Mojo
Mostly harmless
Hey, Jonny, how did you do that?
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
In response to Autumn1971's statement..."if I need to be a theoritical philosopher....."
zoo states..
Well I can. Philosophy is common and basic to all human beings, and therefore, must contain something shared for all human beings. If there is a theoritical philosophy out there that does not address basic and common needs for all human beings or cannot be summed up or discussed in simple and common language, it's nothing more than an over thought belief system with no sense of humor.
Any philosophy that cannot account rationally for things like love are worthless. Any human being that cannot consider 'love' when forming a world view is irrational at a very critical level.
In the dialectic, love is defined as the quality emmitted from a coupling. Love is the 'synergy' of a harmonious system. Love is any form of 'union'.
If you thought beauty was subjective, what about love? Love has both objective qualities and subjective qualities. Since it has objective qualities, it can be considered rationally and thoughtfully, and therefore needs to be integrated into comprehension with the arts and sciences.
And here we come full circle in my point, love is b asic for all human beings, and historically and traditionally, love is what the theoritical academic (like dr kitten) completly run away from and avoid in shaping philosophically.
Artists do much better with philosophy here than any academic could ever dream of.
BF
zoo states..
Well I can. Philosophy is common and basic to all human beings, and therefore, must contain something shared for all human beings. If there is a theoritical philosophy out there that does not address basic and common needs for all human beings or cannot be summed up or discussed in simple and common language, it's nothing more than an over thought belief system with no sense of humor.
Any philosophy that cannot account rationally for things like love are worthless. Any human being that cannot consider 'love' when forming a world view is irrational at a very critical level.
In the dialectic, love is defined as the quality emmitted from a coupling. Love is the 'synergy' of a harmonious system. Love is any form of 'union'.
If you thought beauty was subjective, what about love? Love has both objective qualities and subjective qualities. Since it has objective qualities, it can be considered rationally and thoughtfully, and therefore needs to be integrated into comprehension with the arts and sciences.
And here we come full circle in my point, love is b asic for all human beings, and historically and traditionally, love is what the theoritical academic (like dr kitten) completly run away from and avoid in shaping philosophically.
Artists do much better with philosophy here than any academic could ever dream of.
BF
Is this some sort of reflection of how fast your arguments are sinking?
I mean, are you for REAL??
[/QUOTE]
The perception of color is QUALIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
and it's a hotly debated topic across the board. There are many critical arguments on the matter, and I suggested introducing quale in this discussion moons ago, and it went over ALL of your heads.
You experience your own union of o/s all the time in your qualia. human beings have a shared qualia and therefore this can be considered OBJECTIVELY.
Sheesh, what a bunch of boobs!;-)
BF
Hey Moby Seven, are you for real here? You hounded me for days about replying to your rebuttal.
And this is the rebuttal I get from you in return?
and the logic is?
HUMPF! You mean you have NO ARGUMENT, no further RATIONALIZATION.
Oh Lord if that's not the biggest load of crapola I have recieved in this discussion so far I dont know what is....(other than Z's arguments)
right, so CLEAR that you dont know WHERE TO BEGIN and need to write an entire book to refute it. Wow, gotta love your value for CLARITY, eh?
Keep wondering, that's your best choice yet...
join the club
You too
lotsa love!
Bubblefish
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
??????????????????????????
Not since Ornette Coleman has there been such incoherent writing about music. Ornette has genius, alienation, and a weed habit to blame. I'm not sure where the blame lies here.
The best I can come up with:
When you say "syncopation" you mean something more like "synchronization".
When you say "harmony" in a musical context, you really mean "going together in some way".
When you say "arrangement" you mean something like "a specific piece".
When you speak of one out-of-place note you are saying...um...you are saying...sorry...we've reached the end of my imagination.
It's a strange list: harmony, rhythm (that's r-h-y-t-h-m) and syncopation.
That's like: freedom, democracy, and gerrymandering. It's not complete nonsense, but bordering on it.
I've tried crossing my eyes, unfocussing (sp?) them, redefining all your words in the most lenient way, and I still don't think there's something to grasp here. Maybe you're saying that it's a beautiful thing that music functions in several dimensions simultaneously, or seems to. ???
It's good to know that BF is still posting nonsensical material about... well, pretty much everything.
I love the snippets people quote of him: "I know about music" + "syncopation = synchronization" = "I do not know what I am saying"
I love the snippets people quote of him: "I know about music" + "syncopation = synchronization" = "I do not know what I am saying"
OK, Bubblefish, so the system that I posted was supposed to be a baroque mess, but it was not restricted to three values.
I believe strongly in some values, and less strongly in others; I also accept that any subjective value eventually boils down to "because I think so". Many people might share some values, and indeed there might even socieobiological reasons for having certain traits as near universal. However I would still argue that this is still subjective, and boils down to "because I think so".
If it doesn't then it might be objective
I believe strongly in some values, and less strongly in others; I also accept that any subjective value eventually boils down to "because I think so". Many people might share some values, and indeed there might even socieobiological reasons for having certain traits as near universal. However I would still argue that this is still subjective, and boils down to "because I think so".
If it doesn't then it might be objective
ummm, do we have any links to that story other than a conversation on a skeptics forum with members who clearly only question the data they are opposed to and not the data that supports thier argument?
That would be helpful. Until then, try using the OS. If that is true, then yes, Steorn appears to be lacking integrity here and that is indeed reason for suspicion. However, is that story true? Amazing how you didnt question it one bit, put it 'true' tag on it because it supported your belief system.
links please....
are we still arguing over this?? again, there is a distinction between an arrangment of music, which is just one POSSIBILITY, and the environment of MUSIC, which allows for a unique arrangment of ANY PIECE OF MUSIC.
See, I am referring to the category music which organizes all classifications of musical arrangments and compositions, performances and expressions, and your just talking about a handful of expressions.
Catch up..
BF
Yes, I know, and that is the problem I have been pointing out for like 6 months now.
catch up
Ahh! Finally a rational question!
Let me explain to you what I mean, since this is what I have been talking about for like 6 months now. The higher abstractional category of t, f, and m, which I have also called the meta categories, are the furtherst categories that t, f, and m that can ever be defined as and they organize all other relative usages. The information they organize account for all information and all phenomenon, internal and external, objective subjective, it doesnt matter what you call them, they are objective categories for 'meaning' which organizes our language.
Like I said, after reading Chris Isham's work, I strongly, strongly, strongly suspect that category theory is the place that OS 012 needs to explore formally. I never heard of category theory until reading his work and I am still integrating and recieving it. Therefore, i am very interested in further discussion with any individual who can wrap their heads around category theory enough to discuss it's rational philosophical implications, which I suspect is OS 012.
Your lineage is a neccesary truth of your existence, is connected to your existence, and your existence is dependent upon this truth, including the ability to think about them. if you exist, so did they, and that is an objective fact, an objective piece of information which all false ideas share in common about your lineage. However, any idea you have about thier existence, such as what they looked like, what they did for work, what their beliefs were, how they came to their conclusions, what life looked like to them, are all false ideas by default, yes. false as defined in the higher abstractional category.
Remember that OS 012 is very very very dynamic. To use a little creative liscence here, let me say that OS 012 is so dynamic that it is ' hard like water, soft like ice, and moves like a stream'. That's a creative description. I know those drive you nuts. So when you find a false idea, then find the recapitulating categories of 0, 1, 2 in that information......and so on and so on.
Last edited:
for obvious reasons. a skeptic denies existence, a believer asserts existence.
therefore, in the glass analogy, a half full glass is a glass whose existence defines the state of the glass, and a half empty glass defines it's non existence in the state of the glass.
and ask yourself, how did you come to the conclusion that the skeptic's argument was pessimestic? Did I use that word?
not hard mojo........think, consider, reflect
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Because, as you would be aware if you knew anything about the culture you are living in, that is the usual interpretation given to the "half full/empty glass". For example:
Oh, and by the way, I didn't use the word "pessimestic" either. There is no such word.
And as for this:
Would you care to rephrase that?
Ahh, I finally get to the cuddly dr kitten and his fun loving posts that reflect his feely feely side.
I said to kitten:there are quite a few people who can make sense of OS 012, and some can explain it better than me.
doc kitten, are you going to continue to throw strawmen my way?
You made an assertion. A claim. I am skeptical of claims in the rational sense, meaning, when someone asserts a claim, I question it. You claimed that OS 012 is false and I am the only one who can make sense of it. I know from countless personal experience that that claim is flat out false. I dont need to mention thier names to know, for myself, that it's BS.
Nor do I need to even counter such a claim, it's off topic, not relevent to the actual discussion, which is the third value and it's RATIONAL relationship to REALITY with a big O for objective, and just plain ol imaginary false. You are imagining that no one does. Your basing that on what a small handful of aggitated critics are saying on this forum to make your conclusion in the general sense. You use your imagination to counter me and NOT A RATIONAL TIT FOR TAT.
If I cant explain string theory, then that's MY problem in communication or understanding, yet string theory may still be viable.
as long as you model it as BS123, then all you are considering is BS123, which is SOLEY AN OBJECT IN YOUR IMAGINATION which you are making rational considerations of in your mind, but not in reality.
In reality there is an idea that is called OS 012 that many people have understood and modeled. I dont need to submit thier names to you as if this is some court case and I am under subpoena. If you dont believe me, who cares? I dont care one bit.
I am only interested in your rational anti-thesis to OS 012, which you have consistantly FAILED TO ADDRESS and have covered up your assertions with emotive charges, such as....
See, that's a claim your making. You assert it as true, provide no rational argument for it, fail to be able to show HOW that is the case in rational tit for tat discussion, and request that everyone believe it cuz your a professor at university. Sorry, get out of the undercover guru game and ARGUE it's truth in tit for tat WITH ME and see how well OUR ideas hold, instead of your imagination.
more claims, more imaginations, more blind assertions.
you really know how to play the role, eh?
Now what does the man playing the role of the High Counsel of Academia close with? ANOTHER FRIGGIN' STRAWMAN
As stated INNUMEROUS TIMES IN THIS THREAD, This discussion is not about the efficacy of OS 012, nor is it a formal presentation. Indeed, the effects of OS 012 on users, in the scientific sense, is something that is still in the process of being formalized.
As stated INNUMEROUS TIMES IN THIS THREAD, this discussion is about it's theoritical components, and this discussion is about finding further anti-thesis to the idea of OS 012.
I have my own personal evaluation for the evidence of it's efficacy, enough for me to continue with my research at the present time. That's all you need to know.
When I make a formal presentation of OS 012, including it's efficacy, you'll read about it in a PUBLISHED JOURNAL and experience it on an interactive website for discussion.
Until then, STAY ON TOPIC and stop deceptively and manipulatively throwing out strawmen, it's uncoming of your profession.
Thanks
BF
I said to kitten:there are quite a few people who can make sense of OS 012, and some can explain it better than me.
doc kitten, are you going to continue to throw strawmen my way?
You made an assertion. A claim. I am skeptical of claims in the rational sense, meaning, when someone asserts a claim, I question it. You claimed that OS 012 is false and I am the only one who can make sense of it. I know from countless personal experience that that claim is flat out false. I dont need to mention thier names to know, for myself, that it's BS.
Nor do I need to even counter such a claim, it's off topic, not relevent to the actual discussion, which is the third value and it's RATIONAL relationship to REALITY with a big O for objective, and just plain ol imaginary false. You are imagining that no one does. Your basing that on what a small handful of aggitated critics are saying on this forum to make your conclusion in the general sense. You use your imagination to counter me and NOT A RATIONAL TIT FOR TAT.
If I cant explain string theory, then that's MY problem in communication or understanding, yet string theory may still be viable.
as long as you model it as BS123, then all you are considering is BS123, which is SOLEY AN OBJECT IN YOUR IMAGINATION which you are making rational considerations of in your mind, but not in reality.
In reality there is an idea that is called OS 012 that many people have understood and modeled. I dont need to submit thier names to you as if this is some court case and I am under subpoena. If you dont believe me, who cares? I dont care one bit.
I am only interested in your rational anti-thesis to OS 012, which you have consistantly FAILED TO ADDRESS and have covered up your assertions with emotive charges, such as....
See, that's a claim your making. You assert it as true, provide no rational argument for it, fail to be able to show HOW that is the case in rational tit for tat discussion, and request that everyone believe it cuz your a professor at university. Sorry, get out of the undercover guru game and ARGUE it's truth in tit for tat WITH ME and see how well OUR ideas hold, instead of your imagination.
more claims, more imaginations, more blind assertions.
you really know how to play the role, eh?
Now what does the man playing the role of the High Counsel of Academia close with? ANOTHER FRIGGIN' STRAWMAN
As stated INNUMEROUS TIMES IN THIS THREAD, This discussion is not about the efficacy of OS 012, nor is it a formal presentation. Indeed, the effects of OS 012 on users, in the scientific sense, is something that is still in the process of being formalized.
As stated INNUMEROUS TIMES IN THIS THREAD, this discussion is about it's theoritical components, and this discussion is about finding further anti-thesis to the idea of OS 012.
I have my own personal evaluation for the evidence of it's efficacy, enough for me to continue with my research at the present time. That's all you need to know.
When I make a formal presentation of OS 012, including it's efficacy, you'll read about it in a PUBLISHED JOURNAL and experience it on an interactive website for discussion.
Until then, STAY ON TOPIC and stop deceptively and manipulatively throwing out strawmen, it's uncoming of your profession.
Thanks
BF
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I take it, then, that you are not suggesting that adopting OS 012 has any positive benefits at all for the adopter.
Yes, you said it. I don't believe it, and I've seen no evidence of it.
No. I claim that it is meaningless. I claim that your statement that OS012 is useful or meaningful is false. If you can't keep my claims straight, it's no wonder you can't keep your own straight.
Again, no. I do indeed claim that no one other than you can make sense of it. But I further claim that you can't make sense of it either, as demonstrated in this thread.
Yes. I believe that "knowledge" is due to self-deception and ignorance on your part. I therefore discount it.
So you claim. I specifically deny this. I deny that anyone has understood it, that anyone has modelled it, or even that it justifies the description "idea."
[QUTOTE]
Sorry, get out of the undercover guru game and ARGUE it's truth in tit for tat WITH ME [/QUOTE]
I have. Your ideas are manifestly based on incorrect understandings of the words you use.
I'm afraid that it is. Specifically, it's about the claim that "truth" is three-valued (which can and has been modelled mathematically with tri-state logic since time-immemorial) or that the recognition and use of tri-state logic produces new insights that somehow escape specifically James Randi and more generally others on this forum, which is demonstrably untrue.
Except it's not, because whenever the theoretical components are discussed, you run and hide.
No, I probably won't. The journals that I read are peer-reviewed and make a point of excluding errant nonsense and patent gibberish.
I have no doubt that you could find a vanity press to publish your nonsense in; indeed, I could even give you the names of some. I doubt, however, that you will be able to find such a journal, because they are "unknown" to you, and therefore, according to your own patholigical view, the fact that they exists is not true.
sorry, to answer specifically this question. the higher category of false organizes dominant perceptions of information whose truth is soley existing in the subjective realities. false ideas are mind created realities that can look and feel like objective reality, thus thier subtle illusory qualities that mimic objective reality. it's highest expression is art, it's lowest expression is delusion and/or manipulation.
What has that got to do with your incorrect statement that harmony and syncopation are essential to music?
I know I said I'd just lurk, but I see noone has deconstructed this argument yet, and it was in response to me, so...
Incorrect definition in the last sentence. A subjective observation is not an observation that cannot be agreed upon by everybody, it is an observation that does not require everybody to agree upon it.
I object to using the phrase 'subjective truth', as it seems about as logically sensible as 'objective personal opinion' in a formal context.
This part of your argument is particularly nonsensical. First off, we were discussing music, and not sound in general. Secondly, as humans we all share similar characteristics - no one human is in any real way greatly different from another human, not in the way a human is different from a frog or a brick. Who is to say that being so similar we shouldn't find similar things subjectively beautiful?
Before I even begin to accept this proposition as valid, I'm going to have to see the argument that led you to this as the conclusion.
Once again, we were talking about music, not just sound. A lot of this part of the argument is also nonsensical - for example, what is your definition of "harmony in a general sense"? Where is your proof that these sounds are commonly found to be "more beautiful than other sounds in the environment?"
And have you overlooked the fact that if these sounds are only "commonly" found to be more beautiful then that means that there are instances where they are not found to be more beautiful? Which would mean that, as they are not the same for all people, they are being judged subjectively?
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
You may want to rewrite that argument.
As for my previous post - it isn't that I have no argument. It's just that when someone claiming knowledge of music doesn't even know what properties a single note (not 'tone', as you suggested) has, I would suggest that they are being less than truthful. I suggest perhaps you take some basic music theory classes.
Oh, and just so you know: A single note produced by an instrument will at it's most basic form have the elements of pitch and duration, not 'harmony' and 'beat'.
Beyond that, different instruments have different timbres, which at a physical level are based on the different harmonics a particular instrument brings out. This is why a trumpet sounds different to a saxophone sounds different to a violin. It is also the basis for a very cool trick you can do with a trombone, where you can play a major chord with a single trombone - you play the root note on the trombone while singing the fifth note of the chord. By singing the fifth note you boost the major 10th harmonic, giving you the third note of the major chord!
Peace Out
Mobyseven
Incorrect definition in the last sentence. A subjective observation is not an observation that cannot be agreed upon by everybody, it is an observation that does not require everybody to agree upon it.
I object to using the phrase 'subjective truth', as it seems about as logically sensible as 'objective personal opinion' in a formal context.
This part of your argument is particularly nonsensical. First off, we were discussing music, and not sound in general. Secondly, as humans we all share similar characteristics - no one human is in any real way greatly different from another human, not in the way a human is different from a frog or a brick. Who is to say that being so similar we shouldn't find similar things subjectively beautiful?
Before I even begin to accept this proposition as valid, I'm going to have to see the argument that led you to this as the conclusion.
Once again, we were talking about music, not just sound. A lot of this part of the argument is also nonsensical - for example, what is your definition of "harmony in a general sense"? Where is your proof that these sounds are commonly found to be "more beautiful than other sounds in the environment?"
And have you overlooked the fact that if these sounds are only "commonly" found to be more beautiful then that means that there are instances where they are not found to be more beautiful? Which would mean that, as they are not the same for all people, they are being judged subjectively?
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
You may want to rewrite that argument.
As for my previous post - it isn't that I have no argument. It's just that when someone claiming knowledge of music doesn't even know what properties a single note (not 'tone', as you suggested) has, I would suggest that they are being less than truthful. I suggest perhaps you take some basic music theory classes.
Oh, and just so you know: A single note produced by an instrument will at it's most basic form have the elements of pitch and duration, not 'harmony' and 'beat'.
Beyond that, different instruments have different timbres, which at a physical level are based on the different harmonics a particular instrument brings out. This is why a trumpet sounds different to a saxophone sounds different to a violin. It is also the basis for a very cool trick you can do with a trombone, where you can play a major chord with a single trombone - you play the root note on the trombone while singing the fifth note of the chord. By singing the fifth note you boost the major 10th harmonic, giving you the third note of the major chord!
Peace Out
Mobyseven