Flim,
Once you get over your 'ego' in this discussion, by trying to protect your 'old false ideas' about me and OS 012, you will get this much faster. I mean, again, your arguments are, well, now moving on to levels of pure absurdity
So when I say: 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.
However, you're still wrong. The statement may be all of those things (whatever you mean), but it is still objectively, factually incorrect (false).
THAT' MY ARGUMENT TOO! YOu cannot CONTRADICT ME by AGREEING WITH ME or OS 012, that is simply IRRATIONAL and doenst make for much argument!
THERE ARE THREE TRUTH VALUES. SUBJECTIVE VALUES ARE MOST OFTEN OBJECTIVLY FALSE VALUES. SO WHAT?????
How is that contradictory? we are both saying the same thing, yet I understand you, and you do not understand me!
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.
Yes, that statement is simply the negation of "the moon is made of cheese". All you are saying is that "it is not the case that the moon is made of cheese" or simply "the moon is not made of cheese".
Dude, when a poet writes 'the moon is made of cheese' we dont assume that he is pitching a new theory of the universe. It is ASSUMED metalogically to be false, yet it's FUNCTION is to highlight ANOTHER TRUTH variant to the AUTHOR'S INTENTION.
Sheesh, this is so simple, why is this taking you so long to distinguish? (oh, that's right, I remember now, you are still trying to save face)
However if your first category contains only objectively true statements then you still need to know what the moon is made of to categorise that statement.
duh. are you going to start disagreeing with me so we can have a real argument?
I write: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"
Yes it is obvious that the first part of that statement is objective (proper use i.e., theoretically confirmable falsifiable)
dude, please stop, I am afraid you are about to make yourself crazy. Let's look at this statement again in 2007.
WMD Exist in Iraq.
Now, are you going to argue this is an OBJECTIVE STATEMENT in 2007?
but we come back to the fact that what we need is irrefutable evidence for or against to prove it true or false.
so what? of course we do! And until we do, we cannot assign that it is an objective statement at face value. In hindsight, we can now say that statement was a SUBJECTIVE IDEA, based on DELUSION or DECEPTION or some combination of both, it simply has NO GROUNDING IN OBJECTIVE REALITY. The only OBJECTIVE VALUE we can place on that statement in 2002 is that it is UNKNOWN for CERTAIN. That's it. Period.
Then we can consider whether the first statement necessarily implies the second.
oh zaay, please help this young man, he is stuck in your time loop!
You cannot consider ZIP when you dont have access to the information. Absolutly nothing. You cannot make any honest or objective statement regarding it's truth value other than UNKNOWN
What contradictions? All you have done is pitted your definitions of "objective" and "subjective" against everyone else's.
yes, and my definitions are not producing contradictions with reality, and YOURS ARE.
For example, according to your formula of objectivity, the statement "WMD exist in Iraq" is an objective statement. Yet there are no WMD in Iraq, so CLEARLY THERE IS A CONTRADICTION WITH REALITY.
You then try to horribly counter that 'well, it's an objectifiably false statement', and SO WHAT? ALL statements are either OBJECTIVLY TRUE, OBJECTIVLY FALSE, OR OBJECTIVLY UNKNOWN.
An objective truth is a truth value by default because an objective statement is, or is believed to be, a true statement.
"Believed to be, a true statement" yes but not necessarily a true statement, what I believe does not necessarily reflect the way the world is.
clearly;-), but it still can function as a true statement in your mind. To GWB and millions of americans, WMD in IRAQ functioned as an OBJECTIVELY TRUE STATEMENT, and clearly they were betting big money on that.
Metalogical truth values are in our minds, they are functions for information, not functions OF information.
So an objective statement that I believe to be true can actually be false.
First off, try wording your example properly. You mean "so I can believe a false idea to be an objectivly true idea?"
and the answer is yes, happens all the time, and the source of all confusion.
So which is it? Are all objective statements true, or can they be false?
Objective statements are true statements. It is true that some statements are false, and therefore, it is OBJECTIVE to call them false.
C'mon, pokey pokey
How's that for a contradiction within your system?
it's more a revealation of your own inner contradictions, sorry to say. Wanna know how I know that for CERTAIN? Because your statements are not objectivly true statements, they are objectivly FALSE statements, or are just simple FALSE IDEAS that you believe to be true. False ideas are not incorrect ideas, rather, they are internal ideas which reflect subjective experience, the relate OBJECTIVE INFORMATION regarding your INNER conceptual reality.
ALL IDEAS can be viewed from the points of view of 0, 1, or 2. 0, 1, and 2 are functions in our minds for information, not of information.
Incidentally, nice reversion to the Socratic dialectic (identification of inherent contradications) to try to refute my point.
glad you got an eye for talent
Now, for my grand finale!
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
What complete, utter, iredeemable, total, olympic-standard bullsh1t!
Now that's what we call a false idea. It's poetic, emotional, reactive, spontaneous, chaotic. tells us about YOU and NOTHING about OS 012.
I, Jonny and zaay are about the only people who have managed to stick to this discussion.
I dont see what that is supposed to mean. Also, you, my friend, have gone on record as A.) being RUDE to me when I was indeed quite polite to you at badscience B.) refusing to discuss with me over at badscience, which was what, a month ago? C.) are back here, so you are in a set of examples that DOES NOT INCLUDE Jonny and Zaay. Jonny can find no further contradictions, and either can Zaay, as in, my arguments are still advancing, and those arguments are now integrated and dissolved.
Everyone else is convinced that you are a a boneheaded, self-important ignoramus who is simply posting to shore up his ego.
If that is true, that is totally appropiate for them to think that. By the way, those again are perfect examples of *false ideas*
The number of people who have dismissed you are a troll far, far exceeds the number of people with whom you have reached any sort of understanding.
Perfect, absolutly perfect. I wonder how many of those people have actual critical arguments that can advance in the discussion, however.
I'm still undecided on the matter, but troll or not, I can't say that I like, agree with, or even particularly understand you.
Well, you certainly dont understand me, that is certain, and I understand you quite well so far. I however, do sort of like you, although your personality could use a bit more flavor. Yet you apparently agree with me on many things regarding OS 012 so far.
What is your problem with accepting the the empirical evidence that, if this is a test of OS012/tit-for-tat in internet discussion, it does not work!
to say it does not work would also mean to suggest that you understand the goal. What is the 'goal' of this strategy to say it is not working? can you tell me?
Tit for tat is just one aspect of this. The other aspect is the behavior relative to idea, the conflict of idea. I dont know of any formalized game that addresses our behavior in relationship to idea. I myself cannot formalize it on my own. It involves behavorial psychology,cognition, and mathematics. But it's also natural, so intuitive people can (and have) picked up on it quite easily. It's just dialectic, natural.
It took me this long because you have not presented it so badly.
ummm, thanks???
The same as at badscience, you presented it so badly that the only thing that people could do was respond to your completely inadequate description of it, which they did.
they reacted to it, and FAILED TO ASK QUESTIONS, rather, ASSUMED the MEANING OF THE TEXT as opposed to MY MEANING OF THE TEXT. and there was one exception at badscience, and that was Wholly, who asked questions, and still emails me once or twice here and there to this day. he got the technique, he spotted it right away, he is an old fan of Robert Anton Wilson, TIm Leary, Mckenna, all of those 'trickster' storytellers and philosophers.
Only now has it become (vaguely) understandable, the meaning shouldn't have to be "gleaned" it should be clear.
I bet if you go back and reread the badsciece discussion, you will have a completly different impression than you do now. I have explained this in COMMON non TECHNICAL LANGUAGE, and have had to explain it through your reactions for over three months now, and YOU FINALLY GET IT (barely, but at least a little bit) throught this process.
What did I write at the end of the memetics thread? In response to someone requesting me 'work it out' with Ray? I said I cant force him to discuss with me, but there are ways to strategize the discussion so people will come back to it. That was after ALL of you left the OS 012 memetics discussion. THEN, ALL OF YOU CAME BACK HERE TO DISCUSS IT, right?
That's not magic, well, perhaps it's 'magick' in one sense (as in Neuro-Linguistic Programming), but it's simply strategy, a psychological and memetic strategy that I am quite open about, it's a strategy for the conflict of idea, it's like Aikido, it appears counter intuitive at first, yet it works, i cannot deny that, to deny that would be to deny four years of direct experience of this working.
For example, when it first started, i said that if this works, that means that statistically, I should be able to watch OS 012 spread from my 'kitchen' at the time (where I had my computer), to a world official through simple social networking. And that happened, twice. An israeli soldier, whom I am still in contact with to this day, gave OS 012 to Ariel Sharon on two occasions. Keep in mind, this is all from a handfull of discussions. I think I had 5 discussions going at once when this started, and to this day, I imagine those discussions account for the majority of the viral activity on this four years later.
For example, since the badscience discussions, OS 012 is viral in England, and I have had over 150 unique visits from england since our discussions.
You see, to us, this is a discussion, but for others reading (I dont have proof of this, but my experience is that there are far more people reading this than participating in it), this is more like a show, with drama, fighting, comedy, tension, education, and resolution. Group discussions are highly effective ways to spread ideas around the world in a short period of time.
That too is part of this strategy.
What is clear is that by my "getting there" you mean "agreeing with you".
not neccesarily so. When two rational, honest points of view discuss, there will be things they can agree on (1), things to disagree on (2),and things to mutually wonder about (0). So when I say agree with me, I mean all three things.
Jonny and me have agreement on the math of OS 012, yet Jonny doesnt see how this can work. That's fine, that's just his 2 value, and that is not important for us to agree on the objective things about this.
I doubt that the concept that I might understand it and completely disagree with it or dismiss it as worthless hasn't really entered your head.
Your current model of OS 012 is kinda close, but also still tainted with irrationality, confused as rationality. or rather, you have personal creativity you are assigning an objective value. Your personal creativity is perfect, it's just not objectivity, and that is what OS 012 allows for us to distinguish.
Most of the time we dont!
Of course not because for me to do that would be "irrational"!
if y ou would ask questions instead of making assumptions, you and me would have perfect agreement. By perfect agreement, i mean we would come to see exactly where our mutual and shared 0's, 1's, and 2's are.
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.
I think that pretty much says it all.
It most certainly does. OS 012 is simple, anyone can come to understand it, but since OS 012 is a METALOGIC, METAPHILOSOPHY, many find they come to understand many many other things quite easily.
You didn't like or understand the logic that everyone else uses so you invented your own one.
quite incorrect. I did not invent OS 012, rather, OS 012 is a naturally occuring process in all sentient beings. I didnt invent ternary logic, someone else did. OS 012 is natural, but for somereason, we dont have a mutual language that we use which can address it.
Along the way you have hijacked the terminology to try to make it look as if it actually has the same level of validity.
I have hi jacked nothing. Most things in OS 012 exist in other academic frameworks. I am abusing nothing, I am stretching the limits of nothing.
There is no rational argument against OS 012. To refute OS 012 is to prove it correct. It's a metalogic, recursive.
Now you're simply adopting a boneheaded refusal to see anything wrong with it or just claim that everything mentioned supports it.
define what is wrong in OS 012, and the correction will be made.
Since there is nothing in there to actually discuss... I won't.
This discussion will continue on in your mind until there is resolution, either with me or without me, the choice is yours.
BF
