Skepticism and The Normal

[Professor Yaffle]

It seems to me that BF is guilty of failing to apply his own framework. He is forever telling us that OS012 does this and that and that it ensures certain outcomes. That sounds like he is making objective statements and claims. And that is what I have been assuming he has been doing when I have replied to him. Now he is saying that he has no evidence (of the kind that would stand up to scientific scritiny) that it does what he says it does. By his own definition, that means that it doesn't belong in the TRUE category.

Now if he had said all along that it was his subjective opinion that it works, we could have reached agreement ages ago - we would just reply that it is our subjective opinion that it probably won't work. In fact using his own bizarre terminology, he would have to have said that the idea "OS012 is successful at resolving conflict in a win win result every time" = FALSE. Then we would have all definitely agreed with him.

We would even have agreed with him if he said it was unknown, or mystery whether it would work.

Finally, we have been touching upon the issue of whether we can ever regard anything other than the fact that we (meaning I personally) have experiences - as definitely true. BF seems to believe that his framework can lead us to deduce that all sorts of other things are true. How can it possibly do this? There is always the possibility - not matter how infinitessimally small, that any other thing generally regarded as true is merely a hallucination. If you are regarding anything other than the existence of your own personal experience as TRUE, then you are just doing what everyone else does. Deciding that you can ignore certain other possibilities because they are very small, and instead ascribing the idea as truth. We just diuffer in where we put the boundaries of what we allow into our true and false categories from the morrass of uncertainty surrounding us. I do it, you do it and Randi does it. We just each use different criteria to help us to do it and so we come to different conclusions. At least science gives us guidelines for doing it in certain arenas, so we can at least be working on the same framework.

 

[WWHP]

oh wee_eck, you always want to find a way to MAKE me wrong, instead of arguing with me LOGICALLY your contradictions.

It seems to me that BF is guilty of failing to apply his own framework. He is forever telling us that OS012 does this and that and that it ensures certain outcomes. That sounds like he is making objective statements and claims. And that is what I have been assuming he has been doing when I have replied to him. Now he is saying that he has no evidence (of the kind that would stand up to scientific scritiny) that it does what he says it does.

Your mistreating my statements to suit the needs for your own delusion on the matter.

I do not yet have scientific 'proof' that this works. By scientific 'proof', I mean that proper experimentation has been completed, formalized, and processed for peer review. That's what I am currently working on with others.

I do however, have 'argument' HOW this works and WHAT theory it is based on, and offer AS proof of MY evalution OUR discussion. Anyone is welcome to challenge that, that's WHY I AM HERE.

that clear things up?

Now if he had said all along that it was his subjective opinion that it works, we could have reached agreement ages ago - we would just reply that it is our subjective opinion that it probably won't work. In fact using his own bizarre terminology, he would have to have said that the idea "OS012 is successful at resolving conflict in a win win result every time" = FALSE. Then we would have all definitely agreed with him.

you are most certainly and grossly mistaken and misleading here. The *proof* that OS 012 is EFFECTIVE is currently an ACADEMIC MYSTERY, yet it is a CERTAIN TRUTH that I am putting forth and arguing as TRUE.

Get it?

We would even have agreed with him if he said it was unknown, or mystery whether it would work.

I have said, hinted, alluded, and ASSUMED this even at badscience!!

Your trying to damage control the perception of the IRRATIONAL role you played in our discussion over there, and here.

Watch that metalogic, Wee_eck, it's always glaringly OBVIOUS and mutually observable.


Bubblefish

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I do not yet have scientific 'proof' that this works. By scientific 'proof', I mean that proper experimentation has been completed, formalized, and processed for peer review. That's what I am currently working on with others.

Just wondering who will publish a peer reviewed scientific paper first - bubba here, or his old friend Dr Lo on the existence of Qi?

PS I edited my above post, I think, after you had already replied.

 

[jimbob]

Does the technology work as advertised? TANSTAAFFL

sorry, I have absolutly no idea what the hell that means.


Quote:

Edit: The extra "F" was originally a mistake, but hey, guess what it can be...

That doesnt help

Try
This link

Jim

 

[WWHP]

Just wondering who will publish a peer reviewed scientific paper first - bubba here, or his old friend Dr Lo on the existence of Qi?

Gee, another underhanded remark designed to make ol fun loving bubblefish look stupid and qwacky.

PS I edited my above post, I think, after you had already replied.

Indeed you did

BF

 

[WWHP]

Try
This link

Jim

okay fine, and any more questions you have about global conflict resolution and bucky's ideas, google those too. Your posts now are going back to the bottom of the batch.


BF

 

[WWHP]

wee_eck, if you would post these sorts of responses SOLEY, you would get clarification much easier than the length of time it has taken you to get it.

Finally, we have been touching upon the issue of whether we can ever regard anything other than the fact that we (meaning I personally) have experiences - as definitely true.

What do you mean finally? I have been discussing this since early november with you yahoos!

You mean rather you are FINALLY coming into some CLARITY on this issue, that's what you mean METALOGICALLY.

BF seems to believe that his framework can lead us to deduce that all sorts of other things are true. How can it possibly do this?

It's not my framework which does this, it's OUR NATURAL METALOGIC THAT DOES.

OS 012 is just a language for the evalution of metalogic inside of tit for tat dialectic.

There is always the possibility - not matter how infinitessimally small, that any other thing generally regarded as true is merely a hallucination.

indeed there is, and then if there is, we now have a TRUE hallucination, eh?

If you are regarding anything other than the existence of your own personal experience as TRUE, then you are just doing what everyone else does.

Exactly, that's our metalogic operating.

Deciding that you can ignore certain other possibilities because they are very small, and instead ascribing the idea as truth.

You dont 'ignore' anything! You dont understand it quite well yet. You BEGIN the questions with 0, 1, and 2, and you DONT IGNORE ANY ANSWERS, be they 0, 1, or 2.

We just diuffer in where we put the boundaries of what we allow into our true and false categories from the morrass of uncertainty surrounding us.

we dont metalogically. metalogically, WE NATURALY AGREE ON THOSE CATEGORIES.

I do it, you do it and Randi does it.

You pervert!;-) Yes, we all operate metalogically, all the time

We just each use different criteria to help us to do it and so we come to different conclusions.

but metalogically, the conclusions are all the same, while logically, the values may appear different. So OS 012 is the METALOGIC that we all can use to determine the METALOGICAL value for certainty

At least science gives us guidelines for doing it in certain arenas, so we can at least be working on the same framework.

we are still using our metalogic while performing science, as well as art. and metalogic allows the intuitive to understand the rational, and the rational to understand the intuitive and for both of them to operate together synergistically and in harmony, producing greater and greater 'ah-ha's' and a more refined and elegant method for co-intelligence (shared learning and advancment in learning)

BF

 

[WWHP]

about co-intelligence

http://www.co-intelligence.org/

 

[jimbob]

No, Statement #2 "the Earth "circles" around the sun is not true, because that implies that the orbital path is a circle, whereas naked-eye observations can show this is not the case.

Fine, Jimbob is saying that it is true that statement 2 is relative to the truth, but not scientifically accurate.

Find your metalogic, that is all I am refrencing, and all OS 012 refrences.

What does that mean?

It is not "relative to the truth" but a *partial* truth. The amount of inaccuracy is understood, so it can not be mystery.

It is not entirely true so can't be "true" and it is not entirely false, so can't be "false".

It doesn't fit into the system.

Nor do any partial truths that people *accept* as being partial.

"The only problem with 'the World Game' was that world leaders didnt use it!"

Isn't that rather a fatal problem?

yes indeed! A very big problem,

<snip>
. It's pure win win ethic produces no rational enemy. It would not seek to make politicians lose, but rather win by solving problems they are unable to (like healthcare, etc etc). In princaple, it would level the politician to something no more attractive than a button pusher, and remove the 'rock star' attraction that political offices afford those who hold them.

But the point is that the enemies *aren't* rational. Religious/ethnic *hatred* is not rational.

But it is effective at driving the Middle East conflicts.

No, it is irrational to harm your own position.

agreed. dont confuse win win with the flip side of the win lose paradigm, self sacrafice.

It is perfectly *rational* to be selfish, and to maximise your own wealth and power, even to the extent of harming other people.

no, it's not, because when we harm other people for our benifit, we are creating future problems and resistance to our existence at a later time. by harming others, we are not creating a rational solution, rather, we are rationalizing a problem by creating another problem somewhere else.

Not if you economically, legally or militarily dominate the harmed people.

"Be wary of causing small hurts to people, as they will hate you for them and still retain the ability to oppose you." i.e. if you must make an enemy, remove their ability to ever oppose you again.

Paraphrase from "The Prince"

It might not be "nice", but it is rational.

rational thinking, as defined in economics, is the ability to negotiate in your own self interest. Since John Nash, economics has developed to create 'win win' negotiation strategies. Thus, 'rational' thinking has now evolved to include 'the ability to negotiate in the interests of self and others'. Negotiating in the interests of others IS a selfish act, when others are happy, MY buisness does well.

Note how in the dawning of the 21st century, the western consumer is *king*, and many new media corparations are competing to make us happy for thier own financial gain.

I am never denying that trade for mutual benefit occurs, and has throughout prehistory, and to a certain extent in other highly social animals (dolphins and great apes, some of the reciprocity that wouldn't be considered *nice* for the female dolphin)


This hasn't needed any "master meme"

When there is a finite resource, and not enough to go round, (e.g. the balloon debate) it is not rational to be "nice" and die, nor is it rational for everyone to die because of the lack of scacrifices (willing or otherwise) of *other* people.

Or do you mean something different by the word "rational".

the idea of thier being 'finite' resource is an illusion. Bucky Fuller stated over and over that properly managed, 'Spaceship Earth' has enough resources to give every man, woman, and child access to billioniare wealth

How much oil do you think we have? How much land? How much fresh water? How much Cod?

We would need to change the energy consumption drastically.

Can the entire population of LA have hundred acre houses and grounds in Beverly Hills then? billionaires could afford to do that, so the answer must be yes, for the above statement to be true.

the most rational and logic ethic to have, in relationship to the self, and the self with others, is win win. There is no rational argument in defending win lose ethics or morals.

Those types of discussions is where OS 012 shines perfectly.

How? If you accept that there is not actually an objective (i.e. externally verifiable) "correct" answer, how does a trivalent system further the cause at all?

All you can do is look at how the implications of the various views are consistent with the stated framework of values, how they are internally consistent, and how consistent they are with your own values.

I dont understand your query here, can you rephrase it more specifically?



the ethic of 'win win' is consistant with all philosophical and religious values in princaple.


BF

How does OS o12 shine here? if there are no true answers

 

[WWHP]

Why not use Tit for Two Tats, which, according to "The Selfish Gene", would theoretically be a more successful strategy?

The strategy I use is natural, and naturally what it appears to be is tit for tat. Perhaps you try the tit for two tats and let me know how it goes. If it goes well, I will adopt it.

Wholly from badscience.net jokingly said my style was closer to 'tit for rat a tat tat', which I thought was funny.


BF

 

[WWHP]

How are things sorted and categorized? How is the system applied? How does it do anything useful (like solve conflict)?

No one will see any possibility of how this could work if they don't get it. Through these discussions, this method, many many people have 'gotten' it, and many of them have either joined me in working on this side or have started thier own side exploring the possibilities.

I have a solid understanding of how this can be applied very practically. I have presented that possibility to members of academia and commerce, and those that attended the presentation got it, and are slowly working with me to develop it.

If you wish too, you can sign an NDA, and I will explain the practical application over the phone to you, and you can report back to people here. I have to protect that now because a very prominant group of new media entrepuneurs are very very interested in this framework, and I now have to protect that idea for the time being, otherwise, some lawyers will be very very upset with me.

Also, nothing showing it will, in fact, work. In fact, you don't seem to have really altered the core theory at all based on your internet discussions. As you haven't really published anything, it's impossible to tell.

the 'core theories' have remained intact because the core theories appear to be quite sound logically and mathematically, so there is no reason to change them. The knowledge of presenting the core theories, has, however, vastly increased.

I'm not exactly sure what's up with the confidentiality. Are you afraid others will take credit for your work? Are you afraid you've designed something that can be patented that others will steal?

of course, isnt that the typical concern?

ETA: I actually read through most of this thread and notice that you have used personal insults as a means of argumentation in the past on this very forum.

That discussion is meaningless, it was for pure fun, it was not an OS 012 discussion, I was just testing the tit for tat with more astute and educated members for the fun and experience of it. I still followed the tit for tat though, and did you notice the one member who found OS 012 interesting? he came over to the OS 012 forum too, and asked a round of questions, and found it interesting.

By the way, are you still convinced of the existence of "qi"?

I am convinced there is something to it, yes, but I dont know what that is yet. Through working on the documentary with Lo and the other researchers, I have met many people in academia who share this point of view. I have had profound personal experience that is repeatable in practice which have produced consistant results in myself to know there is something there, I just dont know what it is yet. I look forward to Lo's experiments, so far he is the only one that I know of who has presented a scientific theory about it's actual mechanism.

Lo is onto something with Qi, for sure, although I cant say he will prove it for sure, I just dont know.

If so, what evidence do you have for it?

For myself, I have direct experience, the value of truth (2) that many here are starting to see is the beginning of all knowledge. I dont have any scientific evidence for it, but that is also not my concern. Qi and QI Kung are hobbies of mine, they are not directly related to my work at all.


BF

 

[WWHP]

"Tit for tat", according to Dawkins, is NOT a "win-win" strategy.

correct, but 'tit for tat' historically CAN transform into non zero sum games, and I pretty sure Dawkins covers that, as well as Robert Wright. If you really want to read a great book on the matter, pick up Robert Wright's "Non Zero, the Logic of Human Destiny"

It is a strategy that optimizes wins and/or minimizes losses for both sides in which the competition involves mindless, mechanical processes. One side is hard-wired to take a certain approach, another side simply mimics what the first side does. If the opponent uses a "nasty" strategy, in which he attacks without provocation, then "tit for tat" simply minimizes the losses. It could hardly be called "win-win".

tit for tat is not win win in and of itself, no, but it can become a win win, it transforms into win win.

It could be said that this happens in nature, since organisms competing for resources are doing so according to instinct, not as part of some well-designed strategy. The best strategies survive because the best strategies survive, not because some organism was "smart" enough to come up with the best strategy.

so?

Human conflict is not analogous. There is a certain amount of mindlessness, yes, due to the fact that there are subconscious processes going on in each participant. However, human interaction is by no means mechanical. It is extremely non-deterministic, and therefore, simplistic game strategy does not work.

agreed, tit for tat is not the only consideration to this game, far from it. this game however DOES embrace the random and chaotic nature of human expression, and tit for tat is just one strategy that is used in the beginning.

tit for tat is for the expression of the idea in behavior, but the ideas themselves is another game altogether, and that game is pure win win when the distinction of human being and idea is made consciously at the meta level of cognition.


BF

 

[WWHP]

I really think this insult is too mild to justify a warning. I've certainly done worse, I admit, without being warned (maybe I didn't have fifty people reporting me?).

As to bubbafish's complaint that I'm not adding anything of value, I admit that as well.

I consider you now to be a fair and honest man

And..."intelligencia"? Please.

hehe, I knew you would love it


BF

 

[WWHP]

Interestingly, in one of the threads you linked to in Post #1116, Bubblefish described OS 012 as "free, in the public domain, and open source", which makes his concern about intellectual property rights expressed in this thread look a little on the late side. He might say it wasn't him but one of the other people who he says he "tried to encourage [...] to use the 'bubblefish' moniker and spread it around a bit", but there are enough of Rome's characteristic verbal tics (for example the references to himself as "ol bubblefish" and the missing apostrophes, not to mention the spelling mistakes) for us to be reasonably certain it's him.

This is still true to a certain extant. OS 012 BASIC is CC, creative commons, which means that anyone who 'gets' OS 012 can develop what ever they want for it or from it. Zaay could write about 'OS 012 and the Occult" and he would be free to do so, yet he would naturally own the copyright on that book.

This is all legal speagal,and like I said earlier to Jonny, I hate copyright law. But currently, we must use copyright law if we are to advance anything in media, so I accept that i must roll with it.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Sadly Jonny both of these statements point to a conclusion, which many people have come to from reading these threads, namely that Bubblefish/TM is a troll.

can you define inside of rational and critical discussion what a troll is please?

That's a very insulting term from my perspective, about what I do, very insulting, and I find it used when arguments are unable to advance past mine in discussion.

If he genuinely had any interest in refining his ideas or making them usable and popular then he would have presented them in much more detail, and, actually responded to criticisms rather than just claiming that he has.

I have stated over and over as honestly as I can what I do and what my point of view is, if you refuse to accept my honesty, then suffer in your own delusion, I dont care.

We really need to develop an official name for this sort of fallacy, perhaps Arkan can help. It's the same argument about Steorn, if they really had what they said they have, they would publish a paper on it. This fallacy assumes the proper behavior of an argument, and then uses this assumption as proof that the opponent is wrong.

An alternative is that he has a vested interest in promoting OS012 and is simply taking a scattergun approach to the web either so he can claim that his idea has been widely discussed (ignoring the fact that it has been uniformly panned), or in the hope that it will get a gushing acceptance somewhere to which he can direct people from his website.

or I have done simply what I have said I have done, and this discussion already is posted on my forum, I did that when it first started.

Either way there's an increasingly strong probability that he is simply stringing out this and other discussions for as long as possible simply for the pathetic malicious pleasure of it, or to boost his ego and/or bank-balance.

bank balance? I wish! Anyway, all I can say is, guess again, flim, guess again. PLease note your metalogical need to define me inside of a certain image to address my argument. Your making logical errors there, you should keep me a mystery and trust your intuitions more, after all, your intuitions have kept you inside of this discussion.

Which I guess raises the question of why I bothered continuing to post.

Because you are responding to the conflict of idea at the metalogical level, and that's what rules your behavior, not your words. Your words have said that you would no longer discuss with me, and yet your behavior tells us something different than your own words.

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.

we have all learned from each other, and if you cant be honest that you have learned from me as well, well, your simply not being honest with yourself!

Notably, I've not learnt a damn thing from bubb other than how to obfuscate.

Your about to learn one of the most profound things you will ever learn, the knowledge and understanding of your own metalogic.

Having tried to put all the obections to/refutations of bubb's ideas in one place and clarified my own ideas on why his theories are bunk I think I'll leave it unless he *actually* presents his ideas clearly enough to critique and then *actually* engages in proper discussion.

what a silly and gross projection. It is YOU whom have failed proper discussion, and it is I that have seduced you back to it using the tit for tat methodology.

However, even if he can bring himself to do that, and he isn't actually a troll, I suspect that his ideas will be frighteningly banal.

well you keep on with your suspicions, your intuitions got you here, and now it is time to apply hard hitting critical thinking to what i write about, not suspicions.


BF

 

[WWHP]

Just to clarify, apparently OS012 is what is meant to be open source etc. When bubba starts talking about not being able to discuss something because of intellectual property rights, he is talking about something he has supposedly developed using OS012 (something to do with file sharing that he says results in a win win situation for both the user who wants free music etc, anf the record companies who want to make a profit. It is just very handy for him that the one example he claims where his system has actually resolved conflict with a win-win result, is also something he can't talk about... Just a coincidence I am sure....

You all need to stop being so paranoid about the business method. It's standard practice not to reveal things of a propietary nature in a public forum.

You can understand ALL of this, and even find yourself many unique ways to apply it, inside of discussion with me.

Focus on 'getting it' first, and then you can concern yourself with how it can be applied. I garuntee that anyone will 'get it' if they stay in tit for tat exchange with me and I with them.

I GARUNTEE IT.


BF

 

[Jeff Corey]

..tit for tat is for the expression of the idea in behavior, but the ideas themselves is another game altogether, and that game is pure win win when the distinction of human being and idea is made consciously at the meta level of cognition.BF

"Hi, I am Jeff, your server for this evening, unless that bitch Fred gives me all those tables next to the kitchen again.
First we shall start off with the word salad, a la psychotique. What dressing would please you with that? The bleu me cheese? Raunchy Ranch? The Extremely Creamy Italian? The Crumbly French Maginot? Or the ever popular Large Hunks of Lark's vomit?

 

[WWHP]

Except you demonstrably can't.

The number of factual inaccuracies in what you've posted so far makes that clear.

dr kitten, You're really on a fast track going down hill. Why dont you challenge me directly in my propositions regarding my methodology?

Done both. Heck, I've taught that class.

.

so far, I think your all hot air and no real talk. You're afraid of dialectic, you're afraid of bringing your ideas about things into dialectic in fair exchange. You are most likely unable to transcend the 'teacher-student' game which prevents you from having a discussion with 'equals' instead of what ever the hell it is that's going on in your head about yourself, captain.

In my opinion, your an example of ignorant academia.

Yup, I meant that. Nope, not as an insult, but as an honest observation.

Prove me wrong, please.


BF

 

[Jeff Corey]

In my opinion, your an example of ignorant academia.

It's "you're", fool.

 

[WWHP]

While we're talking about memes in general, I'd love for Bubblefish to address this:

Wiki list of criticisms of memes

I think Memetics may be perhaps the first honest bridge between the objective sciences and the subjective arts.

I dont agree that Memetics seeks to reduce 'ideas' down to physical particles for Memetics to be very interesting philosophically. It almost doesnt matter philosophically. What matters philosophically is we all can agree 'memes' exist because 'memes' are just 'ideas'.

I don't agree, by any means, with what I understand Wittenstein's argument to be, which is we can never have perfect agreement, there is no 'personal' language or argument. We have perfect agreement ALL the time, and language is just a negotiation of agreement.

In particular, it's always seemed to me that memes aren't a particularly useful analogy. They're a cute little comparison, but they don't appear to actually increase our understanding or abilities at all.

I think the first thing that 'memetics' does that is useful is it allows us a framework to at least 'try' to look at our subjective experiences in a mathematical and scientific manner. I find it interesting that the comparison between 'ideas' and 'genes' can be made.

For example, the conflict of idea. I use the example all the time of the conflict of idea in nature, two male bulls fighting for mating dominance with one female, to spread on the most 'effective' ideas for future species.

I think the analogies work perfectly in many instances, at least as thought experiments which can lead to further insight.

It's like the concept of "viral marketing", which makes the obvious comparison to biological viruses... except the comparison is highly superficial, and really biological viruses operate in a whole different way.

well, I'm in viral marketing, New Media is one of my specialties. I dont think you can say that viral marketing has the same scientific import as memetics does.

Things like so-called "viral videos" are passed because people like them, ideas are passed on for a variety of complicated reasons, and viruses are passed on through a complex biological process that isn't really all that analogous to the spread of ideas, beyond that very superficial level.

at the metalogical level, we all want 'truth'. 'truth', and how we define it for ourselves and for others, culturally, spiritually, or scientifically, plays the same game, the conflict of idea.

all ideas spread, all the time.

So this concept of a "master meme" needs something to prop it up.

a master meme is nothing more than an idea so refined through continued tit for tat exchange that eventually, there becomes no rational argument against it.

ordering and counting is a master meme.


At the metalogical level or ordering and counting, we find another 'meme' which can be defined as 0,1, 2.


BF