another contradiction to a man who claimed to put me on the ignore button. amazing how all the behaviors are so similar, eh?
hey Jonny, how'd ya do with that bet?
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
another contradiction to a man who claimed to put me on the ignore button. amazing how all the behaviors are so similar, eh?
hey Jonny, how'd ya do with that bet?
a crude but simple explanation, yes.
okay, then if that is true, please tell me where the shade of grey is in this truth;The word at the end of this sentence is the word this.
ahh, a ternary system!
the problem with your example is that your stating that IT IS TRUE that each of those concepts can fall along a less true/more true continuum, thus negating your own assertion in one fell swoop!
Our higher abstractions about reality are very BLACK, WHITE, and SILVER.
pointing something out is not the same thing as explaining something out. Just because you have an anti-thesis doesnt mean your idea is true.
Colors are both objective and subjective in some sense.
The statement "human beings have dreams" is an objective statement about a subjective experience, and depends upon subjective experience to validate it's own objectivity.
Go figure that one out.
to make the assertion that truths come in various shades of truth is stating a pure truth with absolutly no shades of grey to it whatsoever.
Your focusing on the content of truth, and OS 012 focuses on truth. There is a distinction that for about 5 months now you have been failing to make.
Nice recipes though, thanks for posting, martha;-)
BF
and yet you all continualy fail to model what happens when beauty has both an objective and subjective component.
it depends upon how you are defining consensual, objective, and subjective. Color is subjective to our human brains. Likewise, When a rat runs across the room, the snake sees heat flashes of red, humans see a furry critter. What is it independent of humans and snakes? That is an unknown, a third value evaluation. Our perceptions of reality is all we have to play with, so it is very very important to consider how things like 'objective reality' and 'truth' function in our minds in and of themselves, NOT what they contain.
By your responses, your appear to be defining consensual opinion, and consensual reality may transcend simple opinions. various cultures may be trained to view something that another culture may simply not see or hear, but can come to see or hear after cultural exchange. Western Musical Theory still exists in Chinese music, the chinese, for some reason, simply did not have a consensual reality to percieve it, yet many chinese people since have come to listen and appreciate western music.
Consensual reality is nothing more than the result of the historical dialectic, it is an imprint of the current conflict of idea about reality, which is our shared mystery that each culture will come to define subjective to thier experiences yet in princaple collective to all.
Read thomas Khun's Paradigm shifts. Paradigms are consensual realities, and true/false/mystery is still functioning perfectly in all consensual realities.
what changes the yard stick? emerging ideas about reality that are evaluated in some form of true/false/unknown. note how true/false/unknown maintain themselves throughout all consensual realities. those things remain after all other ideas have been torn asunder.
Thus, understanding the higher conceptual abstractions of true, false, and mystery is our 'true' objective reality, for they are the only things maintaining consistancy.
what process are you describing that is the 'averaging out'? what i s the process, can you define it? is it random? is it orderly? it it both random and orderly? is it unknown? you have to be able to define that to be able to refer to it as some sort of process that refutes objective beauty
Which rather proves the point that beauty is subjective, otherwise the result would have been unanimous. It doesn't prove that Angelina Jolie is objectively beautiful, only that a lot of people find her (subjectively, by definition) beautiful.
KQQL
umm, isnt that what everybody has been arguing already this whole time? Isnt that what third value viewpoints deconstruct into nothingness and contradiction?
I am aware of what the argument looks like in bivalency. That's what happens with bivalency, it splits things into EITHER objective OR subjective, and truly, if something is PURELY objective, then it's not subjective, and vice versa. I think that's the form.
Now, what I want you to do is 'consider' that beauty, or anything really, color, reality, etc etc, is both objective and subjective in some sense, and that the relationship betwen the object and subject is not black or white, but rather possibly a little bit of both.
Consider your own form for the argument, but placed upon your own anti-thesis, that beauty is subjective.
P1: A subjective judgment does not require a objective judgement or evaluation. As such, a subjective truth is a truth that CANT be recognised as true by everybody.
P2: If a judgment is not subjective (i.e. - it holds mutual observability) then it is objective.
P3: If beauty in SOUND is subjective then very few would recognise the same SOUNDS as being beautiful, and the freeway would hold similar captivation as a dumptrunk as Mozart or Miles Davis, and in similar statistics.
P4: Everybody with ears that can determine relative or pefect pitch recognises the same quality of SOUND as being beautiful. Sounds which produce harmony in a general sense are indeed commonly found to be beautiful, or more beautiful than other sounds in the environments
CONC: Therefore, beauty in SOUND is subjective in some sense and objective in another, and therefore music's beauty is both objective and subjective[/QUOTE]
Well, at least your other argument didnt contain contradictions in itself like this one does, your conclusion leads one to suspect that beauty cannot be defined by what is pleasant to the ear, which means beauty most hold some objective criteria!
And I'm sorry, the dissonance in music is not an argument against music's objective beauty, I dont buy it. There may be a few dissonant pieces of music out there, Miles Davis did a few, Sun Ra, etc etc. Dissonance in music when it is accentuated as the dominant form is interesting to musicians and music heads for distinct reason, and it's not because it's pleasant to the ear, it's for it's artistic expression against form. Note that when any artist produces a dominantly dissonant piece, the numbers of fans drops dramatically. Dissonance is not what is found to be beautiful in music in the common sense because it contradicts the OBJECTIVE qualities of music, and is thus ONLY supported by the subjective components of beauty, which is still another harmony, the harmony of thinking and feeling.
so if we cant define beauty, then how is it you can define it as subjective? if we cant truly define something, then it's structure is UNKNOWN, a third value event, niether totally objective nor totally subjective.
Consider, if something exists in an objective sense, it can be hidden by a subjective viewpoint, clouded if you will. F# was 'hidden' from the musical ear of the chinese, yet is that genetic? no, of course not, it was a cultural evaluation which simply prevented them from hearing or defining it due to limitations in the culture, not the genetics. thus, many millions of chinese perfectly enjoy western music to this very day since they discovered western music. If it was so subjective, you would think then that it would be limited to culture, and clearly Yo Yo Ma has provided us with evidence to the contrary.
BF
I had hoped you might have spent some of your time away from here actually thinking about some of the things that have been explained here, but I should have realised it was a vain hope. You return and persist in demonstrating your inability to understand and write English, let alone deal with more complicated concepts.
Regarding beauty; the objective component that you refer to is that a particular person may find that the size of Angelina's lips (an objectively measurable thing) contributes to her beauty. However, another person may find her not beautiful for exactly the same reason; they might think her lips too small or too large. That does not make the beauty itself objective; the beauty is perceived by the beholder.
And I'm very disappointed that you haven't commented on my avatar, after all the trouble I went to.
Can you confirm for me that you seriously believe this is a logical argument, before we waste our time picking it apart?
the poll was for the MOST beautiful, not 'is angelina jolie pretty?', and I already said, 'most beautiful' would be subjectively dominant, but consider, if there is a contender for 'most beautiful', she must be 'at least beautiful' to enter the competition, eh?
if beauty is subjective, then how is it that all the women in the vote are ATTRACTIVE women and we dont see barbara bush ever nominated for such consideration? Really, if it' subjective, wouldnt we get that once in awhile?
Barbara Bush is the most beautiful woman in the world.
AJ is the most beautiful woman in the world.
consider how one of those statements could even be considered as true, and the other, take the honesty test, eh?
snif snif, more SUBJECTIVE commentary. not interested.
your making an assumption that people are conscious enough to define exactly what they find to be beautiful instead of just reacting and then guessing or assuming what is beautiful. We are wired to percieve beauty, we may not be aware of what our wiring is, however!
AJ's holds SYMMETRY in her WHOLE FORM, and I would also argue her beauty is also internal, but that is another argument.
cute, glad your a fan. send me a copy and I'll autograph it for ya.
Last edited:
it's just as logical as the counter argument. pick it apart, have fun. keep it simple.
but you dont really believe that, because your arguments contradict that. You just cant find any argument against it and since Dick said it, you think it sounds cool. That definition of reality that Dick uses is virtually IDENTICAL to OS 012's terminology of objective.
If Z doenst think AJ is beautiful, does her beauty go away for us or just for him?
If color is subjective, does the blue sky go away when science tells us it's not really blue at all? is it there for us even though Stevie Wonder cant tell?
After copernicus, we know that the sun DOESNT SET AT ALL, yet what happens around 730 PM this time of year, can you tell me?
HUMPF! your a phillip k dick FAKE lover. You dont really know what he means, nor do you really understand what Objective reality is other than the sentences and phrases, arguments of others that you repeat. try some original thinking, or at least THINK about what it is you say you agree with and STAY CONSISTANT with it.
We exist in objective reality and objective reality exists in our heads. It creates us and we create it. Third value, Learn to love it.
BF
again, across the board, in all places that beauty is found, the objective component or side to beauty is that which is harmonious, symmetrical, balanced, relative to it's medium of expression.
Since harmony is a dominant quality in music, we naturally find music beautiful. Since symmetry, especially atheletic symmetry, is found in human form, we find such people attracttive and beautiful. In architecture, sculpting, painting, POETRY and PROSE, we find qualities of symmetry, harmony, and balance, elegance, expressed in those forms in a very formal sense. SYmmetry, harmony, and balance are the recapitulating themes in beauty, internal or external.
Consider again, I know it's difficult for some of you, but consider again your own inner process, a coupling of thinking and feeling. When you experience beauty, even on a purely subjective level, you are experiencing a harmony of your inner dialouge, your 'thinking and feeling' are both pleasant when you experience beauty, thus, EVEN in subjective beauty, the experience is still a 'harmony', regardless if NO objective criteria is on your object of desire for beauty.
The objective component of beauty is some form of harmony, therefore, any subjective experience of beauty MUST contain an inner harmony.
I am waiting to hear the arguments that subjective experiences of beauty are not a harmony of what we can call 'thinking and feeling'. Consider, I have defined the objective component INSIDE of a subjective experience of beauty that REMAINS a harmony, thus coming full circle in my argument and accounting for all phenomena of beauty.
Since harmony is a dominant quality in music, we naturally find music beautiful. Since symmetry, especially atheletic symmetry, is found in human form, we find such people attracttive and beautiful. In architecture, sculpting, painting, POETRY and PROSE, we find qualities of symmetry, harmony, and balance, elegance, expressed in those forms in a very formal sense. SYmmetry, harmony, and balance are the recapitulating themes in beauty, internal or external.
Consider again, I know it's difficult for some of you, but consider again your own inner process, a coupling of thinking and feeling. When you experience beauty, even on a purely subjective level, you are experiencing a harmony of your inner dialouge, your 'thinking and feeling' are both pleasant when you experience beauty, thus, EVEN in subjective beauty, the experience is still a 'harmony', regardless if NO objective criteria is on your object of desire for beauty.
The objective component of beauty is some form of harmony, therefore, any subjective experience of beauty MUST contain an inner harmony.
I am waiting to hear the arguments that subjective experiences of beauty are not a harmony of what we can call 'thinking and feeling'. Consider, I have defined the objective component INSIDE of a subjective experience of beauty that REMAINS a harmony, thus coming full circle in my argument and accounting for all phenomena of beauty.
Well I'm certainly not going to fork out $4.95 to read the story just for Bubb, so maybe someone with a subscription will clarify for us. I suspect Bubb may be making the usual quantum 'leap'
Professor Isham sent me a copy of a few of his papers, and if you PM me I will forward them to you. I find his work very intriguing, I never heard of 'category theory' before this and suspect I am applying a category theory, a higher abstraction to the sets of t, f, and m and their relationships, whilst all of you are viewing the content of the sets, which may shed light on the LOOOOOOONG length of time it is taking all of you to get this.
But to some his work up, true and false and both are neccesary to model reality at the quantum level, and may improve how we model reality as a whole. He made the suggestion to me in an email that I change the definition of the third value from 'both true and false at once' to 'both totally true and totally false at once', hehe, apparently he has some ease with the third value, eh?
Let's keep things simple, as you suggested elsewhere.
I suggest you need to work on just this sentence that I've quoted. Where is it demonstrated that 'harmony is a dominant quality in music'? What do you mean by dominant?
It has already been pointed out several times, with examples, that harmony is not necessary for music. It's not necessary for music that is found beautiful by some, either.
The two parts of your sentence are therefore not related. You cannot say that we find music beautiful because of something that music does not necessarily contain!
And on a deeper level, and I'll admit to being on the edges of my knowledge here, but exactly how are you defining harmony? If it's a combination of notes that sound pleasant when played together, we're back to a subjective experience, no?
ETA:
Thank you for the daily amusement of your sig. I think it's been pointed out before, but given the construction of it, the only meaning for 'trump' that makes sense is 'to break wind loudly'.
Last edited:
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Good.
Easy, most true as opposed to most false or somewhere in between.
Not at all, a sliding scale with as many different answers as there are people. More like a bajillionary system, i.e. the real world.
The example itself falls at the most true end of the sliding scale, and each observation incorporated in that statement falls at different points on that scale. No negation necessary! (See dealer for details, some restrictions apply, offer void where prohibited.)
Nope, still lovely shades of gray. As a side note, there is no word for silver in the Hawaiian language. They have substituted word for gray (hina) instead. If something looks bright silver, the Hawaiians call it very gray (hinahina).
Last edited:
Colour is how our optic system perceives particular wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is quite possible that different people's eye-brain systems react in different ways. "Colour" is therefore subjective and never objective.
Last edited: