Skepticism and The Normal

[Z]

Third 'erf', words are not DESCRIPTIONS of THINGS, they are PRESCRIPTIONS for things, meaning,

Where do you keep getting this definition from?

I've reviewed now over 20 different definitions for 'word', and none of them mention descriptions OR prescriptions. And the definition for 'prescriptive' and 'prescription' really doesn't relate well to words.

After all, pre- suggests 'coming before'. Words don't come before Things, Things come before Words.

The Universe existed long before Language.

We use words to describe what we observe - not the other way around. We didn't come up with 'tree', and then try to find an object that fit the word.

Just curious.

 

[WWHP]

Whatever the problems with Bubb's linguistic skills I don't think that they're the primary reason for nobody accepting or understanding his claims.

I have had a slight dyslexia for my whole life, mispills and grammer areas come with the terry tory.

It's the meening behind the statement that is relevant, not the spoiling


BF

 

[WWHP]

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

Moi? when have i admitted that?

Hey man,just cuz my style is hip and loose, don't give me abuse, dont get all square on me, I live in kicksville, see?

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

Inside of Zaay's arguments, he seemed to me to refrence objective reality as somehow the point of view which was omniscent, all knowing, the phillip k dick 'valis' was a slightly humourous refrence point.

The second line is pretty self explainatory. A mind created reality, i.e. a reality that only exists in an individuals mind that is not refrenced by objective reality is a mysticism. Mysticisms are great in poetry, art, and subjective practices that develop powerful experiences to uncover the value of being (2 value).

Mysticisms are also simple and common human errors made in perception all the time. Our minds are incredibly powerful, we can create a map of reality that looks almost like it, and it looks almost like it so much we sometimes confuse our maps of reality as reality. That will naturally happen with bivalent thinking, with it's unknown = false, or unknown =true options.

According to the theory, that is....

BF

 

[WWHP]

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.

Ahh, it's official, then, you're liscensed by the state of Ohio to practice Wicca.

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.

Do anything cool at the next burning man festival? I plan on going this year, let me know.

 

[WWHP]

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

Ternary logic is formalized, ternary logic is metalogic. I have provided numerous links already, I dont need to link them again.

I can argue that OS 012 is a metalogic, but OS 012 is not yet formalized in the academic sense of the word, but it will be soon.

For someone so interested in formal logic, you certainly seem to have a poor grasp of logical fallacies.

I'm not interested in the debating club redflags and scorecards, that's what you're good for.


BF

 

[Zep]

I have had a slight dyslexia for my whole life, mispills and grammer areas come with the terry tory.

It's the meening behind the statement that is relevant, not the spoiling


BF

So have I, so have many others. But we seem to manage all right.

 

[WWHP]

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

Then what do you share in common in terms of belief with Wicca to call yourself a Wiccan Priest?

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

sure, it's diverse, I love that, but all Wiccans must share something in common to call themselves wiccans.

What do you share in common with wiccans to call yourself a priest and lead service?

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

Shouldn't you somehow come back to the argument about the third value? then you could see your assumptions are half correct.

OS 012, you could say, was based on observations by various points of view, each one of them subjective in themselves.

Yet each point of view shares something in common with other points of view, and that point of view is called OUR point of view.

So even from your half correct statement, you can still find the 0, 1, and 2.

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.

Hmm, so you are saying that OS 012 is External to you, and SUBJECTIVE to me. So I guess OS 012 is both Objective and Subjective now, eh?

And I am sorry to say, but the 0, 1, and 2 are repeating, naturally, throughout any woo you hold dear as much as anyone else here with thier stamp collections and debating club awards.

What I address is the logical inconsistancy and purely subjective nature of your theory.

That is B**ll***◊◊◊◊ and you know it! I already gave you the six 'laws' of OS 012 dialectic. You have had more than one oppurtunity to find a contradiction, and you also have another one now.

You could also show, using deductive logic and reason, how each 'law' was purely subjective in nature, and not relative to objective reality.

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.

your arguing with the choir my friend, rational dialectic is not resolved by democracy or popular vote, rather by hard won discussion in pure honesty.

Your still hiding, zaay.

 

[Zep]

I'm not interested in the debating club redflags and scorecards, that's what you're good for.

So you are intent on ignoring everything that has gone before you, and to build your castle on a bed of fog?

 

[WWHP]

Ah, I see.

Metalogic = Bullsquat.

Got it.

Zaay, all you got is the bullsquat in your head.

metalogic equals metalogic.

Not in MY system of magic...

 

[WWHP]

Now I KNOW you're losing it.

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

Hey Zaay, instead of all of these refrences to my state of mind in your head, how about addressing and tit for tating the statement with a statement, not an opinion designed to make you look like clean and somber wiccan man.

I could be high on crack, crystal, and cocaine, and that still would not change the value of the ideas, nor would it make ternary logic any less valid or formal.

 

[Z]

I could be high on crack, crystal, and cocaine, and that still would not change the value of the ideas, nor would it make ternary logic any less valid or formal.

True - it is hard to get less than zero, isn't it?

 

[WWHP]

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

apparently you did, like I said, i find sifting through your posts tedious, and crack or no crack, your contradictions are coming.

In actuality, I do believe, very strongly, in objective reality.

Do you believe in objective reality, or do you know objective reality?

I ask you to distinguish this because you also claim to have another set of beliefs, Wicca, which I assume does not describe objective reality to you? If Wicca is not for Objective reality, what is it for?

Can you explain?

However, I don't believe that we can ever KNOW that objective reality absolutely.

So there is permanent mystery, then, you agree.

Everything we know comes filtered through our senses, through our brains, through the environment. EVERYTHING WE KNOW is subjective - that is, tainted by who and what we are.

If you mean that everything we know in the objective sense, or what we can call the objective sense, is relative to the information via our senses, nervous systems and brains, yes, I agree. That's objective reality, relative to the 'absolute objective reality' which you also state cannot be known, and relative to the individual subjective reality or experience inside of the shared set of information of nervous system and brain.

I agree because that is a third value observation, and so far, you have stated three values in your belief and knowledge system, yet you fail consistantly to acknowledge it, and when asked to acknowledge it, you produce contradictory statements.

I do think even the most rigorous sciences are shared subjective experiences, because they are.

I'm not talking about the 'experiences', I am talking about the information inside of those experiences.

Here is where you argument produces contradictions, as i see it and as i understand.

You first make a claim that OS 012 is a subjective system. You then claim that our shared experiences of reality is also a collective subjective system, or intersubjectivity. Then you claim that science is also a shared subjective system. Then you claim that OS 012 is not part of anything you believe, as it is EXTERNAL to you and SUBJECTIVE to me.

That's your argument so far. There's 0, 1, and 2's all over it, but not properly distinguished in truth value in your model, i.e. your still trying to hide your cosmology.

You so far have broken down reality into two sets. Absolute Objective Reality which can never be truly known, and then a shared subjective reality of that experience with the absolute.

Your argument is suggesting that our shared reality is an illusion of the absolute objective reality, which cannot be known.

And then you state that "In actuality, I do believe, very strongly, in objective reality"

Yet the objective reality that you refrence cannot be known, so you know then that your idea about it is your belief, your two value, of the 0 value.

That's pure mysticism. And it's beautiful, but it's not objective, and by objective I mean i n the only pure way we can ever know or use the term.

That's why they so often have to self-correct - because objective reality comes along and proves them wrong yet again.

I dont know who you mean 'they have to self correct', you mean the scientists? Anyway, Zaay, your argument is built upon three values, and you dont see it yet.

I am very familiar with your current model philosophically, it's just not complete..it's just not objective.

But objective reality is no illusion.

Yet you state that absolute objective reality is unknown, and our shared reality is subjective to our nervous systems, meaning we can only know this absolute reality THROUGH illusion.

I believe we can come to infer a great deal about objective reality.

That's a belief, because according to you, it could NEVER be known, so therefore your structure is based upon a belief system that you dont want to wish is illusion, but you admit that it is.

For example, I believe it is reasonable to infer that, if I see a tree, then there is a tree.

What is a tree in absolute objective reality?

But I also recognize that, sometimes, those inferences can be wrong.

They can be wrong, how? Because absolute objective reality can not be known.

Yup, pretty soon you are gonna be writing "OS 012 and the Occult, a Mail Order Guide for Wiccans"

 

[Zep]

[godwin]

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

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

[/godwin]

 

[sinnikal]

So you are intent on ignoring everything that has gone before you, and to build your castle on a bed of fog?

Zep, this is EXACTLY the tactic that prompted me to follow fun lovin' ol' Bubba over to this site. Over on BadScience he introduced a video of an 'experiment' which to be of value needed to be double-blinded. Despite this fundamental flaw being pointed out to him, incidentally acknowledging that he only had a 'layman's understanding' of the protocol, he insisted that this was not relevant to his argument and carried on regardless. Infuriating many on the way.
It seems to still be his tactic of choice. Perhaps it's his only tactic.

 

[WWHP]

You should be careful making assumptions.

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

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

'k

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

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

erf...zaay, your making an 'erf. Of course I am going to insist you bring YOUR ideas into YOUR arguments against OS 012, that's what i'm interested in, your ideas, your real truth values in conflict, nod this load of horse manure your baffling people with regarding what's contradictory in ternary logic.

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

dude, you are the messenger of your ideas, therefore, I insist the messenger of his ideas reveal his ideas so they can be brought into HONEST Dialectic.

Hypocrite.

erf, well your a satanist;-)

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!

right, now after you exclaim your opinion, now you have to argue it.

I know I know, your a magician, and say spells and such, you know, postive thinking. But here in this discusion, it is not simply repeating a magical phrase in your mind or writting in on page that will make it true.

What will make it true is if you can argue it and continue to advance your argument past mine, after all questions have been asked and answered honestly.

 

[WWHP]

There's no such thing as a misstatement?

sure, there is such a thing, it's just not a distinguishable category outside of true and false in bivalent logic, which you are arguing for.

"Apples windowpane celery run the monkey vonKempler Wednesday."

How would you classify that?

as an unknown, false, or true statement, depending on it's meaning or usage. It's an unknown if that is a code for something. It is true then for the writer of the code, and unknown for the viewer. If it's dribble, then it's false.

How do you classify that in bivalent logic or wicca?

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.

And just what you are making that mean in your magical little mind?

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.

Right, next time, talk to a linguist.

So your source that 'mathematicians and linguistics alike' have a high regard for this little known tribe's language?

Wikipedia to begin with.

Just curious, mind you.

you should love wikipedia then

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

In bivalent logic, it could niether be true nor false. You are arguing for bivalent logic. There is no logical category for 'misstatement' in bivalent logic, you only get true or false. calling it a misstatement is rather euro-centric. It's a misstatement in your subjective universe, in our objective universe, it is an unknown statement in ternary logic.

So, is this statement true or false?

"She may come, she may not come"

 

[WWHP]

words are not DESCRIPTIONS of THINGS, they are PRESCRIPTIONS for things.

Where do you keep getting this definition from?

It's my own rational observation, care to argue it?

I've reviewed now over 20 different definitions for 'word', and none of them mention descriptions OR prescriptions. And the definition for 'prescriptive' and 'prescription' really doesn't relate well to words.

we prescribe 'words', or small mouth noises, to things that we can distinguish. The words are not the things we distinguish, therefore, the dictionary does not describe the thing, it describes the word.

To get a description of a thing, check out wikipedia.

After all, pre- suggests 'coming before'. Words don't come before Things, Things come before Words.

Prescription:
The act of establishing official rules, laws, or directions.

The Universe existed long before Language.

who knows? Some say, in the beginning, was the word (idea).

Perhaps there was always just language and universe.

We use words to describe what we observe - not the other way around.

Huh? I thought you practiced magic? Magickal theory would state that we use words to describe what we observe, and observe what we prescribe to words.

Sheesh, those mail order wiccan services dont do much justice to magick!

We didn't come up with 'tree', and then try to find an object that fit the word.

What was the tree to us before we had the word?

Just curious.

Like I said, you will love wikipedia.


BF

 

[WWHP]

Zep, this is EXACTLY the tactic that prompted me to follow fun lovin' ol' Bubba over to this site.

stop lying, please. the tactic that brought you over here is the tit for tat methodology of OS 012.

Over on BadScience he introduced a video of an 'experiment' which to be of value needed to be double-blinded. Despite this fundamental flaw being pointed out to him, incidentally acknowledging that he only had a 'layman's understanding' of the protocol, he insisted that this was not relevant to his argument and carried on regardless.

Your high on crack. You dont even know the methods of the experiment, it was hardly clarified in the video (which I now take some responsibility for). You all were arguing that no information could have been taken from the study, regardless of the fact that 4 seasoned researchers conducted the experiment to 'fish' for something.

You were arguing philosophy, pretending to argue science, and I called you on it, and you all fumbled into silence and refusing to speak with me ever again, threatening to ban me.

And now here you are back here talking about it.

I introduced that to badscience.com because it was a valid third value event, and it took you something like 30 pages to realize i wasnt even arguing for the existence of qi, just the third value.

Infuriating many on the way.
It seems to still be his tactic of choice. Perhaps it's his only tactic.

My only tactic is the tit for tat methodology of OS 012, which I have explained openly and honestly many times.

You still fall for it too.

BF

 

[WWHP]

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

Zep! Nice to see you again. Yup, still here. I make the commitment to stay in the discussion until they get it or quit in frustration, or I get banned somehow. Nope, that's not my technique, it actually describes the group technique here I think far better.

Anywho, you of course are welcome to join the discussion regarding the third value of truth and how most skeptic's arguments crumble when placed into the third category. What crumbles is not skepticism, rather the illusion of skepticism that you have.

Only ternary thinkers could be considered the true skeptics. See, we are skeptical about ALL claims, our own claims first, and then the claims of others, be they psychics or scientists, academics or asses.

I can't wait til you critical thinkers catch up.

BF

 

[sinnikal]

Sorry Bubb, my bad. Of course what I should have said was prevarication is his only tactic.