Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

The Good Doctor Kitten,

Let's please discuss Steorn, who have a hopeful technology. Now by hopeful, I certainly mean I hope they really have it!

Not if there is no rational basis for the "hope."

I think it is quite rational to have hope that we can find away out of our energy mess when we are heading towards world wars and the fight over resources, you're arguing that's not rational?

Controlled total-conversion-of-mass-to-energy would also hold out tremendous promise for improving the state of the world, and would also not involve any fundamental violations of the laws of physics. So would the construction of a Dyson sphere around the sun to capture a greater percentage of the solar energy. For those solutions, the problems are "merely" technological, and thus the hope is, literally, infinitely greater.

hope is hope. I hope we can figure out a solution to our mess, and I will hunt down like a cheeta any solutions that are proposed and hopeful.

But the hope is still immeasurably small. No rational observer would sink a dime into such a project.

Then let's hope Steorn is right, eh?

Randi claims that Steorn is fraudulent. That is misleading and deceptive claim. Randi's claim is verifiable.

No, it's not. Not without Steorn's cooperation, and that cooperation is demonstrably not forthcoming.

Huh? Not only will Steorn allow anyone (within reason) to view the technology (if you sign an NDA), but they are taking proper critical steps to prove their claim within science.

To claim 'fraud', you must have evidence of fraud. If you can't find evidence of fraud, then you're claim is verifiably FALSE by the standards of how you all use critical thinking.

Where's that third value when you need it, eh?

If I claim to have invented fusion in my bathtub, but refuse to allow my device to be tested, it's (self-evidently) impossible to test or to verify.

who cares? that's a misleading example. Steorn now has 12 leading scientists to test their claim, your example is misleading here.

But it's not impossible to evaluate. And given the fact that if I had invented such a device -- even if I only believed that I had invented such a device -- I wouldn't be messing around the way Steorn is, the conclusion that Steorn is fraudulent. That theory best fits the facts that Steorn has permitted us to observe.

then you just posted a libelous statement about a tech company based on your silly metaphor.

But that claim (that Steorn is fraudulent) will in all likelihood not be shown to be false.

Tell that to Steorn. They address the issues of fraud and hoax quite openly.

Of course not. Logic is a tool that can be used in risk assessment. But the problem with assessing, for example, Steorn's behavior, is not one of the logic used. Plain old biinary first-order logic works beautifully to allow us to infer with confidence that they are frauds.

exactly, and your more than likely flat wrong, your bivalent thinking/logic gave you a conclusion that can verifiably be proven to be false. You didnt go on your investigations of STeorn, you went on your bathtub analogy.

There are, of course, circumstances in which ternary logics are useful to model, which is why the modelling of ternary logics is a well-studied and well-understood problem, and has been so since probably before you or I were born. There's nothing "hard" about the relationship between truth values and ternary frameworks, nor is there anything particularly "intuitive" about the relationship your soi-disant logic proposes.

You more than likely creating a false model in your head about OS 012 like you did with your bathtub fusion cartoon with steorn, and reaching your conclusions the same way.

(In point of fact, it's not only unintuitive, but it's easily demonstrable to simply be wrong.

Then do so or make a retraction. Demonstrate 'what I mean' by OS 0 1 2 as demonstratably 'wrong'.

Your statement that "objective falsehood" is the same thing as "subjective truth" is ample demonstration of its inherent wrongness.)

Then DEMONSTRATE that, please.

Unfortunately, the set of situations in which ternary logic are useful do not include analysis of Steorn's behavior.

dr kitten, the third value is the third value. Yes, no, and maybe is a three truth value scenario, we use it all the time.

And the final sentence fails to rise to the dignity of error. It's word salad.

then demonstrate how my sentence has no objective meaning please. Asserting that does not make it *poof* into existence as true.


Ternary values have both a logical and intuitive relationship, and we can see these relationships expressed in Ternary Logic, Maybe Logic, and Taoism perfectly.

So do Goldilocks' bears, the Billy Goats Gruff, and the Stooges. That doesn't make Stooge logic either useful, accurate, or intuitive.

Bivalent values have both an logical and intuitive relationship, and we can see these relationships expressed in bivalent logic, dualism, and western philosophy.

So do Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, and Ren and Stimpy, that doesnt make Stimpy logic useful, accurate, or intuitive either, so?

If you stop modeling the problem incorrectly, then you will stop producing incorrect observations about the object discussed.

 

[WWHP]

You still havn't answered my points about the whole logic system being restrictive. Sometimes there are two options only (true/false) sometimes there are many, sometimes such analysis is innapropriate.

Jim

I havent answered them yet because I havent had the time. the 'badscience' crowd is at the bottom of my list. I answered all your rebuttals at badscience, and you didnt address mine, you ignored them. Now you expect me to push aside more critical arguments here to address yours in order?

try again, Jimbob, I will address your false and misleading rebuttal after i get to the more critical arguments here.

In case you havent noticed, it's me discussing and arguing with a large number of people, so wait your turn. You had your golden chance at badscience, and you fumbled it. I requested you stay with me using the tit for tat that has been perfectly used by JonnyFive and myself here to produce agreement, and you choose not to. Now your tracking me down to discuss this futher. Do you see a contradiction there?

 

[JonnyFive]

Let me provide a visual example

0= the distiction of null
1=the distinction of unit
2= the distinction of numbers of units

Unfortunately, this didn't really help clear things up for me. Do you mean to say that when you say "distinction" you mean "the smallest unit that a number can be broken down into" or something else?

One point I can address is the issue of null. In mathematics, the null set is not the same as 0 at all. The null set simply means a set with no values. If you mean that 0 is the number of elements in the null set, then that's correct.

I'm just going to need a clearer definition. Sorry to keep belaboring that point, but I'd rather not jump to conclusions without knowing what you mean.

Well, no, it's not mathematics per se, I've never said OS 0 1 2 was mathematics, I'm saying these three distinctions in number form the basic distinctions of natural number, i.e. these are the distinctions we use to tell natural numbers apart.

Fair enough, you didn't claim it was an element of mathematics.

I'm kind of getting a clearer picture of what you mean by distinctions. In that case, the most basic unit of a natural number would, in fact, be 1, as it is the smallest non-zero unit allowed on the natural number line. If you're precise about that, then I agree with you. I understand you probably didn't mean to apply what you said so generally, but you need to be very specific when you discuss mathematics.

I'm talking about all things which we can conceptualize. these three values, these three distinctions, are embedded, projected, into our perception of environment (reality) and we can deconstruct reality back down to these basic three distinctions, i.e. these distinctions are something that we all share in common. We can find thier fingerprints all over the place, even in how we use natural numbers at a very basic level.

Is this the true/false/unknown thing again, or are you referring to mathematics?

Any mathematician or layman naturally makes these distinctions in number, but it's beyond the conscious level, i.e. these distinctions are 'wired' into us.

Here I'd like to see some more solid evidence, depending on how far you want to take this claim. I wouldn't agree that mathematical distinctions are wired into us, unless you mean the tendency of humans to divide things into groups and order/count them. That really only works for the simplest of concepts anyway, as the more abstract elements of math require dedicated study.

These three distinctions are the base of all we can percieve, and thus everything we can percieve wil naturally show thier fingerprints. These distinctions are more than likely hard wired into our brains.

Again, depending on the extent of your claim, I'd really need to see more evidence.

0.12 was an example, '1' is being analyzed, referred to, and .12 is what is left of the full '1'. It was just an ancedote, we dont have to belabor it.

All right.

the symbols 0, 1, 2 are used to convey the repeating fingerprint of these three distinctions.

Because you're making claims about the "hard wired" nature of those distinctions, I still need to see some evidence. Do you have any kind of peer reviewed material from the fields of neuroscience, psychology, or other relevent research? Is this a claim you wish to investigate on your own?

I'm not

As long as you're working with natural numbers, that's cool.

agreed, but we know the natural lineation is infinite. 2+ and on keeps going, and all of those natural numbers keep the distinction of 'ordering and counting units'

I'm going to assume this is a backhanded way of saying you're not trying to assign infinity as a distinct value.

sorry, I didnt mean higher numbers in math the way you are here, I just meant 'higher' than 1

As it's now clear you are focusing exclusively on natural numbers, your statement has considerably more meaning, but I was also referring to numbers greater than 1.

My point is that the higher numbers are often broken into units of things like "one hundred" or "one million" that are conceptually separate from "one". They have the word "one" in them, but they represent different concepts.

I am addressing the conceptual in natural numbers that are found repeating and recapitulaing elsewhere, i.e. outside of number.

Clarify this if you don't mind, it doesn't mean anything to me as stated, sorry.

no, to repeat in precise form.

Yes, mathematics does that all the time. In particular, proofs are used to illustrate why a particular equation is solved a certain way, or reduces to another equation.

these three distinctions and thier relationships to each other repeat in precise form throughout all we can percieve.

So you're saying the concept of three values is somehow intrinsic to the world itself? If so, please provide some additional evidence.

in the ternary logic paper I sent you, the values are defined as 0=unknown, 1=true, and 2= false.

0 is not 2. not the same distinction

I know, that system defines it like that. As I mentioned, that is to facilitate the use of mathematical logical operations.

In what I refrence as the three distinctions in natural number, i.e. their ordering value.

Still not sure what you mean. What do you mean by "ordering value" precisely?

good point, noted. But on a infinite number line, would you not consider all numbers either coming away from or 'into' 0 (as in the negative numbers).

0 is the starting point in lineation, that is all I am suggesting.

Only on the natural number line, but not on the real number line, or any other number line that includes negatives.

When dealing with an infinite plane or line, the concept of "the middle" is completely meaningless, as is "the beginning" or "the end". Those are concepts that require a finite space which can be measured.

Yes, I see what you mean

I'm glad my point was clear.

that's the number line I mean, yes.

In that case, you would say that 0 is the beginning of your number line, not the middle. There is no middle, and no end. If you were to draw out the line, it would look something like:

|------------------>

Where 0 is at the beginning, and it just keeps going infinitly. The real number line, however, is like this:

<--------------------->

You can put the "window" anywhere, and display as few or as many sequential values for the purposes of illustration, but there's no real beginning, middle, or end.

Like I said, all depends on the number line you choose.

Sure it does, it means quite allot! it shows that the distinction of 4 in terms of units can infinitly be continuous, all numbers above 1 in counting are 'symbols' used relative to the operation, but on a number line, there are an infinite number of sets of 4 things, i.e. all numbers are 'infinite' in this regard.

Yes, there are an infinite number of sets of 4, agreed. It wasn't clear that you meant that, or something else.

1 is continously the only 'objective' number and real distinction, all numbers above one are relative to the operation, only 1 or a series of 1's really exists.

Here I have to disagree, you are assigning arbitrary significance to 1 again. Your argument kind of works on the natural number line, and it also kind of works from a cognitive perspective (perhaps, I would need more knowledge of cognitive processes), but mathematically it doesn't work. Every digit "exists" distinctly in a mathematical sense, and the decision to the divide them into units of 1 is not mathematically significant, especially when dealing with non-natural numbers.

It's especially problematic when dealing with concepts like imaginary numbers, where things like SQRT(-1) have meaning.

If you want to claim that you can break natural numbers down into units of 1, that's a claim you might be able to kind of support. But that still doesn't make 1 the only real distinction.

The other issue I have is that you haven't really shown evidence that anyone really deals with everything as a conceptual group of ones. If I divide 20 by 5, I work with groups of 5, not groups of one. I could then break those into groups of one, but I don't. If you want to argue that I'm doing it subconsciously, you need to provide evidence of that.

At work I usually conceptualize in terms of hundreds, thousands, and sometimes millions, not ones. I also sometimes must conceptualize in terms of amounts less than one and percentages.

yes.....4 is just a symbol of four distinctions of units. there is unit, and there is number of units. the number of units is relative to the operation, not the number line

Depends on the operation and the units you use as your base. 4 could be one unit of 4, two units of 2, whatever. If you asked me to find SQRT(4) I would not think in terms of 1 at all, I would think in terms of 2. If you asked me to solve 4^2 I would conceptualize it as groups of fours.

I agree, I'm not saying taoism is math, it's just an intuitive adaptation of a ternary set. Although some people do claim that the I Ching, the book of changes, is mathematical, although I can't argue how.

I don't know enough about Taoism to comment, sorry.

sure, I can see that. I just used that as an example that three numbers 0, 1, and 2 can have mathematical reasoning, it's not just intuitive and it's certainly NOT magical!

Yes, I agree. There are base-all kinds of crazy crap counting systems.

If you dont mind, i will use that and give you full credit!

Just as long as you make it clear I am referring to mathematical ternary logic, as applied to mathematical problems and formal logic, I'm fine with that.

or an upgrade?

Depends on the problem you're working with. There are problems where ternary logic is overly complicated and useless, and there are problems where it is very useful. There are also problems where it is overly simplistic as well. Consider, for example, how one quantifies "too hot" or "too cold".

Jonny, How close are we to perfect agreement here? Soley in the use of numbers, that is, not in the greater body of this argument.

There's still some key points I don't agree with, but you're much clearer than you were in terms of what you want to get across. Looking forward to your reply.

 

[drkitten]

I think it is quite rational to have hope that we can find away out of our energy mess when we are heading towards world wars and the fight over resources, you're arguing that's not rational?

Yes. If your "hope" is that Tinkerbell will bring you an infinite-capacity battery from the Island of Lost Boys, that's not rational. No matter how desirable it is.

Randi claims that Steorn is fraudulent. That is misleading and deceptive claim. Randi's claim is verifiable.

Do you think that repeating a falsehood makes it come true?

Huh? Not only will Steorn allow anyone (within reason) to view the technology (if you sign an NDA), but they are taking proper critical steps to prove their claim within science.

No, they're not.

To claim 'fraud', you must have evidence of fraud. If you can't find evidence of fraud, then you're claim is verifiably FALSE by the standards of how you all use critical thinking.

Wrong again, on two levels. First, the claim itself is sufficiently implausible as to support the idea that its is fraudulent without further evidence. Second, Steorn's behavior supports the idea that they are knowingly peddling a fraud.

who cares? that's a misleading example. Steorn now has 12 leading scientists to test their claim, your example is misleading here.

None of whom were selected by standard channels or for their competency in testing such claims. Besides, such in camera review of scientific claims has long been known to be an unacceptable method of testing. Science doesn't work by Star Chamber.

then you just posted a libelous statement about a tech company based on your silly metaphor.

If you think it's libellous, bring on your lawyers. Truth, I remind you, is an absolute defense.

exactly, and your more than likely flat wrong, your bivalent thinking/logic gave you a conclusion that can verifiably be proven to be false.

I await your proof, then.

In the meantime, I stand by my statement. Steorn is almost certainly engaged in fraudulent behavior.

Then do so or make a retraction. Demonstrate 'what I mean' by OS 0 1 2 as demonstratably 'wrong'.

Certainly. You claim that "subjectively true" is identical to "objectively false."

This is "objectively false." For example, the statement "there is a full-sized adult alligator in my desk drawer" is objectively false. Not only can it be proven false by inspection, it can also be prove (objectively) to be impossible, as you can't fit a 2m alligator into a 50cm drawer.

And I know that there's no alligator in my desk drawer. In this way, I withhold assent to the idea that "there is an alligator in my desk drawer" is a reflection of my state of mind; therefore the statement is not only "objectively false," but "subjectively false" as well.

Another counterexample already came up of a comparison of the relative beauty of Wilma Flintstone and Betty Rubble. One of the participants -- I believe it was AW, but I have lost the attribution -- claimed that he found Betty to be more attractive than Wilma.

The statement "Betty is more attractive than Wilma" is neither objectively true nor objectively false; beauty is notoriously "in the eye of the beholder," i.e. subjective. But AW specifically stated that
he felt that Betty was more beautiful than Wilman. If he were telling the truth, this would be an example of a "subjectively true" statement that was nevertheless not "objectively false." Since it's at least possible that AW were telling the truth, that constitutes a demonstration of a possible world where objectively false is not the same as subjectively true..... and therefore the two concepts are not the same.

dr kitten, the third value is the third value. Yes, no, and maybe is a three truth value scenario, we use it all the time.

Absolutely. But trivalent logic doesn't imply OS012. OS012 is an incoherent expression of non-logic.

Ternary values have both a logical and intuitive relationship,

They can support many. OS012, however, is not one of them.

and we can see these relationships expressed in Ternary Logic, Maybe Logic, and Taoism perfectly.

Not via the expression of OS123.

 

[pv+]

I answered all your rebuttals at badscience, and you didnt address mine, you ignored them.

No you didn't! It doesn't matter what you say about it, all the threads and posts are still available for all to see at Badscience. The real reason you won't answer is you are too busy trawling Wikipedia and elsewhere looking for ideas for your next prevarication. As I said, Bubble, you are not as smart as you think.

I must say though I was quite taken with your sweet little protest of decency and honesty, and your average intelligence. Very touching. And you say you've repeated this often. Yes, I'm sure you have somewhere - just not in this thread nor in any thread at Badscience. I realise this has nothing to do with whatever you think you're arguing about today with Jonny, but it is germane to your protest of honesty.
I am reminded obviously about that book in your library you are so familiar with - twice - and can cite so authoritatively. Aristotle, or Pythagorus was it. Of course it didn't matter that you got it wrong twice, and that you hadn't read the book when you implied you had, nor that you don't own that book. Nor does it matter that you didn't deal with the implication that you hadn't been quite so honest about your assertions; rather you dismissed the incident like all the other such incidents previously. You magically always managed to mean something other than what anyone normally conversant with the English language would understand you to mean, and you always manage to point out the error of everyone's misunderstanding after it has become inconvenient to maintain the charade. Nevertheless, you really aren't playing transparently silly games and indulging in one continual deceit, and you retain your honesty and intellectual integrity. Bravo! Complimenti!

Btw, Bubble, what does your magical BS360, or whatever you call it, have to say about deceit and its role in worldwide conflict? I'm so sorry I couldn't phrase that question in a mathematical framework... I really can't match the sheer breadth and depth of your intellectual capacity. Of course, if you're too busy tearing Jonny's arguments to shreds, which I'm sure will crumble to nothing anyway as all the others have done, I'll understand.

 

[jimbob]

I havent answered them yet because I havent had the time. the 'badscience' crowd is at the bottom of my list. I answered all your rebuttals at badscience, and you didnt address mine, you ignored them. Now you expect me to push aside more critical arguments here to address yours in order?

try again, Jimbob, I will address your false and misleading rebuttal after i get to the more critical arguments here.

In case you havent noticed, it's me discussing and arguing with a large number of people, so wait your turn. You had your golden chance at badscience, and you fumbled it. I requested you stay with me using the tit for tat that has been perfectly used by JonnyFive and myself here to produce agreement, and you choose not to. Now your tracking me down to discuss this futher. Do you see a contradiction there?

I do not go in for huge multi-screen posts, because very few people can be bothered to read them, hence the lack of multi-quoted responses to your posts.

I also do not answer if I consider the point has been made by someone else.

try again, Jimbob, I will address your false and misleading rebuttal after i get to the more critical arguments here.

What is false and misleading about it?

Sometimes there are only two answers yes or no, sometimes a multitude, somettimes *even* three; however conflating and confusing the undecided, with the unknowable, with fuzzy values, with subjective valuations is worthless.

 

[Dean Morrison]

I am a creative, honest and reasonable human being of average intelligence, I have stated that over and over. I dont think I'm an example of an extraordinary intelligence. I do think I have a high degree of 'emotional intelligence' or intuition, but that is irrelevant to my arguments

What I suggest is simple and mutually observable, anyone can understand it.

No,

you're a twit....

 

[WWHP]

Robert Wright is my favorite dialectician. Bloggingheads.TV perhaps gives one of the best live examples of dialectic taking place within the topic of current events.

I like to use his standard of discussion for ours, with of course the added flair of humor and sarcasm that we all can throw into the heap to blow of steam.

Watch and Enjoy! Let's all try to hold on to this mutually held value for debate.

http://bloggingheads.tv

 

[WWHP]

O Wow, look, it's my old friend PC (pv),

hey PC, how ya doin'?

I must say though I was quite taken with your sweet little protest of decency and honesty, and your average intelligence. Very touching.

Oh sure, no problem. I'm all about honest communication, tit for tat.

I realise this has nothing to do with whatever you think you're arguing about today with Jonny, but it is germane to your protest of honesty.

what does 'germane' mean again? I forget. All I know is I insist on honest, rational exchange, in myself and others. None of us are perfect in this regard, so we all have to help each other out.

I am reminded obviously about that book in your library you are so familiar with - twice - and can cite so authoritatively. Aristotle, or Pythagorus was it.

Zero, the Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Yes, great book, check it out! I offered to send Dr. Kitten a copy on the house, but he did not accept my kind offer. Perhaps I'll send you one for your birthday. When is it?

Of course it didn't matter that you got it wrong twice,

exactly, it has nothing do with my overriding argument about the third value, and it's only the conclusion that is interesting, which is the greeks 'banned' zero and tried to censor those who could provide them the rational arguments for it's eventual inclusion, this producing Aristolian Logic in the historical dialectic, which in turn gave the west the argument for the existence of God.

and that you hadn't read the book when you implied you had,

I'm sorry, ol PC, that must be your C drive again.

nor that you don't own that book.

That's kinda true, it's actually a loaner.

Nor does it matter that you didn't deal with the implication that you hadn't been quite so honest about your assertions; rather you dismissed the incident like all the other such incidents previously.

Oh PC, there you go again. See, us fun loving logical compassionate creative MACS make mistakes too, but we own up to them and then upgrade our argument to reflect them, where it appears your errors are still affecting your software, please reboot argument.

You magically always managed to mean something other than what anyone normally conversant with the English language would understand you to mean, and you always manage to point out the error of everyone's misunderstanding after it has become inconvenient to maintain the charade.

Say PC, that's just cuz your using outdated software. I'm bumped upto OS 10, and I think your still running windows 98.

Upgrade! and then you can understand what a network of us are sharing with each other.

Nevertheless, you really aren't playing transparently silly games and indulging in one continual deceit, and you retain your honesty and intellectual integrity. Bravo! Complimenti!

well thanks PC, you sure do got an eye for talent.

Btw, Bubble, what does your magical BS360, or whatever you call it, have to say about deceit and its role in worldwide conflict?

Oh, you must mean OS 0 1 2. Well, it has allot to say about dishonesty. It basically suggests we can't effectivly solve problems in the 21st century because our individual levels of communication are concerned with the protection of status and thus depend upon dishonesty as a method of maintaining power or status. This has resulted in group delusion, we all dont know wtf is really going on, yet we are deluded into believing so because everyone is sharing in false information believed to be true.

I'm so sorry I couldn't phrase that question in a mathematical framework...

No worries, PC, us MACS are able to comprehend BASIC communication

I really can't match the sheer breadth and depth of your intellectual capacity.

I appreciate your self honesty, PC

Of course, if you're too busy tearing Jonny's arguments to shreds, which I'm sure will crumble to nothing anyway as all the others have done, I'll understand.

Hey PC, you misinterpreted the data, I'm not tearing Jonny's argument to shreds, he is not tearing mine to shreads, we are coming into synthesis and agreement. We are both honest and open thinkers and we are coming to agree on information.

Dont forget to upgrade, PC.

http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-tech-support_480x376.mov


Love,

MAC

 

[Curnir]

Aww the starfish is still trying to push his 'third value'.

Ain't that cute.

Say starfish, have you thought about the questions I asked, and the statements I asked you to rate?

 

[WWHP]

Jonny,

Do you mean to say that when you say "distinction" you mean "the smallest unit that a number can be broken down into" or something else?

Distinction in particular or how I'm using it? Not sure I understand your question. If you mean how I am using 'distinction' between the numbers, I simply mean what mutual observable quality each one has conceptually that makes them soley unique to themselves and to each other. Each one holds a unique operation in it's value, and I probably should'nt use that word 'operation' because that probably means something specifically in mathematics. I hope you can follow me here.

One point I can address is the issue of null. In mathematics, the null set is not the same as 0 at all. The null set simply means a set with no values. If you mean that 0 is the number of elements in the null set, then that's correct.

Okay, that helps. Question, on the infinite number line of natural numbers, you're saying you would never refer to 0 as the null set on that line? How is zero defined on that line in mathematics? non additive integer? this is where I am fuzzy.

I'm kind of getting a clearer picture of what you mean by distinctions. In that case, the most basic unit of a natural number would, in fact, be 1, as it is the smallest non-zero unit allowed on the natural number line. If you're precise about that, then I agree with you. I understand you probably didn't mean to apply what you said so generally, but you need to be very specific when you discuss mathematics.

Yes, that is what I mean. I'm fuzzy on the mathematic terminolgy here, sometimes I say cardinal when I mean natural! gaffes galore, thank you for your assistance.

Is this the true/false/unknown thing again, or are you referring to mathematics?

It's logical expression is true, false, unknown, and I certainly relate it to numbers, the basic ordering and counting that we are born with, hardwired with. But that's just it's expression. It's also, each one of them, a distinction in subjective experience. I assume for the sake of argument it's all the same 'hard wiring', but that's because I can't imagine it would be anything else than hard wiring.

So this subjective experience tags the 'meaning' of the event as 'true/false/mystery', and then what ever process occurs from there, concept, idea, language, behavior follows in accordance.

All ideas can either be true, or false, or mystery because all we can experience can either be true, false, or mystery.

Here I'd like to see some more solid evidence, depending on how far you want to take this claim. I wouldn't agree that mathematical distinctions are wired into us, unless you mean the tendency of humans to divide things into groups and order/count them.

That is exactly what I mean. That natural sense of ordering and counting. I think that is common knowledge that is hard-wired. I'm saying that foundation for number counting, and I am saying this philosophically here, I'm saying that those basic distinctions we use there, 0, 1, 2, recapitulate further than just number, i.e. how we use those numbers, we are also using our ideas.

That really only works for the simplest of concepts anyway, as the more abstract elements of math require dedicated study.

yes, that makes sense.

But here I can suggest, philosophically, that 'honesty' and 'rationality' are also 'hard-wires', or exansions on some pretty basic wiring, although research shows not in everyone, I believe. I forget the percentage, but we have to accept a small number of the population are socio-paths, and do not have this hard-wiring past a certain point, they can't be honest and self reflect, they have no nuerological framework for it.

So episteminologically, it makes sense that when you combine the natural ordering and counting, which really is both a logical and artistic synergy, with the hard wires of honesty and rationality, you will eventually come to the higher maths. You can't be dishonest when your doing math.

Because you're making claims about the "hard wired" nature of those distinctions, I still need to see some evidence. Do you have any kind of peer reviewed material from the fields of neuroscience, psychology, or other relevent research? Is this a claim you wish to investigate on your own?

I think the hard nuts of what I suggest is common knowledge. I wish I had the exact study on hand right now. I am still exploring this issue further with a friend of mine experienced in such matters. He showed me brain scans that he said supported what I suggest here, with 0, 1, and 2. That's what sort of got him interested in what i was saying. I can't for certain say I can repeat accuratly what he was saying, he was just pointing to three sections of the brain that light up when there is emotional/intutive activity, rational activity, and then where there is the negotiation between the two. I'll be getting more information on this at some point.

I'm going to assume this is a backhanded way of saying you're not trying to assign infinity as a distinct value.

hehe, yes, and that is how I was using 'verb' as a metaphor earlier in to describe infinity to the 'noun' of finite. Sorry, I know that was creative, it wasnt technical, I was appealing to your intutition.

My point is that the higher numbers are often broken into units of things like "one hundred" or "one million" that are conceptually separate from "one". They have the word "one" in them, but they represent different concepts.

Does not 'one million' mean one million 1's? 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,....... takes a long time to write out that way. We see each other's meaning here, yes?


We talked about recapitulation earlier, I said these three distinctions that we make about 'reality' at a very primal level. My exact phrase was I am addressing the conceptual in natural numbers that are found repeating and recapitulaing elsewhere, i.e. outside of number.

You asked

Clarify this if you don't mind, it doesn't mean anything to me as stated, sorry.

Let me try putting this way, which is partially intuitive and partially rational.

We can only understand reality through our concepts about reality. I'm not trying to get deep here, this is actually a very superficial distinction. We have ideas about things and for things, and without these ideas, we dont really have any things.

Some of our primal ideas are ordering and counting. All of our concepts of reality are structured into these three 'limits' of perception, 0, 1, 2. We can decontruct our ideas back into these three mutually held distinctions, our basic operations, and see them 'reflecting' (recapitulating each other). I do that in dialouge, that's what i do here, I deconstruct our dialogue back to these simple and shared places. That's what many people do naturally too. The only problem is some frameworks, like bivalency, over ride it, confuse it as something it's not.

I could go on more here, but I fear I already opened up a can of worms with that one. Don't hate me. I'm trying to explain something very tricky.

So you're saying the concept of three values is somehow intrinsic to the world itself? If so, please provide some additional evidence.

yes, I am saying that, and no I'm not. I'm not saying these three values exist 'out there'. I'm saying they exist 'in here', and we can't percieve the world 'out there' with out them.

Think about mystery. If you dont think mystery is a truth value we contemplate very deeply, watch your reaction next time someone unintentionaly sneaks up behind you and scares the living daylights out of you. You're reaction is most likely akin to your reaction to death. Dying is a mystery that humanity has been dealing with for quite some time, and it's other side, nothingness or not, is completly shut off from objective verification (t/f). A long time ago, the mystery could kill you, you didnt know when your death was coming when you are being hunted or attacked. Martial arts teach us that, they teach us to be 'calm' in the face of that reaction in the body. In Aikido, this becomes really refined. You face your fear of 'mystery' in aikido, and it is in that space that you supply your counter move. You then use your opponents fear of death to react irrationally, giving you the ease of moving them.

So we also have a basic fear of mystery at a deep level, if my argument here is true.

Still not sure what you mean. What do you mean by "ordering value" precisely?

you already understand what I was meaning to say, I was just using inappropiate mathematical language so I confused you, sorry.

When dealing with an infinite plane or line, the concept of "the middle" is completely meaningless, as is "the beginning" or "the end". Those are concepts that require a finite space which can be measured.

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me.

In that case, you would say that 0 is the beginning of your number line, not the middle. There is no middle, and no end. If you were to draw out the line, it would look something like:

|------------------>

Where 0 is at the beginning, and it just keeps going infinitly. The real number line, however, is like this:

<--------------------->

You can put the "window" anywhere, and display as few or as many sequential values for the purposes of illustration, but there's no real beginning, middle, or end.

Like I said, all depends on the number line you choose.

Makes sense. I get that. 0 is the beginning. I actually like the sound of that intuitivly too, but I'm not getting magical, promise!

you are assigning arbitrary significance to 1 again. Your argument kind of works on the natural number line, and it also kind of works from a cognitive perspective (perhaps, I would need more knowledge of cognitive processes), but mathematically it doesn't work. Every digit "exists" distinctly in a mathematical sense, and the decision to the divide them into units of 1 is not mathematically significant, especially when dealing with non-natural numbers.

I see that, I am refrencing that 1 is the only 'real' number in the conceptual sense, as in how we must conceptualize it to do anything with it. We may need more time on this one. It gets fuzzy for me around here, because here we blend the natural ordering and counting, which is surely mathematical, to something conceptual and subjective, experience, awareness, that sort of thing.

It's especially problematic when dealing with concepts like imaginary numbers, where things like SQRT(-1) have meaning.

I have absolutly no idea what you mean here, but I trust you do! Imaginary numbers??? That sounds absolutly delightful. They are all imaginary from how I describe it. I would love to know how mathematicians define 'imaginary'

If you want to claim that you can break natural numbers down into units of 1, that's a claim you might be able to kind of support. But that still doesn't make 1 the only real distinction.

that's what I'm saying, but I'm not saying it is the only real distinction, i am saying it is the only real unit. It is the thing unto itself. 1=1. 2=1,1. 3=1,1,1.

1 is real, 2 + are all symbolic. There is no 'two' that exists, only a series of distinctions. 1 is the number of distinction, a conceptual distinction is always 1 whole thing, which can be broken down into perhaps more things.

Make sense?

The other issue I have is that you haven't really shown evidence that anyone really deals with everything as a conceptual group of ones.

that's just it, we dont! we dont need to, it's built into our hardwear to make that distinction so we dont have to deal with a conceptual group of 1's, we just deal with 1 and symbols for more than 1. when I say three, you dont intepret 'he means 1 thing plus one thing plus one thing', you get '3'

If I divide 20 by 5, I work with groups of 5, not groups of one. I could then break those into groups of one, but I don't. If you want to argue that I'm doing it subconsciously, you need to provide evidence of that.

well we have to be doing it subconsciously, right? we have it built in, we know, by default, that 5 means 1,1,1,1,1. it's an instant computation, natural.

make sense?

At work I usually conceptualize in terms of hundreds, thousands, and sometimes millions, not ones. I also sometimes must conceptualize in terms of amounts less than one and percentages.

that's usin' the ol 1 and 2! Do you get my meaning here?

Just as long as you make it clear I am referring to mathematical ternary logic, as applied to mathematical problems and formal logic, I'm fine with that.

Okay, and I need to get clear on those distinctions then.

There are problems where ternary logic is overly complicated and useless, and there are problems where it is very useful. There are also problems where it is overly simplistic as well. Consider, for example, how one quantifies "too hot" or "too cold".

I am really interested in what problems it is useful in, other than computational/computers.

I think we are in agreement on the 0, 1, 2, it's role on the natural number line, and how that symbolizes a set of distinctions that i am using.

I think I may have opened up a can of worms on the hard-wiring stuff, or at least I hope I have!

An note of irony, perhaps. I have noted from experience that the easiest and most rational discussions I have had are with mathematicians. I wonder if that is due to the neccesity of honesty in mathematics. I enjoy the experience here.

Look forward to your reply as well

Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

Aww the starfish is still trying to push his 'third value'.

Yes, and tee shirts

Ain't that cute.

you should see the tee shirts

Say starfish, have you thought about the questions I asked, and the statements I asked you to rate?

Not once since my eyes left the scene the moment I read them.


Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

Wee_eck, can you please be honest here?

I only wanted you banned from Bad Science because the likes of Judge Floro and Ruth Rosin seemed to go away when you were around, and I missed them.

What a touching story of friendship, loss, and lonliness. Do you expect me to believe that pile of crapola? First off, I was only discussing on like four threads total the entire time i was there, under 3 months. 3 of them were my own unique threads I started. You're saying your buds left badscience because i started two or three topics?

Please, you called for my banning because everyone else was calling for it. And you know what? When I approached you so rationally and honestly, respectfully, you continued to be abusive and dismissive. When I approached everyone there respectfully on my rebuttal from pages 20 or so to 35, I was threatend even more!

You're not being honest here and you know it. You guys are nutsola.

I was an avid reader of Ruth's threads.

And mine too, and you still are.

Anyway, a big forum like this is much better able to handle you.

yes, there are critical thinkers here, not reactionairy scientists who cant distinguish science from thier own belief systems and philosophy.

bad Science is much smaller, and so you seemed to take it over.

Bad science had over 30 people on my thread at once, 30! Against little ol me. I only had a small number of topics there, certainly under 5. I took over badscience.net? You all started over SEVEN TOPICS about me! Polls, all sorts of topics you guys started about me. You flatter me, really.

Which was a shame for everyone else there. Here you are hardly noticable.

I am perfectly noticible only when you come to my threads. When you dont come to my threads, you wont notice me. I hardly ever come on anyone else's threads, and I dont notice that many people til they come on mine. See how that works?


Bubblefish

 

[Curnir]

Not once since my eyes left the scene the moment I read them.

Wow... That made no sense.

Then again it was written by you starfish, so I am not very surprised.

 

[sinnikal]

For all the detectives out there wondering what is going on there's a little clue over at BadScience.http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1598&start=30http://http//badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1598&start=30
Of course it may not be a clue at all, just another bit of obfuscation.
BTW TM is, of course, our very own Bubba.

 

[WWHP]

The honorable Dr. Kitten,

Are you going to start integrating reality soon? Because I could really use your keen scholarship. But your scholarship is worthless as long as you model things so redicuolously to yourself!

I said that I hope Steorn has what they say they have, and then you equivocate STeorn to a disney character!

I mean, c'mon, you're smarter than that!

If your "hope" is that Tinkerbell will bring you an infinite-capacity battery from the Island of Lost Boys, that's not rational.

No, that's not rational, and nor is your example of tinkerbell =Steorn Tech.

Care to address Steorn Tech and not Walt Disney?

As long as you model things based on this false non working bivalency, you will continually spit out false ideas about reality that you believe to be true.


Once again, here is my assertion.

James Randi claims that Steorn is fraudulent. That is misleading and deceptive claim. Randi's claim is verifiable.

Now you know the process, right? You know that when I assert, you argue. You ask how I came to that conclusion, you ask me to provide a reasonable argument, you 'counter' me.

You dont say things like

Do you think that repeating a falsehood makes it come true?

If I thought that's what did the trick, i would have stuck with my OP and left, right?

I think what makes it true is it's direct and honest relationship with reality, that's what makes it true.

If you think it's not true, then we have a natural conflict of idea. You argue your idea, I argue mine. At some point, if we are both honest and critical, we will come to agree and see that perhaps you were incorrect, i was incorrect, or perhaps both of us are incorrect a bit.

You know the form, right? Otherwise, I'm not interested in your opinion, that's what blogs are for. I'm interested in your argument.

So what I say not only will Steorn allow anyone (within reason) to view the technology (if you sign an NDA), but they are taking proper critical steps to prove their claim within science.

You give me the classic 'no you're not, your mom is' answer. Look, here it is

No, they're not.

Does you or does you not provide evidence? Links? articles? Does you or does you not provide any inkling to how you came to your conclusion?

We can see that I have about 20 pages of threads, steps that I outline, as I have come to mine.

I want an argument!

First, the claim itself is sufficiently implausible as to support the idea that its is fraudulent without further evidence.

That's a magical argument, because if 'fraud' is a neccesary truth of 'making a OU claim', then in objective reality, there there is no evidence of the device, only the fraud. You're saying there is no possibility to the claim, and that produces fraud. That's magical thinking. Claiming OU does not create fraud, under any circumstances. Deception creates fraud.

Watch the jump in logic

The laws of thermodynamics as we understand them show us that OU is not possibly within our current understanding of physics.

Steorn Tech, a company which makes anti-fraudulent technology, claims to have discovered a novelty which violates the second law. They are not asking anyone believe their claim until their 12 panel scientific review process is complete

Therefore, Steorn Tech is a fraudulent company engaged in willful and mass deception

that's your argument, buddy. I dont follow the steps again, can you explain a bit better?

Second, Steorn's behavior supports the idea that they are knowingly peddling a fraud.

I bet you suck at behavorial game theory. What 'behavior' accounts for this that can't also be explained as buisness as usual?

First, the claim itself is sufficiently implausible as to support the idea that its is fraudulent without further evidence.

Dr. Kitten, c'mon man, what did you state to me in this opening? You queried

Do you think that repeating a falsehood makes it come true?

and here you go repeating a falsehood with poor logic to back it up

and here it goes again....

Second, Steorn's behavior supports the idea that they are knowingly peddling a fraud.

magical thinking, anyone?


Okay, so we talk about 12 scientists on board to verify, on the record, their claim, and you state

None of whom were selected by standard channels or for their competency in testing such claims.

What is a standard channel? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I thought science was rigourous in practice, not in party invitations. explain the relevancy of this, please. Without magical thinking or disney refrences.

Besides, such in camera review of scientific claims has long been known to be an unacceptable method of testing.

Gee, I thought that when scientists publish thier results, it's the results that people agree on in science, not the 12 personalities who conduct 12 different experiments.

Got another reason?

Science doesn't work by Star Chamber.

ahhh, battlestar galactica, right? That must be it, that's the stinker right there, not only is Steorn fraudulent, but they are duplicating the scenario of episode 9! I knew I saw this somewhere before!

If you think it's libellous, bring on your lawyers. Truth, I remind you, is an absolute defense.

Well, it's not my company, so why would I sue? I do know, however, that claiming a company is fraudulent is a libelous claim. I dont want you to get sued for making, please dont confuse that. But I'm not Steorn, and they dont like those kind of remarks at all, why should they? They are a legit company that deals in anti-fraudulent technology! i would imagine that they themselves are frauds would'nt be good for thier image.

I await your proof, then.

Any person has access to the same information that i do, and we all can use google and our interner provider.

In the meantime, I stand by my statement. Steorn is almost certainly engaged in fraudulent behavior.

glad you made that clear in writing. magical thinking is much stronger for some reason when people read it than say it. Dont know why that is!

You claim that "subjectively true" is identical to "objectively false."

when there is an incorrect statement provided that is believed to be true, yes.

This is "objectively false." For example, the statement "there is a full-sized adult alligator in my desk drawer" is objectively false.

Yes, I'm sure it is

Not only can it be proven false by inspection, it can also be prove (objectively) to be impossible, as you can't fit a 2m alligator into a 50cm drawer.

yes, that's how we get to the 'objectivly false', agreed

And I know that there's no alligator in my desk drawer.

Then you're either a liar or a performer. so?

In this way, I withhold assent to the idea that "there is an alligator in my desk drawer" is a reflection of my state of mind; therefore the statement is not only "objectively false," but "subjectively false" as well.

yes, it's called bulls***ing. so?

Another counterexample

I havent had a previous counter example.

already came up of a comparison of the relative beauty of Wilma Flintstone and Betty Rubble. One of the participants -- I believe it was AW, but I have lost the attribution -- claimed that he found Betty to be more attractive than Wilma.

okay

The statement "Betty is more attractive than Wilma" is neither objectively true nor objectively false; beauty is notoriously "in the eye of the beholder," i.e. subjective.

In this framework, that is most certainly objectivly false for the same reason that there is an alligator in your pants, or even your favorite alligator in your pants.

yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so? also, it is now considered that perfect balance/symmetry in form is mutually agreeable to be beautiful, by the way. Did you know that? Beauty is both subjective and objective! Our mutually observable signifier for beauty is balance and symmetry. Our subjective is what ever we wish it to be other than that.

But AW specifically stated that
he felt that Betty was more beautiful than Wilman.

okay

If he were telling the truth, this would be an example of a "subjectively true" statement that was nevertheless not "objectively false."

If he were telling the truth, then that would be both a subjective truth, and an objective truth or a truth that functions as an objective truth, i.e. we take his word for it, his behavior and language is our proof of his words, him and his words have 'integrity'

I dont see what your argument is about. OS 0 1 2 addresses these distinctions quite elequently

Since it's at least possible that AW were telling the truth, that constitutes a demonstration of a possible world where objectively false is not the same as subjectively true..... and therefore the two concepts are not the same.

they are only the same when an incorrect answer is supplied to an objective statement or query that is believed to be true. If I gave any one the impression that all 2.1 statements are 1.2 statements, then I apologize, where did i state that?

I said when there is an incorrect statement believed to be true to an objective query. When there is anything else, it's perfect agreement, perfect 0, 1, 2.

But trivalent logic doesn't imply OS012.

sure it does. Steorn producing OU is either true, false, and until I can distinguish for objective certainty by asking questions, it's mystery to me, functioning as niether true, and niether false.

If OS 0 1 2 was incoherent, then you would not be able to make sense of that statement.

Look, Dr. Kitten, I think your probably real smart, more so than myself. But you gotta do better than this here if you wish to make a public claim about OS 012 being incoherent. It's simple. I know i dont present things as academicaly as they probably should, and I have a real unorthodox approach, but you need to ask questions about OS 012 to see what I mean, because you don't understand it yet. Your counters are not even counters!


Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

For all the detectives out there wondering what is going on there's a little clue over at BadScience.http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1598&start=30http://http//badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1598&start=30
Of course it may not be a clue at all, just another bit of obfuscation.
BTW TM is, of course, our very own Bubba.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I am mistaken here, but I believe that's called one side of the story. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Secondly, Stever's got it wrong, I never said it was an experiment, I said our discusion at badscience was useful for research, and I would pay him to give me backups.

Thirdly, I have communicated via PM with stever, and me and stever are fine with each other. He doenst know what to think! he sees 30 irate members of his community calling me all sorts of names, but appears very polite and courteous in PM, and wishes me no ill, nor did he ask me to leave, he said I could stay if I wanted.

Go figure.

 

[WWHP]

Zaay, have not forgotten about you, still trying to catch up.

 

[WWHP]

Wow... That made no sense.

Then again it was written by you starfish, so I am not very surprised.

Me either, you apparently don't understand anything i write!

 

[Mojo]

What 'behavior' accounts for this that can't also be explained as buisness as usual?

Recruiting scientists by advertising in The Economist. Selecting the scientists to review their work themselves. Not submitting it for independent peer-review. Not filing company accounts. Linking to a non-existent news story.