Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
that's not what I said. an objective statement defines an objective truth, a subjective statement defines a subjective truth.
a objectivly false statement can be a subjectivly true statement. It's an active relationship, it's not static.
a 'subject' is nothing more than another observable object to another point of view. The observer is also the observed.
Everything that I mention in OS 012 is commonly established by other frameworks academically. The only thing that is groundbreaking is the synthesis of these ideas into a framework or game that can in theory produce a 'win win' in negotiation and conflict resolution.
Please be specific where you see an error, that's what this is about. I 'm not here to prove what I believe. If you think I am, then that is your sole misinterpretation
I object to this response. It's clearly a fantastic work of fiction - in other words, mysterious. Surely it should read more like: "I have to rely on my adhoc consultations with Wikipedia to find exactly what language to use". And since Bubble**** is demonstrably illiterate (witness the hundreds of spelling, syntactical and grammatical errors in this thread alone) and admittedly innumerate ("I am not a mathematician" and Jonny's critique) how can one be sure he understands anything he reads or hears in any kind of language? It's clearly a mystery and, therefore, my critical assessment is true.
Who's up for a critical discussion...?
PS. Firstly can someone tell me what Bubble******** means when he uses the word "critical". I'm sure he means "desperate", as a "critical situation" might equally be called a "desperate situation", but I could be wrong - mysteriously!
al-
Mystery is used as a conceptual signifier for 0 as used in ordering and counting. Meaning in counting, we dont count from mystery to 2, we count from 0 to 2. I assign 'mystery' to 0 to relate the conceptual similarity in semantics
The history of 0 is very interesting. Aristotle murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 into math. 0 has been said to be a very discomforting idea historically.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_10_108/ai_58360828[/QUOTE]
aristotle was the orginator of bivalent logic, or aristolian logic. he hated 0 because 0 destroyed much of the foundation of his philosophy.
The third value is equally upsetting and uncomfortable to any who operate aristolian logic, i.e. as this thread shows. the third value, or 0 in mathematics, can be said to have some similarities here.
Mystery is used as a conceptual signifier for 0 as used in ordering and counting. Meaning in counting, we dont count from mystery to 2, we count from 0 to 2. I assign 'mystery' to 0 to relate the conceptual similarity in semantics
The history of 0 is very interesting. Aristotle murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 into math. 0 has been said to be a very discomforting idea historically.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_10_108/ai_58360828[/QUOTE]
aristotle was the orginator of bivalent logic, or aristolian logic. he hated 0 because 0 destroyed much of the foundation of his philosophy.
The third value is equally upsetting and uncomfortable to any who operate aristolian logic, i.e. as this thread shows. the third value, or 0 in mathematics, can be said to have some similarities here.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
No, what is upsetting, is how you have done little but hand waving; how you've done nothing to substantiate your original assertions against Mr. Randi; and how you are continuing to pursue a discussion in the "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" forum that is better suited to the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Can you provide any evidence to support that assertion, or is it just another example of your "third value"?
And legally, perhaps:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/transcripts/1996/C102/1.html
And there's more where that came from.
Aristotle was the chap who observed that if a family wanted a son the woman should conceive when the wind was blowing from the north!
Not sure about "aristolian" logic though. I'm sure you're going to say you meant Aristotelian logic - but one can never be certain (another mystery)!
Is anyone placing bets on Bubble******** having any other specialist expertise that he just can't quite remember how to explain without a post hoc prompt? Just curious!
PS. Is mystery 0, 1, or 7.34? I can't quite remember!
Funny that. I have Collins, Chambers and Oxford English dictionaries, plus a couple each of hefty Italian/English and French/English dictionaries, all very useful in my work. I can't seem to lay my hands on the Bubblefish dictionary.
Incidentally, in spite of diligent searching through this thread, I can not trace whatsoever of your own critical thinking. To be more precise I can find no trace of anything posted by you that could be considered to be just plain, bog standard thinking. As for critical discussion (or any discussion at all really), this thread seems to be devoid of any examples posted by you - and I was so looking forward to seeing a Bubblefish example of critical discussion. I would have thought, since you bandy the word "critical"around with some abandon, you'd be keen to provide a teeny example of the fruits of your own critical abilities.
Still I suppose, being wide awake and drug free, and being able to read English (and being qualified to teach it), I am at a bit of a disadvantage!
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
"Subjective truth" is a meaningless concept, in my opinion. In considering whether something is true or false, one must conceptualize it as an object.
Not really. From another viewpoint, "subject" is redefined. The "subject" does not become the "object" when we move from one point of view to the other, it has ALWAYS been an object from that viewpoint. When it comes to subjectivity, we are all trapped inside our own heads. From a logic standpoint, it isn't really useful to speculate on what might be going on inside another person's head.
Who has done this?
Arkan, I address questions asked. I have substantiated by claims regarding randi and the third value in my arguments. it doesnt appear to me that those arguments are being countered, rather, it looks like many posters are just trying to find other ways of making me wrong other than what i address in my arguments regarding Randi and the third value.
and at some point, all statements and points of view are reduced down to basic individual philosophy, so it is natural that philosophical discussion would erupt when deconstruction occurs.
it is outlined in the book "Zero, the biography of a dangerous idea". I already provided the link
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
That is no excuse for not splitting the thread, and moving the discussion of your philos-woo-phy to the correct area of the forums.
So how do you "conceptualize" percepts as objects?
For example, the statement "peanut butter tastes better than lobster" is true. Having tasted both, I can assure you that it's true. In fact, I can with equal assurance tell you that "rubber tyre patches taste better than lobster." Of course, my partner -- and you -- may not agree.
I don't think there is an "objective truth" to the statement about the comparative goodness-of-taste between lobster, tyre patches, and peanut butter. On the other hand there's also a clear subjective truth, but (by definition) it will vary from subject to subject.
On the other hand, there is also an objective truth that lobster is more expensive, per pound, than peanut butter. Any visit to the local supermarket will confirm that, and no rational variation is expected.
Nonsense. Any time you are trying to interact with another person, it's quite useful -- and logical -- to speculate about what's going on in his/her head. For example, the fact that I'm quite unusual in my dislike of lobster suggests that most people prefer lobster to tyre patches -- and that if you're trying to pick up that hot person, The Lobster Pot is a better dinner spot than Mel's Auto Repair.
It's also out of the box wrong, for the same reason that Leonardo da Vinci didn't try to murder Neil Armstrong, or St. Thomas Aquinas didn't try to murder Louis Armstrong.
The first recorded use of the number zero was c. 500AD, in India. Aristotle died something like 800 years previously.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The link doesn't mention Aristotle. In fact, it implies that the concept of zero was introduced to the west by the Arabs after their 6th century conquests of India.
Last edited:
that's fine if it's your opinion, I wont argue with your opinion, you're welcome to have whatever opinion you want about truth values.
Yes, and objective ideas are mutually observable conceptual objects (2+2=4) held as true and subjective truths are unique soley to the self true (some moron may believe that 2+2=5, that's his opinion to have, eh?)
I stated what I believe to be a objective truth, which is 'the observer is also the observed'. An observer is also an object to another point of view.
al, c'mon man, catch up a bit, it's not difficult, and you're framing things very statically, and this is very dynamic, it's always moving.
I have a point of view, I am an observer. I can only view my reality from my point of view. I am also an object to another's point of view, just as they are an object of mine. Objective and subjective hold distinctions relative to a point of view, and nothing more
yes, although I wouldnt use the word trapped to describe my experience.
agreed, but that is not what this framework is, it is not a self refrential logic, it is a logic that is refrential to the self, a rational way to *see* what each other means.
three truth values are not my invention, they already exist in other accepted systems, even 'fuzzy' ones like Robert Anton Wilsons 'maybe logic' to ternary logic to taoism.
Non Zero sum strategies are not my invention, they are used in economics all the time. I just apply them to dialogue.
Memetics is not my orginal concept, it's just an active observation to create the distinctions of ideas in an objective framework.
The Law of Identity is not my concept, it's aristotle's I believe.
Ideas effecting behavior and behavior effecting ideas is self evident, and covered in transactional psychology at the very least, and behaviorial game theory at best.
There is nothing earth shattering about these ideas, they are commonly accepted. When you put them all together into a dynamic system, a new value gets created, at least in theory.
I'm still testing that theory, that's how i want to find the flaw, I'm not interested in proving it true, I am interested in proving it false, isnt that what science is about?
BF
When talking about numbers, mathematics is the only common language. There are different degrees of complexity (I, for example, do not know thing one about advanced calculus), but even basic addition is considered part of mathematics, and follows the same set of rules.
That linear number line includes all real values, including non-integers. It also include negative numbers, which you've handily ignored here.
How numbers are used commonly still follows the rules of mathematics.
"0" as a value is, by definition, unique, yes.
I won't be an ass and call you for putting down "o" instead of "0". I'll just assume it was a typo.
"1" as a value is again, by definition, unique.
But your claim that everything after can be broken down into a set of 1's is where your claim loses meaning. Everything after zero can be broken down into (insert abritrary positive number)'s. So what?
If I claim that everything after zero can be broken down into 0.1245482's, does that make 0.1245482 the base of all numbers?
Even if you want to go so far as to claiming it has to be something that breaks numbers down into attractive non-decimals, what about 0.5? Even 1 can be broken down into 2 0.5's.
You have ignored the infinite number of positive real numbers between 0 and 1.
Utterly abitrary. Again, I can pick any non-zero integer. 4 is 8 "distinctions" if I choose to use 0.5. 1 is two distinctions using 0.5, as well.
Perhaps when explaining mathematics to a child it is useful to explain things in terms of positive whole numbers, but the level of abstraction quickly snowballs from that. Even in applied mathematics, you can't simply ignore decimals and negative numbers and expect to do anything useful.
"It is false relative to the true of 1" is mathematically meaningless in the context you've given. 1 represents "true" only when dealing with boolean concepts. Since you're talking about the real number line (for some reason), 1 is no more "true" or fundamental than 0.4, or 0.5, or 6.
Better yet, why not focus on prime numbers as the basis for everything? At least that would have some defined structure to it.
No, 0 has a defined value, so does 1. So does 2. 2 is a not a "'false' distinction" of anything. 1 is only "true" in context of certain logic systems. Speaking of which, there are ternary logic systems that use values other than than 0 for unknown (they usually use a symbol), and values other than 1 for true.
On the real number line, 0 is 0, not "mystery".
Mind explaining in more detail what you mean by "all numbers from from 0"? And yes, 0 does exist.
What the heck does this mean? Do you mean to imply that the recurrence of the digits means there are an infinte number of that value?
Sorry, but if that's what you're saying, you're comitting the mathematical equivalent of equivocation. There may be an infinite occurrence of the digit 1, but the value of 1 occurs only once. Same for all other defined values.
Those digits don't carry inherent meaning without being placed in the context of actual values. There may be an infinite occurrence of the digit "4", but the value of 4 appears once, and only once, on the real number line.
And? I know about ternary counting systems, what am I supposed to draw from this? It doesn't even relate to your system of ternary logic.
I think my views on things are pretty clear, and I think the other posters did a good job expressing how I feel about this in general in my weekend absence.
I'd like to continue to discuss your views on mathematics and logic systems. It's a nice, non-ambiguous area of discussion that I am familiar with, and it seems to relate at least peripherally to your ternary logic.
It was a stupid computer joke. If I have to explain it, it won't be funny anymore.
I said "computation", not "electronics". There are distinct connections between computational systems and formal logic, because computers require mathematical logic to do anything. Formal logic systems are often used to help solve computational problems.
0, 1, and 2 are not the only values useful outside of mathematics, and other distinctions are not solely useful inside "math and math alone". See the previous comments about your claims of 1 being special somehow.
Basically, digits like 1 are only special if you want things nice and neat, or if you want to multiply or divide by something without actually doing anything useful.
All the cool kids are into infinte decimals and imaginary numbers now anyway. Get with the program.
like you said, saying that over and over doesnt make it true. if you want to start a new thread in that forum to address this, i perhaps may attend, if not, this discussion is still linear, we can see how it is evolving. I am using conclusions to support my claim, and those conclusions are naturally being challenged
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
In my mind, the act of considering whether peanut butter tastes better than lobster makes the argument objective. "Peanut butter tastes better than lobster" is an unwarranted statement, and therefore meaningless. "I think peanut butter tastes better than lobster" is an objective statement.
In my opinion, of course.
Perhaps my opinion is shaped by my line of work as a software developer, but if it can't be quantified in some manner, I don't find it useful. As soon as it's quantified, it becomes an object. Again, in my opinion.