Skepticism and The Normal

[flimflam_machine]

What are you guys doing with these things? It's fascinating. Much more interesting than the actual discussion

Damn right it is! But if you want to join in you'll have to wait until the next chukka. In any case it's jim's move.

 

[WWHP]

No, this is not a strawman (or a pipe). This is you making up your own definitions for words. You're such a gnumatestalist!

I may phrase meaning of words into my own language, but I do not redefine them. I dont need to state over and over what I 'mean' by contradiction, i have said that when I point out a contradiction, I call it a contradiction because it is 'opposing' or 'contradictory' to what we all can OBSERVE in reality.

If you want to mangle that in your mind for you to be right, then please do so.

How can a statement "contain" an event?

via information about an event. stop boring me- address the critical argument, not the argument of bubblefish in your head.

 

[flimflam_machine]

true, the last man standing wins a fight, not an argument. but in an argument, the last truth advancing is clearly the winning argument.

Ahhhhhhhhh! So it's about winning, not about being right or finding truth. That explains a lot!

If you want to mangle that in your mind for you to be right, then please do so.

No need Bubb, you've given it all the mangling it can safely handle.

If you are correct, and I am incorrect, how is it that I dont produce contradictions to reality, and you do?

I'm not the one adding bits onto the definition of "contradiction" to try to hammer reality into a shape that fits my argument.

 

[jimbob]

Putney-Bridge?

Charing Cross!!

 

[WWHP]

Please explain what this means? the 'truth' of the opponent that is in conflict is DIRECTLY confronted, and one NEVER backs down from confronting a truth in conflict until it is either synthesized or rebuted

IT means that truth values are confronted, not ignored. By confronted, I mean that tit for tat, dialectic, is used to address each truth put forward by an opponent.

Bubba, language is only of use if it is used to COMMUNICATE, this means that making up meanings for words is is counterproconstructionificationist

I would like to know ONE meaning of a word that I use in OS 012 that is contradictory to what is in the dictionary.

Go ahead, find it.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Not up to your usual standards jim! I'm disappointed.

Shall we let wwitzke come in for a single rubber and see how (s)he fares?

Or is it back to me?

Edit: wwitzke, I do apologise I shouldn't have assumed that you are a gentleman. There is of course plenty of room for ladies in the game too.

 

[WWHP]

Ahhhhhhhhh! So it's about winning, not about being right or finding truth. That explains a lot!

it certainly does, especially when the dialectic is structured like a game, and the value of win is likend to the value of obtaining truth.

That is how, either way, i win the argument, correct or incorrect. Same is true for you if you were not so irrational

No need Bubb, you've given it all the mangling it can safely handle.
.

Yeah, keep repeating that it's my mangling of language that is producing YOUR contradictions to reality. That's magical thinking, perhaps you should powwow with Zaay and at least get a cool costume while you do it!

 

[flimflam_machine]

You've still got to explain how language can be in contradiction to reality Bubb. We, as a species, can choose to define words anyway we want, a function that you appear to be taking on single-handed. As noble as that is, it doesn't really work if only you do it.

 

[WWHP]

Johnny, they are just both so close to dyscovering their own metalogic that their subconscous was scared by it and made them remove themselves from the dialectic.

Yes, this is actually something to be considered. Yet the tit for tat draws them back into the discussion, putting 'ego' in checkmate, so to speak.

The 'ego' is tERRORfied of being 'wrong', and will avoid dealing with the confrontation that will allow them to view that truth. Yet the conflict of idea, which I liken to a powerful urge almost like the sex drive, will insure that they will eventually come to deal with the information at hand.

But don't worry it will keep going around in their heads until they "get it". I know, I was like them, but now I have seen the light.

I wish to challenge you then, that you do indeed 'get it'. care to explain what it is you are getting?

I was awake all last night with all these thoughts buzzing round my head once I realised the truth of what bubblefish was saying.

hehe, not the first time I have heard that. Hey, did you get the 'shock' effect? Somepeople have reported a bit of a shock or 'scare'. check out the deoxy discussions, you'll see. And it is shocking enough to produce a scare, if at the same time it just wasnt so damn funny.

 

[flimflam_machine]

it certainly does, especially when the dialectic is structured like a game, and the value of win is likend to the value of obtaining truth.

So you genuinely believe that if you respond to everyone else's arguments in a way that satisfies you and not them that proves that you are right?

Oh my, what a shock!

Some things I know are true!
Some things I know are false!
Some things I know I don't know whether they are true or false!

Which meeeeeeeeans, because I hold my own experience so highly, that they must be neither true and neither false!

 

[WWHP]

You've still got to explain how language can be in contradiction to reality Bubb.

If you are defining and stating that 'ravens are made of rocks', you need the words 'ravens' and 'rocks' and 'made of' as a connector. That statement is contradictory to reality. Language itself in princaple is not contradictory nor consistent, it's it's usage that is. Language is language, reality is reality. We use language to communicate reality

We, as a species, can choose to define words anyway we want, a function that you appear to be taking on single-handed.

oh, so when I state that, I am humpty dumpty, when you state that, you are an...'objectivist'?

As noble as that is, it doesn't really work if only you do it.

Again, are you going to show how my definitions CONTRADICT or are INCONSISTANT with reality? You do realize that saying it over and over without providing an objective refrence is a HIGHLY subjective affair, right?

Flim, you can write that a thousand more times, and it still will not make it true. Yet you are so attached to language and your feelings, you are compelled to, your feelings are what you are valuing your objective truths on, and that is what we call irrational.

BF

 

[JonnyFive]

I would like to know ONE meaning of a word that I use in OS 012 that is contradictory to what is in the dictionary.

Go ahead, find it.

"Subjective" does not mean "false".

 

[jimbob]

Not up to your usual standards jim! I'm disappointed.

Shall we let wwitzke come in for a single rubber and see how (s)he fares?

Or is it back to me?

Edit: wwitzke, I do apologise I shouldn't have assumed that you are a gentleman. There is of course plenty of room for ladies in the game too.

The more the merrier, as far as I am concerned...

 

[WWHP]

So you genuinely believe that if you respond to everyone else's arguments in a way that satisfies you and not them that proves that you are right?

Well it certainly means that my truths can advance in continued tit for tat exchange, and at the very least, they are a contender for truth, yes. Who knows, perhaps someone else can come along with a more effecient value.

There is, or there must be, some algorythm that could account for it. If one is defending a false idea believed to be true, there is a limited number of rationalizations. If one is defending a true idea that is really true, there are almost an infinite number of ways to express or define it, as truth is observable to many different points of view, each point of view capable of a unique expression or meaning.

Oh my, what a shock!
Some things I know are true!
Some things I know are false!
Some things I know I don't know whether they are true or false!

Which meeeeeeeeans, because I hold my own experience so highly, that they must be neither true and neither false!

Please avoid parsing OS 012 into your subjective and irrational wordings, you are not helping anyone when you do that.

If you have a problem with ternary logic, then you have a problem with logic, period. and your arguments are closer to believers arguments who cannot except the logic of science or mathematics.

 

[flimflam_machine]

If you are defining and stating that 'ravens are made of rocks', you need the words 'ravens' and 'rocks' and 'made of' as a connector. That statement is contradictory to reality. Language itself in princaple is not contradictory nor consistent, it's it's usage that is. Language is language, reality is reality. We use language to communicate reality

So what are fiction novels communicated in then?

We, as a species, can choose to define words anyway we want, a function that you appear to be taking on single-handed.

oh, so when I state that, I am humpty dumpty, when you state that, you are an...'objectivist'?

No Bubb, it's muy simple. The definitions of words are entirely arbitrary. There is nothing about the grapheme "pipe" that inherently refers to a smoking device (or tube for conveying liquid). But as long as we all share definitions in common we can communicate, it's great! If you choose to use a definition that is different from everyone else or use words in an amazingly cack-handed and unrefined way it doesn't work because nobody understands you.

Again, are you going to show how my definitions CONTRADICT or are INCONSISTANT with reality?

Nope, because that doesn't mean anything. I can (and have, along with many others including Jonny) shown you that your definitions are contradictory (and sometimes incomplete) with respect to everyone else's definitions.

 

[flimflam_machine]

If one is defending a false idea believed to be true, there is a limited number of rationalizations.

I think you are living proof that that is not the case!

 

[JonnyFive]

Please avoid parsing OS 012 into your subjective and irrational wordings, you are not helping anyone when you do that.

That's just standard "yes/no/unsure" simple ternary logic. OS 012 doesn't have some kind of unique claim to it.

If you have a problem with ternary logic, then you have a problem with logic, period. and your arguments are closer to believers arguments who cannot except the logic of science or mathematics.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with ternary logic. I thought you said OS 012 was more than that.

 

[flimflam_machine]

The more the merrier, as far as I am concerned...

Sweeeeeeet! wwitzke, at your pleasure.....

 

[WWHP]

"Subjective" does not mean "false".

subjective means subjective and false means false. they are just harmonies. a subjective statement is a false objective statement. a false statement is only viable as a subjective statement, and worthless as an objective one. One can infer objective falseness from a subjective statement.

since subjectivity is likend to one's inner world or experience, it is therefore the distinguishable opposite of objective, which refers to mutually observable' information in our shared environment,which can only provide what we can call 'truth'.

Our one shared environment is objective reality. Our unique environment is our internal world. Note there is one distinction for objective reality, one 'count', and very large number of 'subjective' realities experiencing it.

 

[Mojo]

true, the last man standing wins a fight, not an argument. but in an argument, the last truth advancing is clearly the winning argument.

Not necessarily: it could simply be that the other participants have given up in the face of overwhelming stupidity.

For example, have you ever heard of Chris Morris's Pro-Thick Agency?

My name's Gregory Corbish. I run the Pro-Thick Agency. It's a niche business. It's, actually we provide thick people for employment in jobs that they can do better than anyone else. For example, they're very good at winning arguments. They're too thick to realise they've lost.