Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
How about this system, It is only a little more complicated I will call it the Argand system, as it separates the two fundamentals.
I propose two orthogonal values, certainty and veracity. These can take any values from -1 to 1.
It is easiest to explain this for objective truths, as I am not sure if this could work for subjective ideas.
Of course there are several problems with this, it is hard to see which is the most glaring but here are a couple, in no particular order.
The attribution of certainty is pretty arbitary...
It doesn't realy help you, it just achieves another layer of complfusibcation, which some lackwit might mistake for profundity.
It is still too rigid, and I don't like the idea that there are there are mirror points.
Maybe you could have a third value, the "metacertainty", which is the confidence that this co-ordinate has this value, again between 0 and 1. You could then plot the countours to show the "veraco-confidence surface of the statement".
It might now produce pretty pictures, for use in powerppoint aresentations, but these still won't tell you anything new.
But it *is* a fairly baroque system, which I am fairly pleased to have just thought up as an example...
In fact there are only a few saving graces for this system:
Just a bit of fun
Jim
I propose two orthogonal values, certainty and veracity. These can take any values from -1 to 1.
It is easiest to explain this for objective truths, as I am not sure if this could work for subjective ideas.
1: The world is made entirely of bananas.
Absolutly certain that this is false: so Certainty +1, Veracity -1.
2: I exist
Absolutly certain that this is true: so Certainty +1, Veracity +1.
3: STEORN's Device will not work as they advertised
4: The Earth Circles the Sun
5: God exists
Absolutly certain that this is false: so Certainty +1, Veracity -1.
2: I exist
Absolutly certain that this is true: so Certainty +1, Veracity +1.
3: STEORN's Device will not work as they advertised
Pretty certain on this one, so Certainty 0.8, Veracity +1
4: The Earth Circles the Sun
This is a simplification, but a pretty good one so Certainty +0.8, Veracity +0.8
5: God exists
I am now imaginingn that I am a perfect agnostic, so Certainty 0, Veracity 0
Of course there are several problems with this, it is hard to see which is the most glaring but here are a couple, in no particular order.
The attribution of certainty is pretty arbitary...
It doesn't realy help you, it just achieves another layer of complfusibcation, which some lackwit might mistake for profundity.
It is still too rigid, and I don't like the idea that there are there are mirror points.
Maybe you could have a third value, the "metacertainty", which is the confidence that this co-ordinate has this value, again between 0 and 1. You could then plot the countours to show the "veraco-confidence surface of the statement".
It might now produce pretty pictures, for use in powerppoint aresentations, but these still won't tell you anything new.
But it *is* a fairly baroque system, which I am fairly pleased to have just thought up as an example...
In fact there are only a few saving graces for this system:
1) unlike Bubblefish's system, objective is not equated with true and subjective with false (I might nearly concede mystery for subjective).
2) Following from that, this "system" is hard to apply within the subjective realm, which is advantageous, as subjective values do not gain anything by being assigned a numerical value.
3) Compared to BF's system it does allow a sliding scale of truth values, which would probably be erroneously assigned the value of "mystery" in BF's system
2) Following from that, this "system" is hard to apply within the subjective realm, which is advantageous, as subjective values do not gain anything by being assigned a numerical value.
3) Compared to BF's system it does allow a sliding scale of truth values, which would probably be erroneously assigned the value of "mystery" in BF's system
Just a bit of fun
Jim
The Neccesity of the Third Value in Dialectic in the News.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/60minutes/main2728375_page2.shtml
George Tennet:
How would Z's OS 2x2 handle this situation, I wonder?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/60minutes/main2728375_page2.shtml
George Tennet:
How would Z's OS 2x2 handle this situation, I wonder?
Last edited:
Oh this is just turning into pure giggles. Can I have a more succesful conversation that this?
All ideas are in conflict, and since this discussion has started, the anti-thesis to OS 012 have produced TWO systems, copies if you will, mutations. Z's OS 2 x 2 and now jim's OS ARGAND.
I like Jim's better. More on this soon Jim, that's the best anti-thesis that has been put forth!
You have now entered the higher rung of
Mornington Cresent
Mojo
Mostly harmless
How would OS 012 "handle" it?
Indeed. What does one even mean by "handle it" in this case? Decide the most appropriate course of action?
Well, I would think OS012 is utterly useless for that. It's a complicated, multi-faceted issue in which there are no simple answers. Our society must consider the benefits of the methods being discussed and weigh that against our tolerance for the violation of what we see as fundamental human rights. This is a complex discussion that comes up with regards to interrogation of prisoners, punishment of criminals, detainment of terror suspects, and a thousand other related issues.
Unless OS012's is invoking the core principle of "let's talk about this" then it has no power to "handle" anything here.
Of course, I can talk about things without OS012. If BF wants to keep claiming that I'm "really" using OS012 when I do that, that's great, but I don't have to listen to him, nor does anyone else here.
Yes, demonstrably.
With the automatic voice on the telephone that tells you what time it is.
Consider this unconscious gaffe by anti-os 012 legionaire Mojo
Consider, how can beauty be a 'subjective quality OF the music'? if it is a subjective quality OF the music, then it's not so much a subjective quality, is it? A subjective quality of beauty is HELD by the individual, it can only be OF the individual, any quality that is held by the music could not possibly by subjective. Indeed, Mojo is taking a more radical approach here than myself, claiming that somehow 'beautiful sounds' hold themselves subjective qualities....YIKES!
Consider, how can beauty be a 'subjective quality OF the music'? if it is a subjective quality OF the music, then it's not so much a subjective quality, is it? A subjective quality of beauty is HELD by the individual, it can only be OF the individual, any quality that is held by the music could not possibly by subjective. Indeed, Mojo is taking a more radical approach here than myself, claiming that somehow 'beautiful sounds' hold themselves subjective qualities....YIKES!
The experience of qualia and external reality is indeed subjective, and therefore EVERYTHING we percieve is subjective in some sense, and this is not limited to beauty, but everything. We are limited to percieve reality imprinted upon our nervous systems and brains and in some sense, it's all subjective to human brain. The 'knowledge' you speak of is information, ideas, formed in a subjective environment of human brain.
Truth is, we can't say what ANYTHING is without an observer. We can't even call them 'things'. An observer is planted deeply in every object that we can verify exists. You can't just pick and choose which 'thing' you wish to make subjective and ignore the others that dont fit into your philosophy.
incredibly and provactively untrue. 'ideals' can be both subjective and objective, personal and mutual. Objective ideals for beauty are SYMMETRY, and the personal ideals are relative to the individual and couple with the objective ideals in some sense.
amazing, since your own arguments on beauty are IDEALIST arguments! Beauty in the eye of the beholder is an idealist argument, says that the subject's feeling create the beauty experienced. Ignores the relationship of thinking and feeling regarding beauty, and soley depends upon an INDIVIDUAL for something to be beautiful.
Just an utterly inconsistant crowd here, I tell ya.
I would not have any idea how to relate it to the topic of beauty, however, either do you, and that doesnt mean that in princaple, it can't be related.
The topic at hand, my friend, is the value of a ternary framework for modeling reality, that is the topic at hand. I introduced beauty into the conversation to further elucidate this dynamic and provoke further contemplation.
I believe I have, if i missed one of your posts, please bring it to my attention, thanks
BF
ahhh, Z further reveals the inner workings of his contradictory nature and his inner conflicts.....
yeah, it's fun, right?
There is a distinction between 'a' observer and observers in the plural. If you remove the set of all observers in the universe, all points of view, we dont have anything to play with. I assume, in princaple, that objective reality exists independent of myself, however, to assume objective reality exists independently of all observers and we can map such a reality indepedent of all observers is just doomed to analytical failure, for it includes an observer making the map or model. We simply cannot map reality WITHOUT an observer, we can only map reality how it functions independent of 'an' observer, and can back step to make a model of reality that doesnt depend upon the observerations of a singular point of view.
if there is no observer to observe the crystal, naturally there could not exist b eauty since beauty is BOTH objective AND subjective, and NEEDS the subjective component to observe the objective component. So the crystal also holds NO COLOR until the observer sees it, NO KNOWLEDGE until the observer sees it, NO QUALIA until the observer sees it. SO?
hard is a qualia, needing an observer.
A crystal holds it's properties without an independent observer, yes, but many of those qualities are soley experienced as the qualia of the object. If hardness has a specific definition, relating to the composition or state of the molecules in the crystal, we know that such objects will 'feel hard' when we touch them. That doesnt mean that the hardness we feel is any more subjective than the beauty the crystal may hold.
A glowing white sphere is, someone recently mentioned to me, an objectively beautiful object, all eyes are drawn to it. The full moon is an objectively beautiful celestial object, the smallest of children are drawn to the moon and many first words are 'moon'! Those qualities of light are INTERDEPENDENT of observer and object.
the blue light is QUALIA, again, your jumping around and switching your meanings of o/s to fit your argument, not reality. BLUE is a function of our brains, LIGHT is a function of objective reality, perception of BLUE LIGHT is BOTH objective AND subjective, it holds qualities external to the object and internal to the subject.
Your mistaken in assuming that removing the observer means the object would cease to exist. If you remove ALL points of view from universe, sure, i n princaple we could say that an objective reality would remain, but it remains in a state of MYSTERY, and absolutly NOTHING can be said about it.
I find so much idealism in the core of many arguments here it's sort of funny that you all are unaware of your own idealism.
'Consensus Reality' is being used in this discussion as sort of a definition of 'PUBLIC OPINION', and that's a poor understanding of consensus reality. Consensus Reality is a PARADIGM about reality, and holds BOTH objective AND subjective information in a sort of harmony that all in that set agree upon as true.
"The sky is blue" is a PARADIGM of human observers, it exists as blue because of our brain wiring, the light is not blue in and of itself, nor is the grass green in and of itself.
reminds me of the zen riddle, 'who is the buddha who makes the grass green'?
Nice to see your back to accepting MYSTERY and revealing your hidden third value philosophy (poorly modeled by yourself in knowledge and understanding). Deconstruct that perception of reality/unreality to see that that which is OBJECTIVELY undefinable holds EXISTENCE unto itself and ALL ideas which communicate it are FALSE by default and you simply have a ternary philosophy sleeping at the core of your thoughts.
Consider that if unreality exists unto itself, it's OBJECTIVE in some sense, i ndependent of YOU. If you agree that it exists unto itself, then it is a part of REALITY that simply cannot be modeled accuratly. If you disagree with this, then your FALLING BACK on IDEALISM, contradicting yourself ONCE AGAIN.
IF they interact through thoughts, ideas, intuitions, what have you, then those qualia are BOTH 'reality' and 'unreality' at ONCE.
so it's both yes and no at once, eh? light is both partical and wave, and yes and no at once. consistant with the complexities of reality that two values fail to model appropiatly.
Your bumping into your own walls because your adopting a materialist approach to reality while ignoring your 'unreality' side which seduces you to WORSHIP nature.
Objective/subjective are INTERDEPENDENT, they are a 'SYNERGY' and a HARMONY. They are not mutually exclusive, you cannot seperate them, you can only distinguish them where they exalt, and find difficulty in defining them where they blur, thus, the third value.
Day and Night may appear mutually exclusive. But they are not. it's an illusion. One man's high noon is another man's midnight. the set of all observers on earth are obsreving both night and day at once, and at sunset and sunrise, we see both night and day at once.
yeah, it's fun, right?
There is a distinction between 'a' observer and observers in the plural. If you remove the set of all observers in the universe, all points of view, we dont have anything to play with. I assume, in princaple, that objective reality exists independent of myself, however, to assume objective reality exists independently of all observers and we can map such a reality indepedent of all observers is just doomed to analytical failure, for it includes an observer making the map or model. We simply cannot map reality WITHOUT an observer, we can only map reality how it functions independent of 'an' observer, and can back step to make a model of reality that doesnt depend upon the observerations of a singular point of view.
if there is no observer to observe the crystal, naturally there could not exist b eauty since beauty is BOTH objective AND subjective, and NEEDS the subjective component to observe the objective component. So the crystal also holds NO COLOR until the observer sees it, NO KNOWLEDGE until the observer sees it, NO QUALIA until the observer sees it. SO?
hard is a qualia, needing an observer.
A crystal holds it's properties without an independent observer, yes, but many of those qualities are soley experienced as the qualia of the object. If hardness has a specific definition, relating to the composition or state of the molecules in the crystal, we know that such objects will 'feel hard' when we touch them. That doesnt mean that the hardness we feel is any more subjective than the beauty the crystal may hold.
A glowing white sphere is, someone recently mentioned to me, an objectively beautiful object, all eyes are drawn to it. The full moon is an objectively beautiful celestial object, the smallest of children are drawn to the moon and many first words are 'moon'! Those qualities of light are INTERDEPENDENT of observer and object.
the blue light is QUALIA, again, your jumping around and switching your meanings of o/s to fit your argument, not reality. BLUE is a function of our brains, LIGHT is a function of objective reality, perception of BLUE LIGHT is BOTH objective AND subjective, it holds qualities external to the object and internal to the subject.
Your mistaken in assuming that removing the observer means the object would cease to exist. If you remove ALL points of view from universe, sure, i n princaple we could say that an objective reality would remain, but it remains in a state of MYSTERY, and absolutly NOTHING can be said about it.
I find so much idealism in the core of many arguments here it's sort of funny that you all are unaware of your own idealism.
'Consensus Reality' is being used in this discussion as sort of a definition of 'PUBLIC OPINION', and that's a poor understanding of consensus reality. Consensus Reality is a PARADIGM about reality, and holds BOTH objective AND subjective information in a sort of harmony that all in that set agree upon as true.
"The sky is blue" is a PARADIGM of human observers, it exists as blue because of our brain wiring, the light is not blue in and of itself, nor is the grass green in and of itself.
reminds me of the zen riddle, 'who is the buddha who makes the grass green'?
Nice to see your back to accepting MYSTERY and revealing your hidden third value philosophy (poorly modeled by yourself in knowledge and understanding). Deconstruct that perception of reality/unreality to see that that which is OBJECTIVELY undefinable holds EXISTENCE unto itself and ALL ideas which communicate it are FALSE by default and you simply have a ternary philosophy sleeping at the core of your thoughts.
Consider that if unreality exists unto itself, it's OBJECTIVE in some sense, i ndependent of YOU. If you agree that it exists unto itself, then it is a part of REALITY that simply cannot be modeled accuratly. If you disagree with this, then your FALLING BACK on IDEALISM, contradicting yourself ONCE AGAIN.
IF they interact through thoughts, ideas, intuitions, what have you, then those qualia are BOTH 'reality' and 'unreality' at ONCE.
so it's both yes and no at once, eh? light is both partical and wave, and yes and no at once. consistant with the complexities of reality that two values fail to model appropiatly.
Your bumping into your own walls because your adopting a materialist approach to reality while ignoring your 'unreality' side which seduces you to WORSHIP nature.
Objective/subjective are INTERDEPENDENT, they are a 'SYNERGY' and a HARMONY. They are not mutually exclusive, you cannot seperate them, you can only distinguish them where they exalt, and find difficulty in defining them where they blur, thus, the third value.
Day and Night may appear mutually exclusive. But they are not. it's an illusion. One man's high noon is another man's midnight. the set of all observers on earth are obsreving both night and day at once, and at sunset and sunrise, we see both night and day at once.
I love how the more idealist materialists here NEED to create bizzare scenarios to make thier point.
What defines Helen Mirren's beauty to those in england? are they saying she is beautiful in the same sense that people in england find Posh Spice attractive or in the way they found Lady Di beautiful? Are they saying her beauty is something about her stature and inner integrity as a human being, i ndependent of her physical body?
Your assuming that most people can define what it is they hold beautiful, and they cant. For most people, beauty is simply a reaction, and they may try to define what holds that quality, and that depends on a whole other set of environmental circumstances.
Artists can define what people find beautiful, and they can re-create that. Artists may be unable themselves to put that into any sort of academic or meaningful language, but we know they can understand it because they can perform beauty.
Not ONE of you have bothered to define what beauty IS, other than putting in some vague category of subjectivity, which tells us NOTHING about beauty.
I challenge you to place, in your own words, to define what beauty is to ALL Observers who experience beauty. The definition must be complete and consider all experiences.
again, it appears that you are modeling 'consensus reality' as 'public opinion', and consensus reality is understood as a PARADIGM, which is so ingrained in us even in this discussion. Paradigms are DEEP collective agreements about reality which serve the FUNCTION of an objective reality and are comprised of BOTH objective and SUBJECTIVE information, not one or the other.
The 'sky is blue' is our collective paradigm and consensual reality. So is 2 + 2 = 4. There is no 2 + 2 = 4 without us, yet it perfectly serves the function of objective reality
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
And since Bubblefish cannot answer my rebuttal on his critique of my logic system, I will declare myself the winner. My sliding scale system clearly has more applicability to describing the real world.
I will note that I like Jimbob's addition of applying it to 2 axes. Extrapolating further, we can apply this to 3 axes, and have 8 total outcome fields. Furthermore, we can extrapolate to any number of axes, provided the labeling system can be applied to so many variables.
Z and Jimbob, what do you think of this multi-dimensional sliding scale system? How would you come up with a consistent labeling scheme?
I will note that I like Jimbob's addition of applying it to 2 axes. Extrapolating further, we can apply this to 3 axes, and have 8 total outcome fields. Furthermore, we can extrapolate to any number of axes, provided the labeling system can be applied to so many variables.
Z and Jimbob, what do you think of this multi-dimensional sliding scale system? How would you come up with a consistent labeling scheme?
You didn't ask me... but I'm a snarky son of a gun, so I would suggest this:
Tri-valent logic.
Or perhaps:
Logic3
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Here is a list of the portions of my anatomy you can bite, and the order in which you can bite them.
Here is a list of the portions of my anatomy you can bite, and the order in which you can bite them.
Hey, whoa, whoa... I don't do that thing!
And what the hell is a "tlack-producing unit?" I don't think I even have one of those.
