Skepticism and The Normal

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Jonny, the statement 2+2=5 is an attempt to describe something objective, I agree with that, however, it doesn't describe something objective, it is describing a subjective event.
</snip>

Then what is the subjective event it is describing?

 

[WWHP]

Our reality is composed of:

O= Mystery or the Perinormal
1=True or the Normal
2= False or the Paranormal

That's all for now, mo' later!

Lotsa Love
Bubblefish

 

[pv+]

Our reality is composed of:

O= Mystery or the Perinormal
1=True or the Normal
2= False or the Paranormal

That's all for now, mo' later!

Lotsa Love
Bubblefish

Your reality. Idiot!

Lotsa contempt
pv

 

[Lonewulf]

I just have a quick comment. I make this because I'm a masochist, obviously, because there is no other logical reason to do it.

2+2 = 4 is an objective event. The means for describing the event is subjective, don't get me wrong, but only insofar as the symbols used; "2+2=4" is different than, say, II+II = IV. But that's about as far as the subjectivity goes.

If I have two apples, and you give me two apples, then I have four apples. There is no question about this. You cannot give me two apples, and then a fifth apple mysterious appears from nowhere. This would break the laws of physics.

And common sense.

 

[JQH]

Bubba said

2=False or the paranormal

So, to quote an example at random, qi energy is paranormal, therefore qi energy is false.

Where does that leave videos that purport to demonstrate its existance, I wonder?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Our reality is composed of:

O= Mystery or the Perinormal
1=True or the Normal
2= False or the Paranormal

That's all for now, mo' later!

Lotsa Love
Bubblefish

The goalposts have moved so much on this thread, I think we're in a different field now.

 

[jimbob]

A simple ad hom:

Bubblefish
Critical Thinker

Jim (uncritical thinker)

 

[pv+]

Then what is the subjective event it is describing?

The "subjective" event is whatever Humpty Bubblehead decides on the spur of the moment. He's trolling his own thread which was set up for just that purpose.
Internet troll, narcissist and idiot home movie hack, Rome Viharo, is giving morons and cretins a bad name. His objective here, if it isn't already blindingly obvious to anyone with even a semi-functioning brain, is to try and make a fool of anyone who engages him in his ridiculous sham of a "discussion".

Waddya think Bubblefish? True, false or the fifty-eighth value?

Lotsa contempt,
pv

 

[The Atheist]

Doesn't it just say something about the indomitable human spirit that despite Bubblehead being such an obvious (and lame) troll, people still try to interact with him?

 

[WWHP]

Kieran,

So sorry I missed this post yesterday. If I have missed any others, please someone bring it to my attention, as you can see there are numerous members here who wish to lovingly assist me remove my delusions, and I find that I am overwhelmed with such support!

"highly unlikely" sounds like the third option ... but "simply impossible" sounds like one of the first two ..

Exactly! Is it a mysterious idea or a true one? or is it a false idea or a mysterios one?

When we are stuck in bivalency, we really get no appreciation of truth because we only know about the value of 1, true. We dont know what false is except that it's not true, and then true and false take on this sort of antagonistic relationship which really doesn't exist.

When we upgrade our critical thinking to ternary, wow, they really come to life! I mean, the duality between true and false is one thing, but what about the duality of mystery and true? or false and mystery?

So one can come to ask; Is this a false or mysterious idea? okay, it's simple to see that distinction, now is this a mysterious idea or a true one?

. I think you need to make your mind up.

tsk tsk tsk! I'm still basking in the question! why the hurry?

is not a question a 0? we know what logic can do with the !, but what can dialectic do with the ?

Alternative to your analysis above: Bobby Henderson knows it is real but is spreading the information in a jovial, non-threatening way ... until the world is ready for "the truth" ... (why not?)

is there any proof of this? is this a false idea (something you have constructed in your imagination) or is it a mysterious idea? (perhaps you are a member of his flying noodle tantra sex cult, and know first hand)

Query: If I say I have seen the flying spagetti monster, even if I am possibly lying or deluded, does that make it real?

it makes it a real experience, a 'false' value, it's existence is purely false, yet it still exists relative to that value if you are delusional. If you are lying, then your simply telling everyone that a false idea is a true idea.

But this is where I struggle, with your logic, everything is indeterminate because there may be information that we do not know ...

yes, and there most likely always will be. so how does the information we have function with us honestly? does it function as true? For example, I have never been to China, so I cant say first hand that it exists, i'm just taking all of those chinese people's word for it, so it functions as objectivly true for me. Now if I tweak that concept in my head, dont eat for 5 days, dont sleep for three, and take ambien, I may perhaps become paranoid that the chinese are up to something, and that perhaps since I have never been to china, it doesnt exist! So a objectivly true idea can think function as a false idea as well, which is perhaps what delusion or insanity is.

You appear to miss my point - and I am missing whatever constructive point you are trying to make ... none of the truths you have declared above are proveable totally. Your understanding may be based on a cover-up of "the truth" ... why not? (conspiracy everywhere!)

I think what you address here is the value of 'certainty', as in how certain can we be that what we assign as 0 is 0, what we assign as 1 is 1, and so forth.

So we have to discover what we are the most certain about, and assign the appropiate value. What can we be most certain about? Our own existence. How can we know for certainty we exist? By experiencing pure being. How can you be certain you experienced pure being? By thinking.


Everything else sort of falls into place after that.

So we can attribute probabilities to true and false ... the highly unlikely scenarios I asked about are at one end of the scale, and "the cost of coffee will rise tomorrow" is somewhere nearer the middle ... which is the basis of fuzzy logic (as already pointed out). There are still two values of truth here, but we apply judgement as to which one is appropriate given our current level of information.

Fuzzy logic assigns probability to true or false within reason, yet it does not address uncertainty critically or in a way that can be used in common language. What good was fuzzy logic in 2003? absolutly none, how could the world agree on the fuzzy logic of WMD?


BF

 

[WWHP]

Yet you were the only person to notice it...

Oh well. I guess I'm not a great thinker, after all.

hmm, Did I miss it? let me go find it, apologies if so!



BF

 

[pv+]

Doesn't it just say something about the indomitable human spirit that despite Bubblehead being such an obvious (and lame) troll, people still try to interact with him?

Well, I think I agree about the indomitable human spirit. But I hope you're not including moi of trying to interact with the King of the Stepford Morons. My humble effort merely strives to act as a reminder, to those foolish enough to try, that attempts to interract with it are pointless and doomed to fail because his Highmindedness is a dyed in the wool, unreconstructed troll. The only worthwhile legal activity is to bait the moron.

 

[pv+]

and I'm not married...

Given your charm and warm personality, to say nothing of your devotion to honesty, it would be surprising if you could tempt a head louse to stick around. Have you tried bathing in pig manure? That might improve your chances - and the smell!

 

[Z]

Well, thanks to pv+s unashamed posting of Bubblefish's identity, I've read the extremely silly OS012 nonsense. I have to say... as empty musings go, that was particularly vacuous.

Like the traveller's partner's equations, they say a lot, and mean nothing.

I think a more reasonable logical presentation for the three states - false, undetermined, and true - is -1, 0, +1.

As in, an undetermined fact has 0 value - and is therefore irrelevant.

OK, let me sweep away the past and start anew: what, exactly, is it that Bubblefish is trying to say? That some things are undetermined? Was that ever in question? I think not.

 

[pv+]

Bubblypus, do you think you could desist from using words such as "truth", "reason" and "critical thinking", since it is transparently clear that you have no idea of their meanings in the English language. Your continued use of these words serves only to make you look even more cretinous than you are (if that's at all possible). Just thought I should let you know.
Right. Carry on!

 

[WWHP]

Zaay! Indeed I did miss this, so sorry.


I really hope your right! let's see....

When dealing with issues brought to this forum's attention (examples: homeopathic efficacy, 9/11 conspiracies, dowsing, qi, telepathy), any given statement has three possibilities:

1) True
2) False
3) Undetermined

yes......

A cynic will compare the statement to what he believes he already knows, and either apply 1 or 2. A skeptic is willing to apply 3, but with the caveat that an undetermined statement does not allow for 1 to be conclusively applied.

yes....or a 2, right?

Example: if a homeopath insists that a remedy diluted 1000 times has an effect on the common cold, a cynic will simply reply that the statement is false, as the available scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against this fact. A skeptic must look at the same facts and reply that, while it is impossible to know if this remedy will or won't ever or has ever in the past affected the common cold, all available evidence suggests this statement is false.

yes, agreed.

In the case of a lack of evidence, things become more complicated. If a believer in Christianity states that the biblical God exists, the cynic states that this is clearly false, based on a complete lack of any reasonable evidence. A skeptic should take the position that the Biblical God requires a resolution of many problems from the Biblical account, and that if paradox and conflict is to be resolved, any existing God cannot match the Biblical account. He must further state that the existence of any such God cannot be shown to exist or to not exist, causing this statement to match case 3.

although I dont think the skeptic's argument there was as elegant or insightful as it could have been, I agree with the skeptic's conclusion.

The problem then for a pragmatic individual is that any statement which is indeterminate ceases to be useful. Such a statement can only be useful in the most vague, abstract ways. Saying that our world is a dream of another being might be interesting from some philosophical standpoint, but it's an indeterminate statement which lacks any practical value.

okay, here is where I disagree. First off, your skeptics argument, his steps taken to arrive at the 3, which I call the 0, are useless, and it is natural that such steps would led one to say the third value is useless.

So, the dialectician approaches it like this:

1.) What is the biblical God? What is is that the biblical God could possibly be as opposed to what believers interpret it to be? Which believer has a more accurate interpretation? How can we determine which is more accurate? How can we determine if they can be accurate? How can we determine that if the biblical God signifies a higher intelligence in universe than humanity at the time of the books creation, the interpretation is relative to the time period?

2.) How can we be certain that higher intelligence can or cannot exist? What would define higher intelligence? What role would higher intelligence play in the universe? What role does humanity play in the universe? How can we determine those answers to be either true or false, or meaningful?


That's a completly different approach, and none of those answers would be meaningless, absolutly none of them.

Let's examine the notion of qi for a moment:

ahh, my favorite topic!

Qi is very hard to define clearly to those unfamiliar with the concept. The origins of the concept revolves around the 'vital breath', and actually began around a superstition that all breath was an energy that permeated the world.

I dont neccesarily agree that's a true idea, but i follow. Your argument is structured so far on this idea about qi is true, and that's highly questionable.

Good air made one healthy, and bad air made one ill. Air is everywhere, air moves, and a lack of air causes death. Eventually, the concept evolved into an energy concept, rather than one involving air. This lead to mystical concepts and misconceptions, leading in turn to an entire system of supernatural belief that, fortunately to its practicioners, resulted in many positive benefits.

this is a claim your making, your making an epistimological claim, and a philosphical claim. Your argument here is becoming entirely dependent upon this being 100 certain for your argument to exist.

Yet if we look critically at the claims made by qi practicioners, we learn that much of what is being practiced is good health, good common sense, and self-control of natural bodily functions. We can remove notions of qi in almost every case and still come up with similar results to the physical practices of qi practicioners; those which appear to defy physics are, apparently, the results of self/mass delusion, tirickery, or selective memory.

I simply just can't accept that as a true statement. I can accept it as a 0, you're not providing much argument as to how you arrived at this conclusion, your simply making historical and philosophical assertions and then assuming it's common knowledge and easily verifiable. If it's easily verifiable, let me know, I could be mistaken.

I do not doubt that you've had experiences which cause you to believe in the power of qi, but I do doubt that you've applied critical thinking to those experiences.

I havent determined what those experiences mean objectivly, I am not finished on my quest for truth here, i.e. yes, I am still applying critical thinking to those experiences, that is a small piece of how I come to be here.

I say this because I've been along the same road many times, usually with magical/psychic phenomena. Since learning to apply critical thinking and observation, I've realized the many ways in which our minds can make mountains out of molehills, and how we can be caught up in perfectly ordinary physical reactions and believe them to be mystical.

same here

Now, does qi exist?

it exists as a concept and placeholder for some function at least philosophicaly or subjectivly. It may exist as a perinormal phenomena. It does not exist as normal phenomena.

A rigid definition of qi is wanting, unfortunately.

Not according to Dr. Shui Yin Lo. He believes he has isolated the mechanism of what could be considered qi. He is in a second round of experimentation at this time to prove it.

The most rigid definition I can find is that qi is an emergent property of physical systems, related to the underlying order found in matter-energy relationships.

This is closer to what I lean towards, that, mixed with a highly refined awareness.

Of course, this would cause qi to equal, to some degree, the laws of physics, rendering a need for the concept of qi to be unimportant.

Unimportant in physics, you mean, certainly not in philosophy or qi kung or meditation. let's not get acadio-centric! (yes, I made up that word)

Other definitions of qi result similarly in either the concept being redundant, or being false (for example, that qi is the luminous ether).

most likely true, but it depends upon how 'luminous ether' was being used and by who.

However, I'll rely upon a common definition for qi as applid in martial arts: life energy. Obviously, life energy exists; any thing which is alive is undergoing constant biochemical reactions, which involves continual conversion of energy.

Now, can qi be used to, for example, protect yourself from harm?

hmm, in the healing sense, as in preventative health, I would say yes, not matter what the mechanism is, and I only speak from my personal experience.

in the martial sense, I would say 'no' in and of itself, but as inclusive inside of an entire system? I would say yes, no matter what the mechanism is.

By itself, no. If qi is just the common natural biochemical energy of the body, there's no particular way to focus that energy into a defensive field. You can, of course, prepare your body to lessen damage from an attack - classic 'roll with it' or 'bracing' techniques.

hmmm, ever hear of Iron Shirt Qi Kung? it's very powerful to what you presribe here, and using qi is important at least as a placeholder to do qi kung properly.

You can, of course, mentally prepare yourself to not react to pain signals - even to ignore them completely. You can, of course, regulate your breathing and heart rate for a number of effects. Yes, these things require you to use life energy; but so does reading a book or walking to the store. Even sleeping requires the use of life energy. But of course, this once again renders the notion of qi to be irrelevant.

ahh, so I gather you have not done much qi kung practice? Or have experience with Iron Shirt Qi Kung? I would say this last comment of yours is false.

In the case of qi, the third value simply isn't applicable. Any given definition of qi either results in an outright false statement, or in a true statement, but one in which the definition of qi equals the definition of an existing known physical process or system.

wow, it took that long to get to that? Much simpler in dialectic, and more accurate too, if you dont mind me saying.

We dont know if qi is perhaps a peri-normal phenomena, it's really no simpler than that. most of your arguments were based on assumptions of things which must be true for you to conclude how you did.

You arguments are founded on either qi existing as true in relationship to physics as we understand it. As qi being soley a mechanism that is either a mechanism in known existence or supernatural phantasm (magic).

Qi could very well be the synthesis of our awareness and minds with physical matter, i.e. it is both in the mind and in matter.

we don't know yet.

see how short mine was?;-)

It's like defining God as a daisy. Yes, in that case, God exists, but becomes irrelevant.

but then humanities relationship to daisies epistemologically becomes very relevant!

Now, that being said, an indeterminate statement does not always remain irrelevant; as new evidence is uncovered, a truth value can be assigned to a statement based on new evidence. But in most cases, until a truth value can be assigned, an indeterminate statement is irrelevant.

that was sort of a circular and contradictory argument, at least that's how it reads to me. You just said that an indeterminate value is irrelevant because in some cases it's relevant even though it's not assigned, yet becomes relevant only when it's assigned as either true or false.

Is that what you meant?

It's simple. Consciousness. It's pretty mysterious right now. If we cloud our perceptions with assumptions of what it must be without evidence, we are wasting time and holding back science and philosophy.

we NEED the indeterminate value, which I prefer to call mystery since mystery, as defined, is both true and false at once, and mystery seems to be in harmony as a word that has both fictional appeal and deterministic prescription, to FIND TRUTH.

True and FALSE comes from mystery. Mystery is all we know the second we are born, there is no true and false, and throughout our lives we simply slowly untangle mystery into true and false. Since all of us come from this same process, we can say that all truth and falsity are simple distinctions we make inside of mystery since birth. Recapitulation in the individual, recaptiulation in the society, reflected in our institutions, art and science.

In some cases, the value of the statement comes from secondary results. For example, if I claim that precognition exists, we would have to say that the statement is indeterminate and irrelevant, since precognition has no resulting effects at the moment.

It's only irrelevant if either A.)One has never had an experience that could be described as precognitive, and B.) if one is soley aware only of specific experiments were claims of precognition in individuals proved to be false.

Other than that, i dont see how you could prescribe a value of irrelevant to the claim. It's a subjective value, it being relevant, not an objective value, and your argument is again appearing to me to be based on an assumption that must be true.

The moment an alleged precog produces significant solid evidence of their abilities, without resorting to trickery, the statement shifts to becoming both true and relevant. Until then, however, the statement remains irrelevant.

I think you're being acaio centric again!

Example: I claim I can dreamwalk. This ability is difficult to control and success is limited; further, there is no outward effect apparent from this ability, since interaction in the dreams of others is strongly limited. Hence, this claim is indeterminate (since no one, not even myself, can provide solid proof of the ability) and irrelevant, since such an ability has no objective observable effect.

it's irrelevant as your talking about an experience.

I claim i have consciousness. According to your argument, that's an irrelevant claim!

So, perhaps the third value should simply be 'irrelevant'.

I think mystery works just fine.

By the way, GREAT FRIGGIN PASS man! Good work! I wish I would get more like this. Anymore goodlooking ladies like you where you live?;-)

I look forward to reading your response and I really respect your critical thinking!


Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

hehe, I really appreciate ol nasty PV being here, he's really making this discussion much more fun, eh?

You keep at it PV! Ol bubblefish loves ya and he knows you love ol bubblefish!

 

[WWHP]

Actually, the rest of the post was a suggestion that because the only way you can possibly express your meaning on this forum is by posting text, you should try to make sure that your text accurately reflects the meaning that you intend to convey, and to express yourself clearly and unambiguously using generally accepted (i.e. dictionary) definitions of words.

Thank you, Mojo, I will try harder.


Lotsa Love,
Bubblefish

 

[pv+]

Well, thanks to pv+s unashamed posting of Bubblefish's identity...

In the scheme of things, and in the cause of honesty and transparency, I would say that Blubbertbrain's identity is somewhat important. How else is one to understand his assertions, his ravings and blatherings, in their proper context? He has done his level best to prevaricate and obfuscate when it comes to truth, reason and critical thinking, by being untruthful, unreasonable and omitting critical details that would allow the realisation of such truth, reason and critical thinking. Those particular attributes of human behaviour, however, hold no interest whatsoever for our resident home movie hack. His only interest lies in provoking an argument for his own demented entertainment.

Now, what's the word I'm looking for to describe that obnoxious anti-social form of Internet behaviour?

 

[WWHP]

God you are dumb Bubblefish/TM

You're defining God as dumb Bubblefish/TM? Hmm interesting inner mythos thou is working out!

- as dumb as the fake 'skeptics' on that site -

Hmm, God is dumb Bubblefish/TM, and similar to some skeptics. Strange, strange, strange god you have my good man! Almost as funny as that flying noodle fella!

if you admit to a phenomenon being 'perinormal' then all you are saying is that you've found an interesting conventional phenomenon we haven't got around to explaining yet.

I agree. But what does this have to do with "God_dumb_Bubblefish/TM?"

Before you decide to re-define the word to suit your own purposes remember that it was a neologism created by Dawkins with the express intent of exposing loonies like you -

I know Dawkins is an atheist, but your saying he doesn't believe I, God_Dumb_bubblefish/TM exists?

it's just that you dullards are so eager to use what sounds like a cool new addition to your 'vocabulary' you fall straight into the trap of appropriating it.

ahhh, same thing that happens to all educated men, eh?

You keep comin' back to these threads, Elmer, ol bubblefish loves ta rassle!


Bubblefish