Flim,
No Bubb, that's not what I'm saying at all. This is not a metalogical statement, and please don't put words into my mouth. I am saying that a statement can refer to the real world in concrete confirmable/falsifiable terms and be factually incorrect e.g., "The moon is made of mozzarella".
That's what I'm saying too, except your mistaken that it is not a metalogical statement. All statements MUST have a metalogical value. Statements are not found like rocks and trees. Someone PUT a statement somewhere, and thus, a statement has a metalogical value by default.
""The moon is made of mozzarella". Note that this is in no way a subjective statement. It is either true or false and whether it is true or false does not depend on who said it.
huh? You are actually telling me that 'the moon is made of mozzerella" is NOT a poetic or prosaic phrase about the moon? The 'moon is made of cheese' is a creative statement, poetic, highly subjective and yielding to the authors intent.
LOOK!
http://www.objectivethought.com/science/cheese.html
Mainly it is not subjective because we have solid, shared, fact-based definitions of the terms "moon" and "mozzarella", if I'd said "the moon is beautiful" that would be a subjective statement and as such not really be true or false.
flim, do you read or write poetry? do you make jokes, sarcasm, parody, or otherwise? all of those things are SUBJECTIVE.
An objective truth is a truth value by default because an objective statement is, or is believed to be, a true statement.
Sorry Bubb but this is just wrong. Since your system is inseparable from points of view I can understand you deriving your definition of "objective" from "objectivity". I'm not going to bother trying to convince you that you're using "objective" in a way that is not standard for discussions of logic.
Sorry, how I use objective is CONSISTANT with logic and EXPANDED to include metalogic. Don't try and convince me, rather point out contradictions, as I have with you.
I don't recall you finding any contradictions in Jonny's examples. All you did was disagree with him using your own definition of "objective" and refuse to listen to him.
This discussion is proof. We can see that my arguments regarding objective statements were able to advance in the discussion, and show contradictions on the others arguments. Jonny's arguments were unable to do that. It was not a personal argument with Jonny.
My definition of objective/subjective, are metalogical, and are NOT in conflict with logic. However, if your using logic and not metalogic, you may be in conflict with metalogic.
I doubt that you'll take my word for it but please note that when you find out that a statement can indeed be objective (i.e., referring to the outside world in concrete confirmable/falsifiable terms) and false (i.e., factually incorrect), I (and quite a few others) told you so.
You tell me so by repeating it over and over again, and without considering the contradictions I am pointing out to you.
This has really come down to a "put up or shut up" situation.
agreed. Please provide me with my contradictions. Create any list of phrases and statements you wish, and let's have at it. I predict that I will show contradictions on your list, and you wont on mine, either that or we will agree.
I don't see what the point of presenting OS012 with no evidence or details was.
This is not a formal presentation of OS 012. This is a discussion where I am testing the methodology of OS 012 and seeking anti-thesis.
On a forum like this or badscience it will simply serve to piss people off. If that was your mission then I'd say it has been acheived, aided in no small part by your really poor communication skills.
Well, I am certainly showing that when truths are contradicted, it will piss people off, and when they get pissed off, they will communicate irrationally, and when we tit for tat with them when they are pissed off, it will lead them back to the considerations.
YOU ARE PROOF OF THIS.
If you want to discuss OS012 in future can I suggest that you present it something like:
"OS012 is a metalogical dialectic that serves as a tool for productive (internet) discussion. By irrefutably logically categorising statements into three categories: [blah], [whatever] and [thingy, all carefully defined], the interests of multiple parties can be resolved to mutual benefit on the basis of known facts with the personal beliefs of individuals and [unknowable claims] taking a back seat. Participants will choose to use OS012 because [blah blah blah]. OS012 functions (meta)logically by [blah blah blah, details of how it works]."
Thank you for making a contribution to this project. I am always looking for ways to refine or explain this, and all of you have helped me. As you know, I am not academicaly trained, and this project started as an art project and wound up here.
Until you fill in all the necessary details there's no way to really assess it for itself, but I can critique it for its assumptions and necessary conditions. Personally I'm in no way convinced that OS012 is original, effective, logical(, metalogical), or worth a damn.
I'm not trying to convince you that OS 012 is what it is, I am simply showing you where your arguments against it are not fully considered rationally.
If it (your model) appears counter-intuitive then it is counter intuitive. Intuitive means that you get it straight off without effort: from the OED: "Intuitive a.: Of knowledge or mental perception: That consists in immediate apprehension, without the intervention of any reasoning process."
Again, let me point out your contradiction here. I said 'once you get OS 012, it is highly intuitive, but it may appear counter intuitive before you do'.
The same thing could be said about MAC OS first time you go onto a computer having no experience on a computer. ever see an old lady get on a computer for the first time?
Same thing could be said about many skills, a perfect example being Aikido as a martial art. Aikido is called 'the non violent martial art' which is COUNTERINTUTIVE to understand at first UNTIL you understand AIkido.
'Win win' is counterintuitive at first. and OS 012 will definantly be counter intuitive at first to those that operate in bivalency.
Edit to reinsert: To me it very much sounds like you have had a false revelation and are simply promoting an overly complex, roundabout and pseudo-philosophical way of describing something that everyone already does, and then claiming it as a breakthrough. The process of classifying statements is intuitive, your model for doing so is not.
fine, that is how it appears to you.that's your opinion. I'm not claiming the truths in OS 012 are groundbreaking, i am saying that creating a mutual language for our metalogic is groundbreaking, and I amnot the only one doing that.
http://www.aymara.org/biblio/igr/igr3.html
Sorry Bubb, but if only one person uses it then the other can still flatly refuse to accept any conclusion from the OS012 user.
Gee, you would have thunk I would have thunked about that. That's not what it is about in terms of global discussion or administration, it's about PRODUCING the most refined idea that ALL can, in princaple, agree on when they are HONEST and rational.
Take WMD a few years ago. I'm sure that a gazillion people would believe it no matter what. But what if all administrative decisions had to go through a metalogical process? Think about it
Then there's still the problem of convincing anyone to actually act on the conclusion reached.
yes, and that problem is accounted for. There is no rational or honest argument against an idea that is pure win win. And the more an irrational opponent tries to defend a win lose idea in such environment, the more their idea appears to be contradictory to common sense. It's a method of outcompeting irrational ideas.
It comes back to rational people reaching agreement/compromise under most conditions and unreasonable people not.
simply untrue. unreasonable people dont generally believe they are unreasonable, rather, they think they are perfectly sound. If an unreasonable person stays inside of a framework that is proven to produce a reasonable and rational conclusion, then they will eventually come to agree, or expose themselves further for being irrational.
What you suggest also raises the possibility (if OS012 is so powerful), since OS012 apparently only looks at "truths" from each person's point of view, of one party directing the discussion to the conclusion that they want.
If there is ONE discussion regarding, say, Israel and Palestine online, then ALL and EVERYONE globally has a chance to alter the discussion according to their truth values. ONLY the metalogical truth values regarding the conflict are what is 'mutually observable' as the objective truths in the discussion.
so even if you can use OS012 perfectly you still can't progress in a discussion with an unreasonable person. Hardly a new phenomenon, and a pretty fatal flaw in the argument that OS012 is more useful than normal discussion.
If the unreasonable person stays in the discussion, there WILL be agreement. If they leave the discussion, then they forfiet their truth value, simple.
Consider; When it comes to making a critical or administrative decision, what is going to keep the individual in the discusion? the natural conflict of idea, that's what.
Just like you are still here discussing with me
Onto the problem of conflating subjective and objectively (factually) false statements.
yes, let's. Your still not considering metalogic when you make your arguments here. LOGIC does NOTHING with poetic or humorous statements, and METALOGIC does.
If you made the first statement ("the moon is made of mozzarella") I could prove to you that it is false.
Yet if I made the statement poetically or in humor, like the weblink I posted, why would you bother? Rather, your OWN metalogic would simply appreciate the 2 value, just like we all do n aturally when reading poetry or look at art.
THIS IS NOT A PIPE!
http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/magritte.gif
I cannot disprove to you that "Betty is hotter than Wilma" because it relies on a term ("hotter") for which we all have different criteria.
You dont need to disprove it, it's a subjective statement and TRUE to the individual who made it, to 'disprove it' is irrational and a waste of time.
Why do you want to put these types of statements together? By doing so I think you only lose explanatory power.
I only lose explanitory power when I am parsing them logically, NOT metalogically.
Proof of an objective statement, self evident
The word at the end of this sentence is the word this.
That is a self-referential, trivially true statement.
Yes, and what makes it true? It's mutually observable in that sentence.
It's an elegant example. A objective statement's value is mutually observable, I provided a simple example.
If I understand correctly what you try to put into this category are only objective true statements and not objective (factually) false statements.
No, your muddling it in your head again. If I have a set of objectivly true statements, then the statement 'it is false that the moon is made of mozzerla' goes in that category with that description.
I can see where you are making your errors here, by the way, metalogically. Metalogic is dynamic, recursive, and recapitulating. Your trying to make it static like logic, and it doesnt work that way.
ALL statements can have a viewpoint of 0, 1, and 2. You cannot find one statement that would not carry those truth values operating to various points of view.
To do this you actually need evidence of the accuracy (truth/falsity) of the statements, this is not a logical/a priori process but an empirical one. For example, you cannot know whether "the moon is made of mozzarella" is true or false without actually studying the moon. Once again we run into OS012 not overcoming the problem of needing evidence.
huh? The statement 'the moon is made of cheese' is an subjective statement which does not reflect our current state of knowledge by any means. It is not a mysterious idea to those whom are educated. It may be a mysterious idea to a primitive tribe somewhere, but who cares if they are not part of the discussion?
Who is putting forth that the moon is made of cheese scientifically? NO ONE, rather the statement is used in parody and poetry quite often to reflect ANOTHER TRUTH which is not directly communicated in text OBJECTIVLY, but it is NATURALLY ASSUMED.
Proof of a mysterious statement, self evident
"At the moment of death, consciousness is enveloped in pure bliss"
Because there is no objective proof one way or another for it's validity, it's value is experiential.
Buddhists may suggest this, and recently, science may allude to it as a possibility with DMT research and the brain, but it's still a mysterious idea
I'd say that it is objective (i.e., confirmable/falsifiable) fuzzy definitions of "consciousness" and "bliss" notwithstanding.
Then that means you can state, for certainty, if it is either TRUE, or FALSE, right now in this moment, and argue that without producing contradictions.
If there is someone who has died and returned through resuscitation then they could refute or confirm it.
First off, then they really didnt 'die' did they, except in the clinical understanding of how we measure death. People dont come back to life after they are dead, period. And even if this is the case what you suggest, then it's NOT an objective statement, rather a subjective statement metalogically, we cannot account for it. Just because someone says they experienced something DOES NOT MAKE THAT EXPERIENCE TRUE FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
IT just makes it MORE mysterious, actually.
Anyway, if you are saying that mystery is defined by the sum of human knowledge (as you previously stated "Mystery = nobody knows") then to classify what is mystery you need to have access to that entire corpus i.e., you need to know what is known by everyone and anyone. I doubt very much that you do.
I doubt that anyone does, so? That's irrelevant, your still trying to look at metalogic logically, and you need to look at metalogic METALOGICALLY.
Your use of the words "self evident" suggest that OS012 doesn't really add anything; what you've written her are fundamentally *not* logical proofs that these statements fall into these categories. It is indeed self-evident to most people when a statement is objective (proper use of objective meaning factually confirmable/falsifiable) and when a statement is subjective (i.e., an expression of personal opinion or taste).
It's obvious when the statements are simple examples, yes, but not so obvious when we consider statements like "WMD are being manufactored in Iraq,therefore, we must immedialty invade Iraq"
But we still run into the problem of needing evidence to show whether the objective statement is true (moonrock would prove that the moon is not made of mozzarella) and whether the subjective statement is an honest expression of your state of mind or simply a lie.
All of that becomes naturally revealed in honest exchange between two or more points of view when deconstructing 'meaning' into three possible values
No bubb, I'm far from loving you for many, many reasons and I still think that you are straightforwardly wrong about the efficacy of OS012.
Well that's ok, I still love you for what you are doing. And I can concede that I cannot 'prove' it's efficacy at this moment. So consider, when I say this is all true, I really mean this is all possible, but i am arguing it as true for the sake of exploring the possibilities.
I also believe that your grasp on logic, language and philosphy is very poor and I (like many others before me) would encourage you to go reading so you don't make the common mistake of thinking that your ideas are revolutionary.
My knowledge of logic and philosophy is all relative to OS 012, and I claim no knowledge of logic and philosophy outside of OS 012. If it were not for OS 012, I would not be discussing logic or philosophy, previously, those types of discussions bored me through the roof.
And the truth values in OS 012 may not be revolutionary when each is taken at face value, but when you put them together harmoniously into a practical application for the internet, it becomes highly novel and new.
Everything i write about OS 012 would be virtually irrelevant if it were not for the internet. the internet is what makes OS 012 new and interesting. I cant say it would work offline with the same efficacy.
As far as a breakthrough is concerned, the only breakthrough that I have acheived is understanding, more or less, what OS012 is about.
Your close, but your not quite there yet. And yes, that is a breakthrough, considering that it took you so long to actually ADDRESS your concerns regarding it.
Something that could have been helped by you presenting OS012 clearly, fully and concisely 31 pages ago (and on badscience).
Dude, I simply respond to the questions asked or comments made, this is not a formal presentation. If you or ANYONE would have asked these questions back at badscience.net, then you would have gotten this back then. Instead, you all called me troll and did not respond critically, but rather REACTED to the images in your head of what you think OS 012 is.
You are still missing the role of the 2 value in all of this, and the disctinctions between concept of truth and truth itself. Zaay gets that part of it, perhaps he can explain it to you.
Even if you are going to use tit-for-tat (which I personally think is utter bollocks and very childish) what is the advantage of piss-poor communication, unless it is to deliberately obscure meaning and extend the thread and thus boost your ego?
Flim, the tit for tat strategy is used because it WORKS to keep people in the discussion until there is agreement, and YOU are an example of that working perfectly.
I dont try to obsfucate, I try to explain what I 'mean' relative to each individual the best I can, and if the individual is rational, then it would only take a few exchanges to glean meaning.
Anyway, like I said, now I actually know what you're talking about are you going to provide any evidence that it is (i) valid and (ii) useful?
I think your close, but not there 100 percent yet.
And here is how i think it can be useful in internet dialogue. Because there is global access to the internet, and an innumerous amount of 'points of view' regarding each issue, 'synthesis' of points of view can happen at a quickened pace due to speed of information. Think about it, how fast did information travel 150 years ago? no faster than a horse or boat, until the telegraph. Think about that, that also means that global arguments took that long to synthesize at least.
Then think about how 'closed' many systems of negotiation or problem solving are. We dont get to sit in meetings with Bush and Cheney, yet with an online framework, bush and cheney or any politician would want their argument presented if the online framework is the place to get 'the truth' regarding hot topics. Global warming is a perfect example. Imagine if we could track ALL arguments for and against and hold them at their metalogical value?
If we can have a wiki like framework that guides all points of view to establish their metalogic, then we can have a 'master meme' for each category of thought in terms of global problem solving. each master meme is a 'synthesis' of refined exchange through honest discussion,and would be available for all to study, research, and discuss. Consider the truth, ALL IDEAS SPREAD. A MASTER MEME is an idea that spreads and DEFEATS all arguments to the contrary.
the use of zero in mathematics is a MASTER MEME, there is no debate about it's efficacy, but as Bucky Fuller pointed out, when 'cipher' was introduced by the muslims, the church of Rome tried to counter it saying it that it offended the doctrines of the church. (at that time, according to bucky, all counting was done by a few individuals in the church, and thus the church had authority over all debt and commerce).
Now, the catholic church uses zero just like everyone else. OS 012 just outlines the natural metalogical steps in the historical dialectic, and seeks to increase that synthesis in the global dialectic to produce what hegel called 'the ultimate liberation of humanity', which he said would be the result of the historical dialectic.
Bubblefish
yeah, it's true, even though you are pokey pokey, ol bubblefish loves ya!
