Skepticism and The Normal

[jimbob]

Sloppy language is sometimes symptomatic of sloppy thinking.

Jim

sheesh, look who's talkin'

Do you want to get into specifics?

I have external evidence for my linguistic competence, whilst you have previously admitted your poor grasp of language.

For example:
What does this mean?

OS 012 distinguishes points of view into 0, 1, and 2.

There is no 'objective' machine that records 'objective' reality into an omniscent point of view, unless you are Phillip K Dick and percieve 'VALIS', which to me seems to suggest that is what you are modeling in your head as objective.

Mind created realities are mysticisms. Material or physical realities are objective

Jim

 

[WWHP]

I want to respond to these ideas regarding the third value and ternary logic.

ternary logic is a formalized system of logic. It's not a belief system, it's an actual functioning logical order. Not only is it a formalized system of logic, but there is evidence, according to a leading researcher in neurobiology that our brain circuitry is also ternary in nature.( I will provide the proper links on this once I have this information, but it has been related to me directly)

There is no classification in logic, no symbol, for a 'misstatement'. We do not classify arguments into true, false, or mistatements, and if we did, that would be ternary logic after another manner.

The example of 'she will come, she will not come' is a linguistic example, used in the aymaric language.

Ternary logic is highly mathematical in structure. It also has been shown and proven to be the basis of the Aymara Language, considered by mathematicians and linguistics alike to have a very refined and elegant logical structure. The three values of the Aymara Language also make it possible for this language to be a translation engine for ALL other languages, meaning we can translate all languages into Aymara and then back into other languages to relate accurate and grammatical meaning.

http://www.aymara.org/biblio/igr/igr3.html

So Zaay's, or anyone's arguments regarding 'misstatements', as it was ABSURDLY PUT, are philosophies, NOT logical arguments, and simply MISINFORMED regarding ternary logical structures.

You call can choose to believe what you want about your bivalent philosophy, that is your right, but to say that the 'third value' is meaninless, irrelevant, or unneccesary is IGNORANT. Not unlike ID'ers who discard EVIDENCE to fit their 'world view'.

 

[WWHP]

Could I just say that it has been a real pleasure reading over these last few pages. I've watched Bubb tie himself in knots with logic (or his absence of it), resort to ad homs in suggesting that zaay's beliefs have a bearing on the truth of zaay's statements, and, funniest of all, pulled a trick for which he has regularly upbraided other people i.e., assuming he knows what zaay really believes rather than dealing with zaay's statements (and in the process completing conflating zaay with zaay's ideas).

Zaay says he is a wiccan priest within a specific order of Wicca. I assume then that the standard beliefs of wicca are apart of his belief system.

You're arguing with the zaay in your head again ol' Bubb!

hardly. I have taken Zaay's words and prescribed objective 'meaning' to them.

Zaay, I take my hat off to you for raising, yet again, the problem of objective mystery. It was very nicely put that statements about the real world have to be true or false. You'll never get Bubb to admit it though, it clashes too greatly with the idea that OS012 is somehow objectively useful.

There is no problem with 'objective mystery', a shared 'unknown', as in 2002, 2003, WMD in Iraq was an 'objective mystery'. To say that WMD in Iraq was 'unknown' was NOT a misstatement.

And Zaay's arguements regarding the laws of the universe, falling into perfectly logical true false order, well, Godel's theory of incompletness already deals with that. Any logical order will eventually produce inconsistancies.

I can't say which of these is true yet but Bubb has made it abundantly clear that in his head OS012 cannot be refuted since to any argument it is irrational and it will simply assimilate any method of arguing that does defeat it. Hardly a basis for a rational discussion.

There is no rational argument against a logical structure.

I think I've also identified another of Bubb's little linguistic peccadilloes: "contradiction" appears to mean "something that Bubblefish doesn't agree with" rather than an actual logical or linguistic inconsistency.

contradiction means 'opposing objective reality'

Any evidence for that "law" yet Bubb?

Yes, there is evidence, all though I am not formalizng a presentation on that yet. Our brain circuitry is ternary in nature.

All ideas can only be 0, 1, or 2, because all we can percieve can only be 0, 1, or 2

Hell, I'd even settle for coherent definitions of "true", "false" and "mystery".

Mystery = unknown, true and false indistinguishable
True= the law of identity, A=A, universal
False = subjective expression or symbology, opinion, relative

.. oh, and what do you mean by "idea"?

Ideas are our 'internal media', our internal models of reality, composed of concepts and abstractions and language.

 

[WWHP]

So Bubb, you think that my definition of "objective" creates contradictions. Care to point them out?

I have been everytime they have come along.

Well, the statement ‘the world is run by repetelians’ or any of David Icke’s ‘theories’ would be objective statements in your definition. His claims are testable, so therefore the statement ‘the world is run by reptelians’ is an objective statement in your definition.

Yes, it is. What's the contradiction?

It contradicts reality. An objective statement must provide mutually viewable information for it to qualify as 'objective'. The person's intent for it to be 'objective' does not make a statement objective. According to your defnitions, the holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all full of objective statements about reality.

Bear in mind that the fact that it does not fit in with your definition of "objective" does not constitute a contradiction.

'Objective' can only refer to information which exists to all points of view. If it refers back to a belief system relative to a group, then it's not objective, is it?

Let's look at our commonly used definitions of objective...shall we?

Of or having to do with a material object.

Having actual existence or reality.

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1.

Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Now you have stated that David Icke's theories would still classify them as 'objective statements'. Yet the statements are CLEARLY CONTRADICTORY TO REALITY and DEFINITIONS OF OBJECTIVE.

Just what definition are YOU using of objective?

She will come, she will not come. That’s is an objective unknown.

No it's not. It is simply a misstatement (as Z would say).

This is very hysterical and also very euro-centric of you. First off, the phrase is from the Aymara language, which operates linguistically at a very refined level logicaly, it's a three value language.

Secondly, there is no logic of 'misstatements'. There is NO true, false, or misstatement, and if there was, it would be a multi-valued logic.

You have simply put an objective statement and it's negation next to each other like this: "X, not X". One is true, one is false, together they cover all eventualities.

Yet we dont know which one is true, and which one is false, and that is where ternary logic comes in, and bivalent logic fails, providing only 'editorial' about 'misstatements'.

And since this is inferential logic, the statement, not the relative point of view making it, is what we parse into logic. The statement 'she may come, she may not come' is ALWAYS that statement.

No, my not understanding OS012 is not really my problem for me since there's no evidence that it has any value.

Again, a strawman. I am not here trying to convince you of it's 'value'. I dont care what a bunch of fundamentalist disbelievers think. It's as if Darwin was trying to convince 'Billy Christian Sunday' that the theory of evolution is valuable to knowledge.

I am here ARGUING it's theoritical structure, and it's basis in ternary logic. You can believe what ever you want, I really dont care. I'm only interested to see if you have any rational arguments against it.

You certainly can present it since you have presented it: it has a public webpage and we are discussing one of its fundamental principles (the third value) on a public forum.

exactly, and that is what this discussion is about, the third value. Not it's value of 'qaulia'.

If our shared subjective experience is a reliable indicator of objective truth, then I'd say that all this discussion has provided evidence for is that you are a tedious, ignorant fool.

empty ad hom. Let's focus instead on your contradictory usage of the word 'objective', k?

Apologies, I thought the rational challenge was obvious from my mention of the logical inconsistency. Here it is in clearer form: "refute" is the antonym of "prove" (OED: refute = 2. To prove (a person) to be in error, to confute; 3. To disprove, overthrow by argument, prove to be false: a. a statement, opinion, etc.) therefore you cannot simultaneously refute and prove a thing with the same argument.

You have provided no logical inconsistency, rather, I have outline your last one in this post.

You can choose to defend your inconsistency, or you can concede, which is it? (or you can 'third value' it and leave the discussion, or ignore the evidence of objective reality in front of your face)

 

[WWHP]

Since you're so keen on metalogic, when are you going to provide a formal proof of OS012 for us?

Don't flatter yourself. Once this entire framework is formalized, I hardly think I will rush here to provide it to you, you all here (with the exception of Jonny) are far from my concern.

If you wish to research more of it on your own, you can start here by looking into the work of a friend of mine in Bolivia.

http://www.aymara.org/biblio/igr/igr.html

 

[flimflam_machine]

contradiction means 'opposing objective reality'

No Bubb, you're wrong again. From the oxford dictionary at askoxford.com:

Contradiction
• noun 1 a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another. 2 the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
[SIZE=-1]— PHRASES[/SIZE] contradiction in terms a statement or group of words associating incompatible objects or ideas.


Note the complete absence of anything about "reality".

Hell, I'd even settle for coherent definitions of "true", "false" and "mystery".

Mystery = unknown, true and false indistinguishable
True= the law of identity, A=A, universal
False = subjective expression or symbology, opinion, relative

What the hell, let's go to askoxford again:


Coherent
• adjective 1 (of an argument or theory) logical and consistent. 2 able to speak clearly and logically. 3 holding together to form a whole.

Ideas are our 'internal media', our internal models of reality, composed of concepts and abstractions and language.

And how do you propose to parse internal media into true, false or anything else given that they are "internal" and therefore not available for scrutiny. You could of course try parsing overt statements, or premises like every other logician.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Don't flatter yourself. Once this entire framework is formalized, I hardly think I will rush here to provide it to you, you all here (with the exception of Jonny) are far from my concern.

If you wish to research more of it on your own, you can start here by looking into the work of a friend of mine in Bolivia.

http://www.aymara.org/biblio/igr/igr.html

So, you have been continuing to reference the metalogic of OS012 when it is not yet formalized?

ETA: Oh, and

If our shared subjective experience is a reliable indicator of objective truth, then I'd say that all this discussion has provided evidence for is that you are a tedious, ignorant fool.

empty ad hom. Let's focus instead on your contradictory usage of the word 'objective', k?

Is not an ad hom in that FFM is saying your arguments show you to be an "ignorant fool", not that your arguments are wrong because you are an "ignorant fool." For someone so interested in formal logic, you certainly seem to have a poor grasp of logical fallacies.

 

[flimflam_machine]

It contradicts reality [and therefore cannot be objective]. An objective statement must provide mutually viewable information for it to qualify as 'objective'.

Well given that I've just refuted your notion of what "contradiction" means we'll ignore the first part shall we? What do you mean by a statement "provides" mutually viewable information? It might "refer to"such information e.g., the statement "all ravens are made of rock" refers to mutually viewable information (the composition of ravens) and is also false.

Just what definition are YOU using of objective?

Clunky sentence, try "Just what definition of "objective" are you using?". To answer let's quote you again:

Let's look at our commonly used definitions of objective...shall we?

Quote:
Of or having to do with a material object.

Yup, that one, although I'd add "in terms not dependent on personal preference". So the statement "all ravens are made of rock" has to do with ravens and rock (which are not subjective terms since we have common criteria for them) and is also false.

Going back to Jonny's definitions from page 5:

"intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book."

"of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object."

Notice how "all ravens are made of rock"

i) deals with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

and

ii) pertains to something that can be known i.e., the composition of ravens, and to an object i.e., ravens

Crucially, please note that none of these definitions specify that objective statements have to accurately or truthfully describe objects or things external to the mind, just that they have to pertain to or deal with them.

Yet we dont know which one is true, and which one is false, and that is where ternary logic comes in, and bivalent logic fails, providing only 'editorial' about 'misstatements'.

Blimey Bubb, how many times does this have to be said. The fact that we don't know which of "She will come" and "She will not come" is true does not preclude the very basic fact that one of them is true and one of them is false. Either she'll come or she won't and she won't remain in a state of pseudo- or semi-comeness just because you don't know which is true. The real world (quantum effects aside) is the way it is and therefore statements about it are either true or false.

Aymara logic is very interesting for describing our uncertainty about things, from your link: "people will be content with conclusions arrived at from modal premises whenever it is not possible to make inferences from true clear-cut premises, because of a lack of information or where aspects of contingency are involved." Notice the reference to "lack of information" and "contingency" and that this is applicable when we don't have "clear cut premises". People already deal pretty effectively with a degree of uncertainty in their daily lives Bubb, how is your system going to help?

Apologies, I thought the rational challenge was obvious from my mention of the logical inconsistency. Here it is in clearer form: "refute" is the antonym of "prove" (OED: refute = 2. To prove (a person) to be in error, to confute; 3. To disprove, overthrow by argument, prove to be false: a. a statement, opinion, etc.) therefore you cannot simultaneously refute and prove a thing with the same argument.

You have provided no logical inconsistency, rather, I have outline your last one in this post.

Not too perceptive, are you Bubb. You said "To refute OS012 is to prove it correct." Since "refute" means exactly the opposite of "prove it correct" this is fundamentally logically inconsistent. In fact it is a "contradiction in terms" (see my previous post if you're unclear what that means).

You can choose to defend your inconsistency, or you can concede, which is it? (or you can 'third value' it and leave the discussion, or ignore the evidence of objective reality in front of your face).

Consider my position defended. What are you going to do: admit that you're mistaken about your use of language and that you presented an obviously logically falacious statement, or continue with the blather and try to bully me into submission? If anyone is ignoring objective reality Bubb, it's you.

Oh, and thanks Arkan. You've been an invaluable source of knowledge for such matters. It is quite cute that Bubb has tried to pick up on such methods of spotting meaningless twaddle, shame he's not going to bother reading back over all his past posts to do the same.

 

[WWHP]

Before I get to the other posts, I want to re clarify my question to Zaay. I ask this question to seek an answer, and whose answer will either prove, or disprove, my level of clarity on the issue.

If zay has addressed this already, I am unaware of it, so let me ask therefore again.


Zay, do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?

If your answer is no, please explain.

If you answer is yes, then please provide a working definition of how you define 'objective reality'.

Then kindly explain how your definition of either answer, yes or no, fit into the framework of the wiccan cosmology as you personally see it, and then distinguish that from your argument which attempts to refute ternary logic.


Again, I am not intereseted in Zaay's fake arguments about bivalency vs trivalency. He is niether mathematician nor logician, nor does his personal philosophy contain arguments supported by western academic philosophy.

What I am interested in is Zaay's contradictions, his contradiction in his arguments as opposed to what he personally believes to be true.

If Zaay fails to provide commentary on this issue, then he can only default his argument, for absence of argument is absence of argument, and one's rational arguments cannot considered to b e truly rational arguments if they cannot advance in honest and rational tit for tat exchange.

 

[Z]

Oh, I get it, a mail order priest.

Actually, no. I studied directly under a second-degree priestess of the Tradition. Though I do hold ordination in ULC - as a jest, mainly - my credentials are legal, valid, and filed with the Ohio state government.

And I'm available to do handfastings, handpartings, funereal rites, Wiccanings, and other religious ceremonies upon request in the Greater Cincinnati area, by donation only (no charge), if anyone is interested.

 

[Z]

Yet many of your fellow 'wiccans' hold the most glorious examples of what would be called 'woo' by most likely every single member of this forum.

Yes, they do. And I don't agree with much of what many of my fellow wiccans believe.

That doesn't change anything.

Wicca is a very large and diverse body, Rome. Wiccans welcome diversity of belief - something you cannot seem to accept.

To me, this is evidence of your inner conflict, and you project your own judgements you most likely have of yourself to others so you can harmonize your conflict with the opposites.

You're welcome to that opinion, but it's wrong.

Wonderful. Other people call it 'The Secret DVD' and there is a thread bashing those people right now on this forum. Shouldnt you go defend your belief structure to them rationally?

Why? Haven't seen it, not interested in seeing it, not my fight.

Shouldn't you focus on trying to get everyone to understand how a system based on subjective statements is somehow not subjective?

well I want you to come out of the closet with me then (erf, that sounds weird;-) I want you to argue your 'woo' on the line and honestly address the conflict you have with OS 012.

My 'woo' has no conflict with this. OS012 is not a part of any wooism I hold dear. It's external to me, and belongs to you.

What I address is the logical inconsistancy and purely subjective nature of your theory. It has no bearing on my beliefs whatsoever.

The conflict you have with OS 012 is mystical in nature, you just dont have the cajones to admit that, so you create the false logic argument which is just completly absurd.

Seems you're the only one here who thinks that.

 

[Z]

OS 012. Ternary Logic.

Mystery, True, False

0, 1, and 2.

On the tree of life, KETER, CHOCKMAH, and BINAH.
In Taoism, TAO, YIN, YANG

where ya been?

Ah, I see.

Metalogic = Bullsquat.

Got it.

It's even in your own systems of magic. sheesh.

Not in MY system of magic...

 

[Z]

One of the reasons I harp on this with Zaay, is because what Zaay actually believes is true is closer to a third value system.



Polytheism, yeah, I get that. And those are the FALSE IDEAS metalogiclly, each and every single one of them, all FALSE ideas, all having ONE source, all combining in MYSTERY.

It's in your own belief system, three values. I cant wait to you get it, you are going to want to write "OS 012 and the Occult, A mail order guide for Pagans";-)

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



Metalogic is found in all things, mystical or logical.

Now I KNOW you're losing it.

You are fried, Rome. Lay of the 'luudes, dude.

 

[Z]

I want to respond to these ideas regarding the third value and ternary logic.

ternary logic is a formalized system of logic. It's not a belief system, it's an actual functioning logical order. Not only is it a formalized system of logic, but there is evidence, according to a leading researcher in neurobiology that our brain circuitry is also ternary in nature.( I will provide the proper links on this once I have this information, but it has been related to me directly)

There is no classification in logic, no symbol, for a 'misstatement'. We do not classify arguments into true, false, or mistatements, and if we did, that would be ternary logic after another manner.

The example of 'she will come, she will not come' is a linguistic example, used in the aymaric language.

Ternary logic is highly mathematical in structure. It also has been shown and proven to be the basis of the Aymara Language, considered by mathematicians and linguistics alike to have a very refined and elegant logical structure. The three values of the Aymara Language also make it possible for this language to be a translation engine for ALL other languages, meaning we can translate all languages into Aymara and then back into other languages to relate accurate and grammatical meaning.

http://www.aymara.org/biblio/igr/igr3.html

So Zaay's, or anyone's arguments regarding 'misstatements', as it was ABSURDLY PUT, are philosophies, NOT logical arguments, and simply MISINFORMED regarding ternary logical structures.

You call can choose to believe what you want about your bivalent philosophy, that is your right, but to say that the 'third value' is meaninless, irrelevant, or unneccesary is IGNORANT. Not unlike ID'ers who discard EVIDENCE to fit their 'world view'.

There's no such thing as a misstatement?

"Apples windowpane celery run the monkey vonKempler Wednesday."

How would you classify that?

Interesting, your notes about the Aymara language - having never heard of these people before, I looked them up. Too bad they're in conflict with their governments - they're likely to die off in a few generations, the way things are going.

Also interesting that a quick inquiry at the local university turned up nada on the Aymara at all until late this afternoon, in which a professor of anthropology mentioned that they were a small South American tribe of little importance or significance.

So your source that 'mathematicians and linguistics alike' have a high regard for this little known tribe's language? Just curious, mind you.

"She will come, she will not come" is a misstatement in this form, Rome, whether you like it or not.

 

[Z]

Zaay says he is a wiccan priest within a specific order of Wicca. I assume then that the standard beliefs of wicca are apart of his belief system.

You should be careful making assumptions.

So, Rome, what are the 'standard beliefs of Wicca'?

Go ahead, list the standards. We'll be waiting.

hardly. I have taken Zaay's words and prescribed objective 'meaning' to them.

...and INSISTED that my ideas should be a part of my arguments against your ideas.

In other words, conflating me with my ideas, something you have spoken against earlier.

Hypocrite.

There is no problem with 'objective mystery', a shared 'unknown', as in 2002, 2003, WMD in Iraq was an 'objective mystery'. To say that WMD in Iraq was 'unknown' was NOT a misstatement.

I understand now - YOU'RE not using 'Objective' to mean 'outside of any individual viewpoint/s'; YOU'RE using 'Objective' to mean 'a shared subjective viewpoint.'

No WONDER you're all messed up!

(And it is a misstatement - Properly, the statement should read something like, "It was unknown to us whether there were WMDs in Iraq in 2002-2003".

This, then, is a true statement.)

 

[Z]

Before I get to the other posts, I want to re clarify my question to Zaay. I ask this question to seek an answer, and whose answer will either prove, or disprove, my level of clarity on the issue.

If zay has addressed this already, I am unaware of it, so let me ask therefore again.


Zay, do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?

Already answered it. Put the crack pipe down and go look it up.

 

[WWHP]

Oh Brother flim, you're really sinking fast here...

No Bubb, you're wrong again. From the oxford dictionary at askoxford.com:

Contradiction
• noun 1 a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another. 2 the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
[SIZE=-1]— PHRASES[/SIZE] contradiction in terms a statement or group of words associating incompatible objects or ideas.


Note the complete absence of anything about "reality".

Erf, notice the word 'features' or 'ideas' which are OPPOSED to one another. I could be mistaken, but I think all features occur in objective reality.

Double Erf, your previous post refrence how you determined my meaning of 'contradiction', so I responded that I note a contradiction when a statement is OPPOSED to objective reality. As in, your statements are CONTRARY to direct observations about objective reality.

Third 'erf', words are not DESCRIPTIONS of THINGS, they are PRESCRIPTIONS for things, meaning, if you want to study 'objective reality' or CONTRADICTIONS, you dont open the dictionairy, rather, you take a course or two at university (or, hehe, hop on an OS 012 discussion, garunteed to get you there in a tenth of the time)

Coherent
• adjective 1 (of an argument or theory) logical and consistent. 2 able to speak clearly and logically. 3 holding together to form a whole.

fourth 'erf'. To assume a logical inconsistancy in another's argument, simply show the contradiction deductivly. i.e. going to a dictionairy will not help you determine the value of this logic.

To make sure you dont make a gazillion more 'erfs', try reading a bit in the social communication problems that have arise between Aymaric speaking peoples and spanish speaking peoples in South America. What has happened is that the Aymaric people's logic is ternary, and the spanish binary, and for a few hundred years, the spanish simply CANNOT UNDERSTAND the modalities of the aymaric peoples, but the aymaric peoples understand the spanish just fine.

http://www.aymara.org/biblio/igr/igr.html

So, if you want to understand three value metalogic, then you need to take off your bivalent goggles, until you do, you havent a hope to understand it.

And how do you propose to parse internal media into true, false or anything else given that they are "internal" and therefore not available for scrutiny.

our ideas are available for scrutiny when we crunch them into text, and then we let the tit for tat methodology of the discussion allow all of us to come into mutual understanding via such scrutiny.

You could of course try parsing overt statements, or premises like every other logician.

OS 012's main emphasis is on the 'meaning' of the statement relative to the observer making it, and the observer contemplating it. Ternary logic can be used to parse all statements inferentially, however, that's not my focus or ability.

 

[WWHP]

Well given that I've just refuted your notion of what "contradiction" means we'll ignore the first part shall we?

You hardly refuted anything, you got attached to words and language and hardly considered the 'meaning' of contradiction in my sentences. You stumbled, erfed, and once again swung so blindly that I think they should pass a law in England against baseball bats in your presence.

What do you mean by a statement "provides" mutually viewable information?

See, that's a nicer start. You should begin with your questions instead of ending with them!

And what I mean is simple. Any statement whose content and form reflects either a conceptual or physical mutual visability. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mutually observable concept. the word at the end of this sentence is this. mutually observable to all points of view. Any statement whose content and form contains or signifies or refrences any conceptual or physical object that is mutually agreed upon and viewable in potentiality or actuality.

Now, ask yourself, what gives 'agreeable' observations their mutually shared component? Existence. It's existence is observable, and it's existence is distinguishable soley to itself. A = A. One for all. This is objective reality, ONE reality that we all share in common, whose truth values signfied are always TRUE, which we call in OS 012 a 1.

It might "refer to"such information e.g., the statement "all ravens are made of rock" refers to mutually viewable information (the composition of ravens) and is also false.

"All ravens are made of rock" is a subjective statement. Sure, it contains some information that is mutually viewable (as all statements MUST to be considered at all), such as ravens and rocks, but the statement in full says ravens are rocks, or raven's existence is the existence of rocks, which is NOT mutually observable. Rather, the statement is a subjective idea, most likely used in poetry or prose, which ORDERS arrangments of shared truths (ravens, rocks (1)) into a SYMBOL, IMAGE, or METAPHOR (2, all ravens are rocks) to communicate a personal truth, feeling, or experience.

Clunky sentence, try "Just what definition of "objective" are you using?". To answer let's quote you again:

Look, homeboy, slightly correcting or altering my grammar does not change the rational query, stop swinging blindly at irrelevancies. And how can you answer my question with one of my statements? That's irrational. I want you to define objective reality in YOUR OWN TERMS, and y ou did previously, and produced about 5 billion contradictions in reality once you did.

So, okay, you wish to soley include 5 in the dictionairy regarding reality "Of or having to do with a material object."

Yup, that one, although I'd add "in terms not dependent on personal preference"."
".

So, in your words, your meaning of objective is:

Of or having to do with a material object in terms not dependent on personal preference.

So you stating then that an objective statement must contain a truth in content regarding it's signified, i.e. it's signified MUST be some mutually observable object, correct?

So the statement "all ravens are made of rock" has to do with ravens and rock (which are not subjective terms since we have common criteria for them) and is also false.

So therefore, ALL statements are now objective statements, according to your INTEPRETATION of your own definition, which is deviant from it. Again, a contradiction, your own 'meaning' of your 'definition' contradicts the definition you give!

So now, I can say that 'all girls are really tall boys and all tall boys are really girls' is also an objective statement in your meaning. Right?

You have just turned virtually significant portions in every Doctor Suess book into a library of objectivity.

Well Done!

Going back to Jonny's definitions from page 5:

Why go back to Jonny? He didnt rebut the arguments which contradicted his, now you are making me do the same work twice!

"intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book."

all girls are really tall boys and all tall boys are really girls.

And let's decontruct this meaning further. 'intent' upon, as in the objectivity of one's statement is soley dependent upon the intention of the person making it! How absurd to think so. When I was 3, it was my intention to be right when trying to add, so I said 2 + 2 = 8. That's still an objective sentence to this day, because it 'intends' to be objective, right?

"of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object."

all girls are really tall boys and all tall boys are really girl is not something that can be known, for it simply is not true or known to exist, yet, it follows the same logical form as does...

Notice how "all ravens are made of rock"

That's the problem, no one will ever notice that ravens are made of objective rock, it's not consistant with reality.

i) deals with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

"all ravens are made of rocks" is soley a mind created reality, and therefore, is a negation of this definition

ii) pertains to something that can be known i.e., the composition of ravens, and to an object i.e., ravens

The composition of ravens is not known to be rock, therefore, the statement 'all ravens are made of rocks' cannot come to be known as anything other than a poetic phrase or subjective expression.

Crucially, please note that none of these definitions specify that objective statements have to accurately or truthfully describe objects or things external to the mind, just that they have to pertain to or deal with them.

it's assumed that they must be accurate to describe what it is that's prescribed to the word! erf erf erf erf. You get four erf's for that one. You also get a fifth 'erf' for failing to notice that none of those definitions contradict with mine.

Blimey Bubb, how many times does this have to be said. The fact that we don't know which of "She will come" and "She will not come" is true does not preclude the very basic fact that one of them is true and one of them is false.

but you dont know which one of them is true, and which one of them is false, so therefore, there is no binary logical operation which can account for it. Unless you want to invent the 'misstatement' operation.

And when you dont know what the CERTAIN logical t, f, value is, you now have a ternary logic which can operate effeciently and mathematically inside of it.

Either she'll come or she won't and she won't remain in a state of pseudo- or semi-comeness just because you don't know which is true.

huh? In the future, when you upgrade to ternary, you wont have such difficulty saying the simplest of things, as in 'we dont know if she will come or not'

The real world (quantum effects aside) is the way it is and therefore statements about it are either true or false.

Well this is not true, because you will find many statements where it is simply impossible to determine it's logical value on the form of the phrase, such as "Tommorow, I shall buy an ice coffee".

You're understanding of true, false is very rigid and locked, and does not include a way for you to stay rational and logical inside of time and space. It gives you no way to deal with uncertainty (which naturally made you wish to put QM aside). And also, according to Godel, it will eventually produce inconsistancies.

Aymara logic is very interesting for describing our uncertainty about things, from your link: "people will be content with conclusions arrived at from modal premises whenever it is not possible to make inferences from true clear-cut premises, because of a lack of information or where aspects of contingency are involved." Notice the reference to "lack of information" and "contingency" and that this is applicable when we don't have "clear cut premises".

exactly, uncertainties.

People already deal pretty effectively with a degree of uncertainty in their daily lives Bubb, how is your system going to help?

Huh? boy are your standards low. Look at the world around you, we are mangling uncertainty left and right, the war in Iraq is the best example.

We strategize in binary, which cannot account for the uncertainty conceptually, so we naturally fail to incude uncertainty into our logic and framework.

Uncertainty is a CONSTANT.

Not too perceptive, are you Bubb.

ohh no, not at all. just a kid.

You said "To refute OS012 is to prove it correct."

Yes, that is my claim

Since "refute" means exactly the opposite of "prove it correct" this is fundamentally logically inconsistent.

Rather, it is logical to account for both of them when both of them apply. First off, OS 012 is a dialectic for the conflict of idea, which ASSUMES the truth that there will NATURALY BE REBUTS to it's princaples, regardless of thier truth value. So here, any rebut is evidence of this princaple.

Secondly, any rebut which the framework recieves which proves itself to be logical and more effecient simply gets upgraded into the framework

In fact it is a "contradiction in terms" (see my previous post if you're unclear what that means).

It is a paradox, rather. According to your meanings here, then the Socratic Irony " I know that I do not know" is also a contradiction in terms, and relates absolutly no truth what so ever.

Consider my position defended.

Well, if that was your last shot, let's have a party, because your ideas about reality are FALSE IDEAS that you BELIEVE TO BE TRUE.

Whoo hooo, now you can upgrade to the dominant and master meme, beers are on me

What are you going to do: admit that you're mistaken about your use of language and that you presented an obviously logically falacious statement, or continue with the blather and try to bully me into submission?

Nah, just the THIRD OPTION that you missed, simply show where your statements provide contradictions in objective reality.

If anyone is ignoring objective reality Bubb, it's you.

Now we encounter this other behaviorial phenomenon in this process, which is projection in the Fruedian sense. Very interesting, this process, very interesting in this regard!

When the opponent begins to project, they dont realize that they are revealing perfectly accurate and objective information about thier meta reality.

Oh, and thanks Arkan. You've been an invaluable source of knowledge for such matters.

He has hardly provided even the slighest of meaninful commentary.

It is quite cute that Bubb has tried to pick up on such methods of spotting meaningless twaddle, shame he's not going to bother reading back over all his past posts to do the same.

Oh I can asssure you I will go over these threads more than once, and record every single algorithm in them.

Cheers! Where should we have beers?

BF

 

[Zep]

What, you still here, BF? Gosh, I would have thought you would have learned you are down a well and digging by now. You should really quit while you're behind.

However, carry on if you must...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>He has hardly provided even the slighest of meaninful commentary.<snip>

It's your loss if you won't correct your logically fallacious arguments when they are pointed out to you.