a kitchen somewhere rests a cup, capable of holding 4 ounces of water, and no more, yet the cup only contains two ounces of water.

Along side this cup are three fellows, a bivalent feeler, a bivalent thinker, and an OS 012 user (both a thinker and a feeler).




The bivalent feeler looks at the cup and says 'The glass is half full!' and shouts for joy, decrying the bivalent thinker's skepticism with an honest assesment

The Bivalent thinker looks at the cup and says 'nay, it is half empty!' and joyously derides the feeler for not being a realist.

But the OS 012 user simply looks at the cup for what it is and how it appears, and says "The cup is BOTH half empty, and half full"

All three fellows were stating observable truths. Which truth appeared to define the state accuratly to all points of view?

 

[Mojo]

OS 0 1 2 for Slowpokes, Part Deux


On a table in a kitchen somewhere rests a cup, capable of holding 4 ounces of water, and no more, yet the cup only contains two ounces of water.

Along side this cup are three fellows, a bivalent feeler, a bivalent thinker, and an OS 012 user (both a thinker and a feeler).




The bivalent feeler looks at the cup and says 'The glass is half full!' and shouts for joy, decrying the bivalent thinker's skepticism with an honest assesment

The Bivalent thinker looks at the cup and says 'nay, it is half empty!' and joyously derides the feeler for not being a realist.

But the OS 012 user simply looks at the cup for what it is and how it appears, and says "The cup is BOTH half empty, and half full"

All three fellows were stating observable truths. Which truth appeared to define the state accuratly to all points of view?

None of them.

The first one is making an irrelevant statement about a glass.

The other two both state that the cup is half empty. It is in fact half full of water and half full of air.

 

[Mojo]

Incidentally, why is the pessimistic interpretation described as "skepticism"?

I smell straw.

 

[Z]

Even if you change their statements to add 'of water', their statements are in no way contradictory nor unrealistic. All three are completely accurate (if you add 'of water', and completely and realistically describe the situation.

After all 'half empty of water' implies 'half full of water, as 'half full of water' implies 'half empty of water. The combined statement is in no way a contradictory statement, nor does it add any additional information to anyone who speaks the language and understands what a half is.

It looks like Bubba still hasn't learned how to make valid statements though...

OTOH, it is a nice attempt at a redirect from his miserable inability to comprehend subjectivity versus objectivity.

Heck, he might even be worth taking off ignore, if his comments keep being this humorous.

 

[WWHP]

Mby, is this the post???

Gregorian Chants.



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.

Within all this struggle to define what music is and is composed of, I think we are missing the point. Standard definitions of music, as applied in musical theory, is just a set of agreed upon distinctions that we use to arrange music. When I say that harmony, rythym, and syncopation are 'implicit' in music, I mean music in the general sense, not in a specific arrangment. An arrangment of music is just an arrangment, and their are many possibilities that one can deviate from inside of an arrangment. The possibility for harmony, syncopation, etc etc, still exists in any arrangment of music, just because the arranger choose not to explore them, for whatever reason, is not relevant to my point here.

The earlier point i was making with music is that even one note played on any instrument is still a sort of coupling, a coupling of 'tone' and 'beat'. If I hit a note on a piano, I am playing a tone and hitting a beat. The length and description of the beat is going to be relative to the overall arrangment, but it's still there and can be represented. Indeed, it's beat and tone is what is registered on the musical sheet. So music, at it's most deconstructed level of one singular note, is still a harmony in some sense. I used the word 'syncopation' loosely earlier to describe this, with 'sync' being the important descriptor here. Yes, I am aware that syncopation has a specifis usage, and not all arrangments carry syncopation, but all arrangements have the possibility of syncopation, for it is embedded into the general form and category of what we call 'music'.

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).

again, I am not disagreeing with this in a specific arrangment, I am speaking in the generalized sense of music. Let's make a distinction here between 'music' and 'a piece of music'.

You cannot play a tone without hitting a beat

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

I'm really surprised that it makes little sense to you if you are a musician. What is so difficult to understand about that? Perhaps it may be my choice of words, but I am describing something quite common in musicianship. Although I am no longer a professional in music, I still work with musicians all the time. They understand that perfectly. What is preventing you from determining my meaning here, I dont understand.

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.

Those up beats are already present in the form, it is the choice of the artist (including dancers) to accentuate them, or not. They dont pop into existence in princaple when they are played, rather, they are in a state of possibility until they are played.

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

again, like I said, I was using the term loosely earlier, with the emphasis on the 'sync', as in music is a 'syncopation' of tone and beat. I agree that is a confusing usage, and clarified my meaning a few times already.

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.

this is NOT true, or should I say, not complete. If I hit a note out of time, i am still hitting it relative to 'my time', just not the time of the musical arrangment. Take away the arrangment and keep my phrase or note, and I still having 'beats' that I am hitting. Let's say my feel is way off, and I have no 'sense of time', well, I am still hiting beats that can be quantized to the position, such as sequencers are able to provide.

I think you are limiting you usage of 'beat' to mean 'down beat', and I simply mean 'beat' as a quantification of tone in relationship to length.

and again, all of this is missing the point. music is a sort of generalized coupling, a harmony in the general sense of two or more distinctive elements aligning into performance which is found to be beautiful by the human ear.

I am pressed for time these days, and dont want to derail this discussion into musical theory. Although I am prone to define things in my own terms, I do not contradict musical theory by any means.

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?

well, sure, that's sort of close, certainly not the way I would introduce it, but close enough to begin. I dont just limit it to formal logic, but rather the generalized bivalency that grips most of our thinking.

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) ).

yes, agreed

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?

Well, it does help, yes, at least to show that 'the third value doesnt exist' is a false argument. I think a few participants in this discussion are at least vaguely familiar with what you wrote, and I appreciate your participation.

However, OS 012 is not a formal system of logic, it may use one or apply one, but it is a dialectic that requests it's participants to define the third value in common language. We use 'yes', 'no, 'maybe' all the time in common usage, as well as true, false, or mystery. It applies three values to reality, our perceptions of reality, and creates a map for discussion that shows if three values are addressed, then both sides can 'win' in ideological struggles, providing a helpful tool for problem solving and conflict resolution.

I do suggest and argue that three values is closer to our metalogic, our own brain wiring (which has been suggested to me by one of the top brain researchers in the field). I do suggest that our perception and modeling of reality is limited to three higher abstract categories of true, false, and both 'totally true and totally false' at once.

Are you familiar with Prof Chris Isham's work in QM with three valued logics, i ncluding 'both true and false'? He recently suggested to me that I alter or change my propositions to say that the third value is 'both totally true and totally false at once', which I seem to enjoy more than the old 'true and false at once'. If you curious about his papers, he sent me a few, so PM me and I will forward those to y ou if your interested.


If there way another post of yours that I havent addressed, please know i will, I am a few pages behind. I havent even read Gnu's posts yet!


Thanks Moby

BF

 

[WWHP]

Gnu, you are more than welcome to continue your discussion here, I havent read your ideas yet and look forward to , but please continue, it's all related in some sense.

 

[WWHP]

Note to all. I am clearly way behind in this discussion. I will address, eventually, ALL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, most likely in the order they are read. Please be patient. thanks for participating.

 

[JonnyFive]

I would like to propose a system of thinking and decision making that will end all world conflicts if everyone in the world adheres to it.

I call it "JiR1", and it is based on the naturally harmonious harmony of the number one.

JiR1 stands for "Jonny is Right: One", and it has exactly one core principle:

1-JonnyFive is always right about everything, always.

It's much easier to grasp conceptually than either OS012 or any of the various meaningful philosophies out there. Also, it conceptualizes all knowledge, ever... even if the meaning of that knowledge will change over time in tune with my whims and fancies.

So dance, monkeys, dance! JiR1 is the true path of all knowledge! DANCE!

 

[Mojo]

 

[JonnyFive]

Already you're starting to use JiR1 in your daily life. You cannot deny the power of JiR1!

 

[Gnu Ordure]

Gnu, you are more than welcome to continue your discussion here, I havent read your ideas yet and look forward to , but please continue, it's all related in some sense.

that's very kind of you Bubb, but I have vacated the stage I temporarily inhabited during your absence...

... so don't waste your time replying to my posts here, because I've gone, OK ?

In case any of you missed my announcement yesterday, I've started a new thread, to continue my digression, here :

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



Gnu.

 

[WWHP]

From: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/BeSeenBeHeard/popup?id=3073222


Tomorrow "Good Morning America " reveals the 18th annual People magazine list of the most beautiful people. We want to know who you think the most beautiful person of 2007 will be.


Who is the most beautiful woman?

Angelina Jolie

1,728


Aishwarya Rai

1,165
Reese Witherspoon

997
Scarlett Johansson

704
Katherine Heigl

604
Rachel McAdams

550
Gisele Býndchen

356
America Ferrera

346
Helen Mirren

294
Jennifer Hudson

252
Maria Sharapova

155
Bridget Moynahan

 

[WWHP]

Back to Z's model.

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.

so far that seems it's only benifit, to use as a counter model along side OS 012, to give a clear example of extreme steps bivalent thinking will take you in ways which are utterly useless.

Can you provide ANY example of how this new system of 2x2 logic that Z mystified into his head so he could make a rebuttal against OS 012 be applied in any practical way whatsoever, at least in theory? Cant wait to hear it.

Well we've yet to see whether this bivalent exercise works since we haven't tested it.

we have tested it, and it cant produce any answers to question relating to the future. it only produces 'true unknowns' and 'false unknowns', according to Z. have you updated his system into some coherance?

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.

BUT HE IS! That was his whole point, the third value doesnt exist.

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.

Your flat out WRONG and misleading yourself again. I am here arguing something very specifically, and the only thing we are arguing are the six laws of the dialectic, mainly ALL ideas are comprehended in three higher conceptual values of 0, 1, and 2.

You have yet to provide any evidence as to how this is not the case, have failed to properly model my arguments in your mind, and have continued to flat out misrepresent this discussion.

quit it, please.

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

I am not here providing evidence of OS 012's efficacy, that's a strawman that both you and kitten use to intimidate this discussion into some sort of academic trump contest. I am here arguing it's THEORITICAL STRUCTURES, and you are here providing anti-thesis.

'she may come, she may not come'. now let's get to our tit for tat. stop assuming your anti-thesis is true just because you h ave one.

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".

right, we have a bivalent set of possible outcomes, either of which may be true, or may be false.

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.

First off, I dont agree that you can shorten it, and dont agree with your deconstruction here. the phrase is a set of grammars that you cant just cut in half because it's upsetting your logic. However, I'll let you continue anyway, because even if you shorten it it doesnt take away from an element of logical possibility which has no true or false evaluation.

The statement is equivalent to "There is a non-zero and non-unity probability that she will come".

That would be a true statement about the outcome, but the phrase does not define the outcome, the phrase says the outcome is unknown.

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".

whew, this is lotsa work this 2x2 system of yours and Z's. ANd what have we concluded so far, simply that she may come, she may not come. and now you are still back to square one. both maybe true, both maybe false, just not at once. One of them may b e true, and another may be false.

is it a true unknown or a true known that she will come?

is it false known or a true unknown that she will come?

Those are the questions you have to have a very simple, elegant, and common description for.

Using Z's Model, we have true knowns and false knowns, true unknowns and false unknowns. Remember, you have to keep that formula, you cant summarize it as a unknown because if you do, then your just agreeing with a ternary system and this argument is a waste of our time.

What you appear to be saying is that if something is unknown to me it is neither true nor false to me. So what?

So you dont know, that's what.

We have personal unknowns and shared unknowns, so the important thing to accept rationally is that we simply have unknowns as a general descriptor of ideas in our environment, as well as true and false.

It is the shared unknowns that we have the conflict of idea over, it is our shared unknowns that we mask as either true (the believer) or false (the skeptic), which simply communicates inappropiate rational information into something that it isnt.

Nobody disagrees with that and chillzero worked that out in his second post.

Then if no one disagrees with it, what the HELL ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT? This is a dialectic, where both sides must define where the unknowns exist in the conflict. Let me repeat that again because you constantly accuse me of not explaining it as a dialectic.

This is a dialectic, where both sides must define where the unknowns exist in the conflict. The must be defined and defined objectively and rationally.

If you agree with me that we all have unknowns, then you have a very creative argument in your head about what all of this is. It's no more complex than that.

I bring up ternary logic to simply show that there is a rational and mathematical relationship TO three values, meaning, to use three values where they apply is logical and rational.

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.

No, your mistaken and your only seeing one half of it. Consider how the definition of 'Objective' is defined, as that which is mutually viewable. That's the definition of objective, and if it's true, that means that anything that is m utually viewable, mutually experienced, mutually percieved, is indeed objective. To be objective, something must exist independent of a human observer. Notice I said 'a' human observer, not 'human observers'.

Qualia is an often conflicting philosophical argument, yet it's a boring and useless philsophical argument when it comes to color and seeing color. We all agree the sky is blue because when we look at the sky, we see something we can agree to call blue. Yet it's not really blue, it's every color but blue. WHo cares unless your into brain research? it's a truth we all can agree upon, and therefore serves the FUNCTION of an objective reality.

Therefore, if we all percieve that which is unknown, even if it is soley unknown to us as an individual, we are still all percieving that which is unknown. To say something is unknown when it is unknown is being objective.

To bring up things that are 'unknown' are uncomforting on personal and collective levels, and we avoid 'unknowns' so we can continue to make sense of reality. The unknown is deadly to the politician, who can't admit lack of vision. The unknown is deadly to the average joe, who is afraid to admit he doenst know what the hell he is talking about. Collectively, we cover up unknowns with our ideas about true and false. We do this so we can create some sort of model of reality so we can navigate it. If we cover up our unknowns with our ideas about true and false, then our models of reality contain unknowns believed to be true or false, and is thus very innaccurate, misleading, delusional, and deceptive. (Iraq war case in point)

There, that's an assertion. I have asserted HOW the third value is valuable for dialouge. I dont want to hear about your personal experience reading it, I want you to ARGUE IT.

if you dont argue it, I assume that you either A.) agree with it, or B.) have no argument to stand on.

The reason why this does not generalise is that not knowing does not change the state of reality (except your brain state).

Well here is where I find your thinking very UN comprehensive of what this is all about. Consider, if what you were saying were true, then how is it then that if WMD were considered as unknowns before the invasion of Iraq, reality in Iraq today may be entirely different?

Our perception of unknown DOES change reality because humans CHANGE reality. Just not in the way your thinking, your assuming some mystical argument here and then trying to argue against it, and your still failing.

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.

it doesnt depend upon anyone's individualknowledge, but it SOLEY depends upon our collective knowledge and that which we agree upon is TRUE.

I can account for all statements within a 2x2 framework.

no, you cant. perhaps you think this is some sort of video game where you can create magical flashes of text?

"she may come, she may not come" let's break it down into a 2x2 logic test, shall we?

She will come. She will not come.

is it a true unknown or a true known that she will come?

is it false known or a true unknown that she will not come?

is it a true unknown or a true known that she will not come?

is it false known or a true unknown that she will not come?

You dont need to translate it into probability or whatever the hell it was that you were doing earlier, just keep it simple and provide us with which truth category in 2x2 logic your answer comes in, thanks.

Do not confuse this with the claim that I, personally, can accurately place any statement into the correct one of the 4 resulting categories.

I'm glad you admit that 2x2 is usless.

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).

the phrase 'she may come, she may not come' is a collective unknown, sorry to disappoint you.

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.

you mean that because it does what boolean does in a sense, it can take three values (in some statements) and parse them into binary. so what? why not just use boolean or try to argue boolean against OS 012?

can you explain how defining 2x2 systems in communication will assist us in defining the three higher abstractions in our shared environments?

Hi, I'm a MAC

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.

And your definatly a PC. you dont know, nor anyone, about the state of reality in the future, so there fore, PC, your trying to force three distinctions of values into a this or that framework, thus, you can only handle simple and meanial tasks, need to invest time in unneccesary computations, and provide no interesting philosophical observations.

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.

what do you mean 'once' something is unknown???? that's absurd, as all things BEGIN with unknown and evolve into true and false. Your making an absurdist claim here. and since the model is dynamic, ALL ideas are continually MORPHING into T, F, or M. Indeed, you can state that all ideas are in a continual state of T, F, or M in some sense.

And your still failing to model OS 012. 0, 1, and 2 are the higher abstractions, and thus OS 012 deals with those categories as sets unto themselves. It doesnt matter what piece of knowledge is 0, 1, and 2, OS 012 is NOT a knowledge system, it is a system for UNDERSTANDING.

If you model it as a knowledge system, then you will continue to produce irrational models of what OS 012 looks like TO YOU.

 

[WWHP]

that's very kind of you Bubb, but I have vacated the stage I temporarily inhabited during your absence...

... so don't waste your time replying to my posts here, because I've gone, OK ?

if I do respond to a relevant point made by yourself, I will post it here, just to keep my own experiment here in order with the dialouges, plus, dont have time for two discussions at the same time.

Good luck with your discussion.

 

[WWHP]

Well, if I interpret what he's been saying right, here's what Bubb is hoping for:

Hmm, wasnt really thinking about the result, but let's see how you came in..

1) We all admit he's right - which he can then crow as a crowning achievement for OS012. We all join his cult of mystery and become members of his vast forum alongside Miss Tree and others.

hah! far from the truth, it's better for the discussion and the idea if you all continue to argue against this.

2) We all leave - which he can then crow as a crowning achievement for OS012, as his arguments have driven us all to slink away, unable to face his inevitable truths.

hehe, there is some truth to this! I would love it if you all left the discussion, it would greatly free up my time, since I have already made the point I needed to make for my own work here, I am continuing only because I make a commitment to stay inside of a discussion.

3) He gets banned, or this thread locked down - which he can then crow as a crowning achievement for OS012, as his arguments have driven the moderators to attempt to suppress the inevitable truth of OS012.

well, that's not what I want, although I indeed would consider it an honor.

4) We continue this discussion endlessly - which he can then crow as a crowning achievement for OS012, as his arguments are so compelling that we cannot stop discussing them.

umm, isnt that what's already happening Sherlock?;-)

In other words, he IS developing a win-win situation - for himself.

Ahh, you're actually right. I am always winning and i will indeed emerge victorious in this discussion no matter what, but I dont think you know what that really means yet.

You can win this with me, you can be victorious too, yet your defeating yourself in this discussion and I'm trying to show how.

I believe that the summaries will be the thing that visitors and passers-by notice, rather than his immature and childish trolling. It will be clear to lookers-on that others HAVE parsed his meanings and reached viable conclusions about the silly, contradictory, and pointless nature of his arguments, as well as the immature and contrary nature of Rome himself. So Rome might crow a 'win' since everyone has left, but since there would be within the thread precise statements of how Rome is wrong, and Rome unable to rebutt even the first of these, I think the results will stand for themselves.

hehe, I guess your just in this perpetual state of check mate with me, eh?

As it is, looking at the pattern of posting traffic on his own forum is pretty revealing - other than two or three cultists, his forum is a wasteland. If that doesn't reveal the lack of success of OS012, I don't know what will.

ahhh, right, that's how you decide OS 012 is false, by the crappy forum on the site. and that my friends, is more magical thinking via Z the peace loving hippy.

Amazing how a man who is a member of a modern day cult called the Correllian Nativist Church tries to brand OS 012's forum as being the center hub of a cult. hehe. that whole projection thingy is really funny, keep it up!

 

[WWHP]

I think that if ever a thread called out for recipies and kitten pictures, this is it. If Bubblefish thinks that the length of a thread is a measure of its sophisticated discussion, then padding this thread with another fifty pages of completely off-topic gibberish should keep him happy -- and perhaps more importantly, help provide a thorough debunking of the idea that we were somehow unable to resist an in-depth discussion of his ideas.

hehe, my friend, apparently your own free choice behaviors have kept you and many more in this discussion, and that is what I am experimenting here with. See, I claim to understand the conflict of idea, and i make the claim that it is the conflict of idea that is keeping you in this discussion and has influence over human behaviors that have not yet been properly considered by yourself.

What we are arguing about really doesnt even matter, it's the behaviors around what we are arguing about that does. And I'm sorry but your as predictable as the british weather.

BF

 

[WWHP]

An interesting theory, but IMHO, that amounts to trolling as well. Counter-trolling, I suppose. It's like stooping to the troll's level to do such. Witty and ascerbic commentary is about as low as I prefer to stoop... bad back, you know.

ahh, right, I'm trolling my own thread. That must be what makes OS 012 false