Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

BF, what would have to happen in an online discussion for you to conclude that tit for tat might not be an effective strategy?

I already answered this yesterday. If the discussion was small and insignificant with an insignificant number of posters, it would obviously prove tit for tat ineffective in discusion.

the fact that all of you badscience.net people have followed me over here to discuss this after you all said you would never discuss this anymore, is the best proof so far of the tit for tat methodology.

BF

 

[JonnyFive]

what is a scotsman fallacy?

This is.

Basically:
1: "No X does A."
2: Provides an example of an X that does A.
1: "No true/real/whatever X does A!"

Commonly seen with things like "no real Christian" or "no true skeptic" would do whatever, or think whatever, etc.

There's a poster tooling around now by the name of Davidjayjordan, using his own strange definition of the word "skeptic", who provides an excellent example of this fallacy at work.

The fallacy can be extended to statements like "no rational person would..." or "no decent person would...". It shifts the focus of the argument from the topic to the speakers that disagree, as they are labelled "irrational", "indecent", "false skeptics" or whatever.

Note that this fallacy can also appear in indirect statements as well as direct ones.

Well, logic is always interesting and over the course of this discussion I've learnt quite a lot from other posters (JonnyFive particularly, zaay and drkitten, thanks!) and researching elsewhere.

I'd just like to add my voice to that of flim-flams in appreciation of the stuff that I've learnt from, as said, the likes of Jonny, zaay and Dr.Kitten.

I'm glad I've been of some help.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There seems to me to be plenty of chatter about magnetic monopoles violating the second law here.

http://www.google.com/search?client...oles+violate+the+second+law&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

1) Using your same methodology, it would appear that you need meds http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=bubblefish+psychotic , I'm not saying you do need meds, I am saying your suggestion that Google results are valid to support your claim is not.
2) The article you linked to at Wiki and you said showed a violation of the laws of thermodynamics does no such thing.

And 'mirror matter' doesnt violate the second law, but we still get perpetual motion on 'this side'.

Again, you were the one that claimed that 'mirror matter' supported your claim that the 2nd law of TD could be violated.

Either the laws of thermodynamics are incomplete in relationship to phenomenon, or 'experimental' physics has found an anomaly which appears to violate the second law, or there is no violation of the second law, just a phenomena that is not accounted for in experimental physics, or Steorn is mistaken and made some critical error.

A good start to a list, now add to it possibilities such as 'Steorn is committing fraud' and we really get somewhere.

I'm sorry, I dont understand here.

Aside from the fact that this is more proof you are not reading the information and references provided to you, it means, "A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions." http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

Yet blackhole thermodynamics was devised because of the logic of the second law, if black holes have entropy, then there is a violation of the second law, so therefore, black holes must not have entropy, and in comes Hawkins with black hole thermodynamics. That's my only point here. Black holes are probably one of the most mysterious things in the universe, I dont think anyone can rule out that the laws of the universe as we understand them hold up perfectly 'inside' of black holes.

Neither can you rule out that they do hold up.

Really, I thought the bet was over violet radiation being detected from black holes, or something like that.

KIP THORNE: This bet here is probably the most famous one. It was a bet I made with Stephen Hawking in 1974 over whether or not Cygnus XI is actually a black hole, and Hawking, after 16 years of this bet sitting here, finally conceded. Stephen Hawking and I have occasionally discussed making a bet over whether or not the laws of physics permit you to go backward in time. We haven't been able to conclude a bet because almost all the time we're on the same side of the issue. We both think it is probably impossible.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2612time.html

what is a scotsman fallacy?

No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking - or do I sincerely want to be right?:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing." Flew's original example is often replaced by the following[citation needed]:
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge" or "doing such a thing [as committing a sex crime]") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.
Note that in the original example, Hamish is stated to be wrong (and is in fact wrong) in his opinion that no Scotsman would commit a sex crime. In the above restatement, it is traditional to put salt, and not sugar, on porridge in Scotland. It is unclear, therefore, whether the restatement accurately reflects Flew's intended argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

 

[JonnyFive]

I already answered this yesterday. If the discussion was small and insignificant with an insignificant number of posters, it would obviously prove tit for tat ineffective in discusion.

the fact that all of you badscience.net people have followed me over here to discuss this after you all said you would never discuss this anymore, is the best proof so far of the tit for tat methodology.

But it doesn't really do anything to prove your system is useful, only that it stimulates discussion among a limited section of the population on the internet. The fact that several of the posters who followed you didn't so much discuss as insult you actually seems to indicate that your method isn't all that effective for stimulating productive discussion.

Do you have some broader support for the concept of memes? Specifically, do you have an answer to the various criticisms as memes as an analogy generally, and support for your concept of a "master meme" in particular?

 

[WWHP]

Not only that, but there are terms in their contract with the "jurors" which effectively give Steorn complete control over what is published. For example, under "confidentiality": Under "intellectual property rights": Basically, the "jurors" are not allowed to reveal anything about the "validation" process without Steorn's say-so. Everything a juror produces belongs to Steorn, either because it is "work for hire" or because the juror automatically assigns copyright to Steorn the instant he produces it. Anything to do with the "validation" process that Steorn haven't revealed to the outside world is to be considered confidential, even if it was "invented, discovered or developed by the Juror", which would certainly include the findings made by the "jury". Steorn can say what they like about the results of the "validation", and the jurors are not allowed to say anything without Steorn's permission.

Mojo, talk to an attorney before you interpret standard legal clauses in contracts, k?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

rigourous science is rigourous science. I dont see how them handpicking the scientists proves or gives evidence of anything. They wanted to find 12 of the most highly qualified and skeptical scientists to verify their claim. They found them. The 'science' of what they do can be held in the same scrutiny of any scientist, what difference does that make?

Read up on peer-review. You can start here

At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.
In some disciplines there exist refereed venues (such as conferences and workshops). To be admitted to speak, scholars and scientists must submit papers (generally short, often 15 pages or less) in advance. These papers are reviewed by a "program committee" (the equivalent of an editorial board), who generally requests inputs from referees. The hard deadlines set by the conferences tend to limit the options to either accept or reject the paper.
Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgements" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers).
Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialities, and may not be experts in any of them, since editors may be full time professionals with no time for scholarship. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other. Policies on such matters differ between academic disciplines.
Recruiting referees is a political art, because referees, and often editors, are usually not paid, and reviewing takes time away from the referee's main activities, such as his or her own research. To the would-be recruiter's advantage, most potential referees are authors themselves, or at least readers, who know that the publication system requires that experts donate their time. Referees also have the opportunity to prevent work that does not meet the standards of the field from being published, which is a position of some responsibility. Editors are at a special advantage in recruiting a scholar when they have overseen the publication of his or her work, or if the scholar is one who hopes to submit manuscripts to that editor's publication in the future. Granting agencies, similarly, tend to seek referees among their present or former grantees. Serving as a referee can even be a condition of a grant, or professional association membership.
Another difficulty that peer-review organizers face is that, with respect to some manuscripts or proposals, there may be few scholars who truly qualify as experts. Such a circumstance often frustrates the goals of reviewer anonymity and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. It also increases the chances that an organizer will not be able to recruit true experts – people who have themselves done work like that under review, and who can read between the lines. Low-prestige or local journals and granting agencies that award little money are especially handicapped with regard to recruiting experts.
Finally, anonymity adds to the difficulty in finding reviewers in another way. In scientific circles, credentials and reputation are important, and while being a referee for a prestigious journal is considered an honor, the anonymity restrictions make it impossible to publicly state that one was a referee for a particular article. However, credentials and reputation are principally established by publications, not by refereeing; and in some fields refereeing may not be anonymous.
The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues in journal clubs. Here groups of colleagues review literature and discuss the value and implications it presents. Journal clubs will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review^WP

 

[WWHP]

The similarity between Mathematical Game Theory, which you claim is the behaviorial [sic] theory governing in reciprocal biology, and what? .

The tit for tat methodology I use.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The tit for tat methodology I use.

Circular arguement.

 

[WWHP]

Problem? Yes. Your understanding is wrong. Game theory is not evolutionary theory. Game theory can be applied to some aspects of evolutionary theory. It can also be applied to chess and Go.

I said it before and I will say it again. In Game Theory, the 'tit for tat' strategy is also called 'evolutionairy game theory', and both game theorists and biologists agree that it is similar to 'reciprocal altruism' in biology.

Richard Dawkins goes into complete and wonderful detail regarding this in the selfish gene.


BF

 

[drkitten]

I said it before and I will say it again. In Game Theory, the 'tit for tat' strategy is also called 'evolutionairy game theory',

No, it's not.

In game theory, the Tit For Tat strategy is called "Tit For Tat" or often "TFT," usually with a reference to Axelrod's papers or some of the subsequent literature.

Any game theorest who referred to TFT as "evolutionary game theory" would probably have the paper rejected (possibly by me). At the very least, it's a category error -- TFT is not a "theory" but a "strategy," and there's nothing "evolutionary" about tit.

I'm sure, however, that you WILL say it again. Factual inaccuracy appears to be something of a hobby of yours, if not an outright profession.

 

[WWHP]

So you would regard a brief discussion in which an exchange of ideas results in the parties reaching agreement as a failure as far as "tit for tat" is concerned?

I dont think a brief discussion is possible for conflicting ideas of beliefs, in general. However, it could be possible as long as both parties participated in tit for tat and then just came to their conclusion early.

Tit for tat insures the response from the opponent. If the opponent does not respond, then tit for tat isnt very effective.

I have experienced one anomaly with the tit for tat methodology, where it simply failed to work. It was in a Muslim community! I am still perplexed by that to this very day. It was also early on in this work, so I cant rule out my own failure in response or perception there.

This suggests that, as far as you are concerned, "tit for tat" is a means of prolonging rather than resolving conflict.

It's a method of 'keeping the discussion going' so the oppurtunities for resolution or synthesis are more frequent. when the discussion keeps going, it also develops relationships between the opponents.

For example, look at most of us. We have b een discussing this for over 3 months now!

Regardless of our exchanges, hostilities, etc etc, I feel a comradity with ALL of you, and would sit down to dinner and beer in a second with any of you, yes, even you Mojo!

BF

 

[JonnyFive]

Mojo, talk to an attorney before you interpret standard legal clauses in contracts, k?

Why is that necessary?

I'm not an attorney, but I've done enough with contracts and taken enough law classes to know his interpretation (especially of the second cited paragraph) is substantially correct. The part about confidentiality doesn't seem too bothersome (depending on what is defined as "confidential"), but the second part essentially gives Steorn control over whatever the jurors produce, including any writing related to the text.

It's like reading Supreme Court decisions - the meat of the decision is usually a fairly small portion of the overall writing.

"Nah nah nah... standard boilerplate... standard clauses... blah blah... everything you produce is property of Steorn... nah nah... more boilerplate... la la la..."

In fact, by paying a fee to the jurors and claiming whatever they produce is "work" for Steorn, Steorn is effectively turning them into contractors. Doesn't that seem slightly odd to you?

 

[drkitten]

rigourous science is rigourous science. I dont see how them handpicking the scientists proves or gives evidence of anything.

So if you want to investigate which company in the world makes the best computer software, the person to ask is Bill Gates?

If you want to investigate whether or not a particular person is guilty of murder, the person to do it is the accused? ("Nope, I checked pretty thoroughly, and I'm innocent, dudes.")

If you want to investigate whether or not smoking is bad for you, the person to ask works for the Tobacco Institute?

They wanted to find 12 of the most highly qualified and skeptical scientists to verify their claim.

No, that's exactly what they did not want. They wanted to find 12 people who would report exactly what Steorn wanted them to report, regardless of whether or not it was true.

They found them.

They did indeed. And that's part of the problem, indeed, perhaps much of it.

 

[WWHP]

I really can't be bothered with this much more.

yeah yeah yeah, heard that one a gazillion times at badscience.net, and here you are!

This whole sorry thread has just been one long saga of bubblefish evading, ignoring, equivocating, obfuscating, using language bizarrely and inconsistently, and generally being deliberately vague about what he's saying.

Please stop confusing YOUR lack of understanding as my problem in communication. I am consistant, you are just having a hard time making the distinctions between objective and subjective at a metalogical level. Dont blame me for that!

Now we appear to be going through another phase of bubb jumping on the bandwagon of any philosophical or scientific theory mentioned and claiming that it supports OS012. I can see why bubb is a creative writer: his writing is certainly creative in the same way the creative accounting is creative i.e., it is inaccurate and dishonest.

HUMPF! Watch yourself! How dare you accuse me of deception and manipulation? How dare you! I make a conscious point every day to communicate as HONESTLY as I can, and if i make an error, it is made in DELUSION, not deception.

Most depressingly of all I still haven't got him to stick to a meaning of "objective".

All of my usuages of 'objective' are in harmony with this definition. "objective" is that which is mutually observable to ALL points of view.

Didn't JonnyFive go through all of this about 15 pages back?

Yes, and he wasnt able to advance the argument regarding my usuages. I found contradictions in his examples, and he found none in mine.

By saying "objective *and* true" you are implying that statements can be objective *and* something else.

Truth is in harmony with objectivity. They contain a shared essence. You cannot have something that is declared to be objective in the logical sense of the word and have it not be true.

And yet here you are denying that a statement can be objective and false.

a statement can be objectivly false in content, but here you are only saying that it is true that the statement is false, nothing more.

No, no, no, no, no. Objective is not a truth value!

It's a truth value by default because an objective statement is a true statement.

The possible truth values are "true", "false" and (if you're using trivalent logic) "unknown" or (some other value).

o cool! You finally accept the third value, finally.

Please check the wikipedia entry for “logical value”, I can’t post URLs yet.

been there, done that.

You have implied before that "objective" means the same thing as "true" (and then blathered on about it actually having things in common... sharing values with... relative to the false... blah blah blah). If that is the case, why bother qualifying statements as "objective *and* true"?

FOR CLARITY only. It's assumed that a true statement is an objective statement, and vice versa. There is a harmony there between 'true' and 'objective'.

I think you have a false idea about what objectivity is.

"Objective" describes the referentiality of a statement and its confirmability/falsifiability. Objective statements are those that refer to the real world in concrete (i.e., non-subjective) terms and whose truth value can (in principle) be discovered (identically) by anyone. Furthermore the truth value of an objective statement is independent of the stater.

agreed, I do not contradict that. And if someone makes the statement "The world is flat" they may have believed that statement to be true and objective 500 years ago, but it wasnt, right? It was a subjective statement, believed to be an objective statement.

Your missing the *point of view* in all of this. This is a very dynamic relationship, 0, 1, and 2. They are constantly recapitulating, you cannot have one of them without the other two in regards to percieving reality.

Ok, so from all of this I gather that I was reasonably close to the mark in saying that OS012 is meant to be a metalogic that ascribes levels of reference (objective, subjective, mystery, unknowable, whatever...) to statements. This appears to be the main content of your problem with Randi referring to Steorn or Bush and WMD's, that basically they said something was true (objective) when they didn't actually know (mystery).

FINALLY! What took you so long? And metalogic is consistant with logic, which means what is metalogically true is logically true. however, self inferential logic is often inconsistant to metalogic, and what may appear to be logically true is often metalogically false or mysterious.

Fair comment, people should be honest about declaring their level of certainty.

YES INDEED, and the level of certainty is operating at a metalogical level, which gives us PURE certainty in truth value.

But we have to live with the fact that we know nothing for certain except "I exist" and we have to live our lives through induction and the balance of probability.

The raw truth and certainty that we exist is the standard of certainty we can apply to all else. We can be just as certain of other things through mutual discussion and exchange of values, through LOGIC, or rather METALOGIC.

We are all floating in the mystery, to be poetic, like captains of ships. We have to exchange information with each other to verify location and observations, to create mutual maps based on the certainty of our experience.

Far from giving you real "certainty at the base of your knowldge tree" (as you put it) all mystery does is make you certain that you are uncertain.

HARDLY, it makes me certain when I know, certain when I dont know (a placeholder for false), and certain that there is that which I dont even know that I dont know.

This is the essence of the Socratic method, we can come to higher order truths once we are clear about our metacertainty and metalogic. And when we are aware of our own metalogic, we can easily, simply, 'decode' the metalogic of others.

I would say that the sheer majority of us are not aware of our metalogic, and we are not aware of our metalogic because we have no mutually observable language to address our metalogic that all can agree on.

That's what OS 012 is, a language for our metalogic that all can agree on.

This doesn't solve anything and, as many people have said before, is just a celebration of ignorance. The fact remains that if you want to respond to any statement other than by waiting and seeing you need to get more evidence or take your best guess, and you have not overcome that problem.

I dont think you have understanding here yet. When I am honest and fully aware of my metalogic, I am aware of the metalogic of others by default. I am certain of that which I dont know, and CERTAIN of that which I do know

However, the idea is potentially a useful tool for discussion and I can see why you'd want it as a dialectic.

Thank you thank you thank you. And please understand, I saw this potential four years ago, with absolutly NO credintials to properly develop it, I was just an artist. However, the methodology of OS 012 also helped me gain and undertand knowledge that was neccesary to develop this further.

If you could logically prove that a statement that someone thought was objective was actually subjective or unknowable it could help discussions progress.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

However your system suffers from several fatal weaknesses, all of which have been brought up before:

I'm all ears.

(i) It is not intuitive, I think that all the rejections that you have received on this and other threads are enough proof of that.

It appears counter intuitive before you understand it, yet when you understand it, it is so intuitive that it virtually operates itself, it's our natural metalogic. Everyone who has 'gotten' it so far says the same thing, "wow, I already know how to do this!"

(ii) It relies on people actually agreeing to use it.

Not true at all. Only one person needs to use it to advance truth values in the discussion. Also, the framework I have been developing walks people through it online, even if they are not aware of it.

This would depend on people initially being open to the possibility that what they think they know they only actually believe and could be wrong. The cases where this would be really useful (fundamentalists etc.) are precisely the cases where people will refuse to use this system for this very reason.

Your simply addressing concerns that i was aware of 4 years ago. Those are all resolved quite nicely so far. I am developing the online framework right now as we speak with others. It doesnt matter what someone believes, what matter is how their ideas compete for dominance. The rational and honest mind exists in the majority of most people, and the metalogic 'talks' to the rational and honest mind

You earlier said that unreasonable people will not reach a resolution using OS012 but reasonable people will.

I never used those words, I said even if unreasonable people do not reach a resolution, a resolution can still be reached by reasonable people.

I'm sorry to break this to you bubb, but if reasonable people sit down to discuss something they will probably reach a resolution regardless of what discussion technique they use. In fact this is a pretty good working definition of "reasonable people"!

they are most likely using something like OS 012, but it's not defined in language for them. If we can structure, quantify, the 'game' of a purely honest discussion, we can then map out the distinctions in behaviors in dishonest discussions based on the 'map' of the rational one.

With OS 012, it is INSURED that a reasonable agreement will be met.

(iii) It appears to only allow objective and true statemements into the first category. Which means that in the second category you get objective false statements (e.g., "the moon is made of mozzarella") and subjective statements (e.g., "Betty is hotter than Wilma") into the second category.

okay

These are such different types of statements that to conflate them is just weird and potentially scuppers your system.

I still dont see how you are coming to that conclusion.You havent explained anything critical here, just giving us commentary.

Similarly the third value conflates unknowable statements (e.g., "there is life after death") and statements that can be known in the future (e.g, "tomorrow bubb will explode") and some others. I think zooterkin brought this all up over at badscience.net

the third value simply states where the unknown is. There are many distinctions of unknown, I dont see what this has to do with anything. Once the unknown has been honestly assessed, then you can distinguish what ever you will inside of it.

(iv) You have provided no detail as to how it works i.e., you have not provided any information on how it logically proves that a statement falls into a particular category. You've hiden behind claims of it being copyright protected and not wanting to put it in the public domain yet (very much like Steorn!), but then why did you bring it here if you're not prepared to provide the details that will allow people to critique it properly (more shades of Steorn).

It's not just a copyright issue. I would rather everything be in creative commons. Unfortunatly, we live in a world driven by buisness. So right now, I am STILL in the process of formalizing what you request, with a few others. OS 012 in 'theory' is complete, OS 012 in practice, however, is still being formalized into a game. and now that funding and money is involved, as well as other academics who are participating in the formalization, I have to protect certain things, and also be patient myself, as this is still being worked out, OS 012 in practice is still a work in progress.

I'm sorry I can't provide more here at this time, i really would like too, I am not being deceptive or manipulative at all.

Most people can assess the objectivity/subjectivity/unknowability of a statement anyway, even if they have to be pushed to do so. So how would OS012 help?

It would INSURE that we do.

(v) Finally and most damningly you have provided absolutely no evidence that it works.

No, I havent, because I dont have evidence that it works yet in the academic sense of the word. That's what the funding is for. Please consider this whole project fell into my lap, I am not an academic, I'm a slacker artist. There is much work that needs to be done to prove this. So far, my team has some pretty good evidence that it 'may' work, but we are still working on it!

I deeply respect the scientific method. I am not doing this to make cash as a self help guru or anything of the sort.

Now, I can personally say that these disussions are proof that it works, but that is my experience I am going on, I have been doing this for a long time!

I can explain how I think so too, and how it's reasonable to assume that at least something is working, I have achieved almost perfect success every time.

You have provided no examples of logically proving statements to be objective/subjective/mystery/whatever.

Proof of an objective statement,self evident

The word at the end of this sentence is the word this.

Proof of an subjective statement,self evident

"Miles Davis and Gil Evans produced the most beautiful albums in the world"

Proof of a mysterious statement, self evident

"At the moment of death, consciousness is enveloped in pure bliss"

And please do not say "this thread" because we've come almost 30 pages, which is pretty much as far as I think most people are prepared to go and we still fundamentally disagree: you maintain that your system is useful, everyone else "knows" with about 99.9% certainty that it is not.

The proof of three value is self evident, and if there is disagreement, this is resolved in the exchange until we agree that it is self evident on these three values.

I prove this through dialectic, it's the only way i know how to. OThers are formalizing and proving it after another manner, and my friends in south america are doing wonderful work with ternary logic as a metalogic which is adaptable to social communication.


Whew! Finally we had a breakthrough.

Love me?


Bubblefish

PS...next, you need to understand the value of '2', false, in relationship to truth, 1. once you get 'false' in this metalogic, then this whole thing will expand rapidly in your perception. just wait to you see how friggin' cool false is at the metalogical level!

"The opposite of truth is falsity. The opposite of one profound truth, however, is another profound truth"

Neils bohr

 

[WWHP]

I still fail to understand how insulting people that disagree with you is "fun" or "playful". I think it seriously undermines any argument that you try to make when you attack the people instead of their arguments.

First off, I dont 'attack' them instead of their arguments, I 'tease' them back when they attack me AND address thier arguments. That's an important distinction to make in what I do, especially in relationship to the tit for tat structure.

Speaking of which, I would also like to know what it would take for you to consider your theory incorrect or redundant. As you are no doubt aware, falsifiability is one of the central elements of the scientific method, so in what ways is your "master meme" falsifiable?

Again, Jonny, you always ask the best questions. I have thought of this often myself. I think others involved that i have working on this can probably address that more critically than I can, as they have experience with the scientific method, and I dont, other than my own stumbles, bumbles, and comprehensive study.

Let me get clearer on that for the time being before I respond in detail how I would like to. I mean, which aspects, in practice or in theory? To falsify the OS, the practical studies and experiments in communication should either prove or disprove it.

I tried and still do, to 'falsify' this all the time in discussion, that is how i come to provoke heated disgreement inside of this method with people more educated or intelligent than me. It's why I value all of you so much, your helping me, all of you are.

That's what I mean when I say " I am always winning", because I truly am only seeking truth, and right or wrong, I am going to leave with truth at the end of the discussion. Which really just 'proves' a huge aspect of the dialectic, so even if it's proven wrong, it's proven correct at the same time. It truly is a puzzling conceptual object, OS 012. I didnt create it, it created itself, and I found myself in the middle of it somehow. I am naturally not 'smart' enough to think as elegantly as OS 012 to 'come up' with OS 012 as an idea before hand. It really is a child of heated and thoughtful discussion between many many people. I think OS 012 is a novelty and very interesting on that alone.

I 'experiment' with these propositions in every discussion I have. So in my personal practice and study, the results appear consistant, if tit for tat is mutually engaged, I have consistantly found virtually perfect agreement with educated people on these propositions. But that's personal experience, and doenst hold wieght scientifically, so proving that is part of 'step two' which I am at right now with a few others.

For the record, if OS 012 proves itself viable, which I truly believe it will one day very soon, then i wish to state that I have no interest in forming in sort of 'group' thing with it, like scientology or anything of the sort.I'm an artist, not a self help guru, nor even a philosopher really.


It's an eternally 'Open Source' concept, and belongs to all of us in it's pure form. I can Trademark the adaption I have created from it, but OS 012 BASIC, which is the full outline in common and descriptive language, will always be in creative commons, and anyone can develop any idea or adaption of OS 012 just like I can, and they can commercialize it or do what ever they would like.

I have had to trademark OS 012 for business purposes, but I will still allow it to operate in the public domain. It's a strange legal issue being resolved right now as we speak. No matter what I do with OS 012 in the future, I always want the integrity of OS 012 to maintain it's 'open source' concept and lively memetic activity one for all.


BF

 

[WWHP]

No, it's not.

In game theory, the Tit For Tat strategy is called "Tit For Tat" or often "TFT," usually with a reference to Axelrod's papers or some of the subsequent literature.

Any game theorest who referred to TFT as "evolutionary game theory" would probably have the paper rejected (possibly by me)..

snore. i dont imagine you teach a subject relative to the topic in discussion then. tit for tat is an element in the body of 'evolutionairy game theory'

I guess you have rejected this paper too.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-evolutionary/

I sure hope our bright lads of the future can find a way to break away from your tight grip of non reality!

BF

 

[JonnyFive]

I have had to trademark OS 012 for business purposes, but I will still allow it to operate in the public domain. It's a strange legal issue being resolved right now as we speak. No matter what I do with OS 012 in the future, I always want the integrity of OS 012 to maintain it's 'open source' concept and lively memetic activity one for all.

Trademark? Trademark what? The phrase "OS 012"?

Copyright law would already cover anything original you've written on this, subject to whatever terms you choose to create and the appropriate legal precedents. What's with the trademark? Are you concerned someone is going to steal the name "OS 012"?

 

[WWHP]

Tit for tat 'teasing', if allowed to continue in the proper environment, produces 'love', laughter.

There is a distinction between a 'tease' and an 'insult'. A 'tease' offers us the occasion to rise to a higher level, in whit or perception, where as an 'insult' keeps the person stuck in a definition of a charged word to refute their argument.

We see tit for tat teasing exalted in behavior in many natural cases. For example, in hip hop and rap, two 'mc's' trade 'blows' with each other on the microphone, trying to outperform one another in timing, delievery and content of lyric.

example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfHDs4NAOU8

there is often much love and respect between mc's when they do this.

This was often done by George Clinton and the P Funk All Stars. They would trade so many insults towards other funk bands in the most humourous and over the top manner, encouraging other bands to do the same to them in return. That's nothing but pure tit for tat, exalting in it's proper form, art.

another example is of course the 'momma joke'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jf0QTpC6ZQ

so when I perform dialectic, I simply take the false idea of the attack, which are often very heated insults to myself, and 'exalt' them to thier natural metalogical level, art>comedy>teasing>friendship, and then encourage others to do the same with me. Let's make sure each other is funny by trying to be more funny than the other!

This of course completly perplexes moderators, they never quite know what to make of me. sorry, it's all in good fun and rational consideration, I promise, JMercer! I mean no disrespect ever!


Lotsa Love
Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

Trademark? Trademark what? The phrase "OS 012"?

Copyright law would already cover anything original you've written on this, subject to whatever terms you choose to create and the appropriate legal precedents. What's with the trademark? Are you concerned someone is going to steal the name "OS 012"?

now that there are attornies involved, there are all these considerations which I myself am not clear on in regards to this aspect of copyright law. Much of it is their concern, and I am still trying to get clear here.

But yes, OS 012 is ™OS 012, and I am exploring ways to make that available as a creative commons for general liscence. I naturally would not want someone else to come out and prevent me from using OS 012 or others myself!

I'm driving the attornies nuts on this. I hate most of copyright law, I think most of it sucks, but that's another argument I address with the dialectic, free file sharing. I have developed a model where free music files are shared, yet the copyright holder can still make money of each download. I think it's the only solution to the whole mess.


BF

 

[WWHP]

Oh politicians always get it perfectly metalogically reversed!

Today in the news

WASHINGTON — Fresh off a spat with rival Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he'd like to see an end to the "tit-for-tat" that dominates politics.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns fired off dueling press releases this week over a top Hollywood donor who was a supporter of Bill Clinton but is backing Obama in this race.

The Clinton campaign demanded that Obama return DreamWorks studio co-founder David Geffen's money after Geffen criticized the Clintons as dishonest, among other things. Obama declined, and his spokesman criticized Clinton in return for accepting the support of a South Carolina lawmaker who said Obama can't win because he's black.

Obama told donors at a Houston fundraiser Thursday night that the nation will remain at a standstill "if we continue to engage in small and divisive politics and tit-for-tat."

Rather, let the tit for tat continue, and have it include rational consideration AND creative expression, in public viewing, and all shall come to resolution and understanding.

If politicians were not so worried about the unknown value, they would do that. The unknown value is the most feared value to the politician, and they will lie, manipulate, and cheat to avoid defining it honestly and openly.

Yes indeed, human behavior is certainly influenced by the metalogic of our perception, and when we can observe our own metalogic operating, we can observe easily and simply the metalogic of others.


Have fun with yer new OS;-)

BF