Skepticism and The Normal

[JonnyFive]

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.

"Subjective" doesn't mean "objectively false" either. There is a very distinct difference. "Subjective" implies only that the statement pertains to the thinker, not the object of thought.

Anyway, you asked for something that wasn't in the dictionary, and neither "false" nor "objectively false" is a definition for the word "subjective".

ETA: Unless, of course, you're using some freaky-ass dictionary.

 

[WWHP]

So what are fiction novels communicated in then?

words used in the 2 value, as opposed to the encyclopedia where words are used in the 1 value.

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!

agreed

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.

you still can't keep harping on this point. Any framework must define it's usage and stick with that usage to avoid being internally inconsistant. The framework of OS 012, therefore, must define it's terminology on its own terms, while NOT producing contradictions 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.

I think you are confusing my terminology with YOU OWN SUBJECTIVE understandings of OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE.

Again, please point out where my usage is contradictory to objective/subjective in the dictionary, wikipedia, or any online resource. Your own subjective understandings hardly qualify as the standard usage of the word! But that's nice arrogance that you think so.

BF

 

[Mojo]

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.

No you can't. What "objective falseness" can you derive from, for example, a subjective statement that you introduced earlier: "Miles Davis is the BEST trumpet player of all time"?

An objective statement is one that is either true to all observers or false to all observers.

As nobody has yet reverted on any of the bridges, I can put Jimbob in spoon by playing Pimlico.

 

[WWHP]

"Subjective" doesn't mean "objectively false" either. There is a very distinct difference. "Subjective" implies only that the statement pertains to the thinker, not the object of thought.

Jonny, think about it. If a subjective statement refers soley to information that exists soley in the subject, then it's truth value is soley related to the subject, right? If it's not related to all of us, then it naturally produces a false objective statement. Try it.

Anyway, you asked for something that wasn't in the dictionary, and neither "false" nor "objectively false" is a definition for the word "subjective".

I agree with that, however, OS 012 links them metalogically, and does not use contradictory definitions of 'subjective' or 'false' to show how they naturally infer each other in usage.

subjective, false, art, prose, poetry do not all mean the same thing, it is naive to assume that is what OS 012 says. rather, they all share something in common, and each can be inferred from the other. they are harmonies.

Watch. infer.

1= objective. true. honest. rational. logic. math. science.
2 =subjective. false. illusory. irrational. poetry. prose. art

If what you were saying were true, then items in each string would contradict each other, and they dont. we can infer the same value metalogically.

There are only three distinctions of reality to play with here, so therefore, information can only reflect those three distinctions of reality.

 

[Basilio]

If I may jump in (under rule 43a) with the suprise use of

Maida Vale (the postman's redirect)

 

[WWHP]

No you can't. What "objective falseness" can you derive from, for example, a subjective statement that you introduced earlier: "Miles Davis is the BEST trumpet player of all time"?

Because the statement does not contain mutual viewability in it's truth value, rather, it's truth value is dependent upon my interpretation of music.

simple, mojo, real simple. Saying that Miles Davis is the best trumpet player in the world is objectivly false

An objective statement is one that is either true to all observers or false to all observers.

this is a common misunderstanding of objective, and is not true. if it was true, then the statement "reptelians rule the world' would be considered in common usage to be an objective statement, independent of the person making it. To be objective, there must be something to notice, right?

If it were true, then an objective statement would have the same value as an objectively false statement, and clearly they dont, eh?

 

[flimflam_machine]

"Subjective" doesn't mean "objectively false" either.

Spot on Jonny. I'd say that subjective statements don't have a truth value because they use terms whose definitions depend entirely on the individual.

The funny thing is, I can see exactly how Bubb has got where he is. He's started from objective=biased and subjective=unbiased and extrapolated from there.

gain, please point out where my usage is contradictory to objective/subjective in the dictionary, wikipedia, or any online resource. Your own subjective understandings hardly qualify as the standard usage of the word! But that's nice arrogance that you think so.

See Jonny's post (see Bubb, not just my usage). Also, many of your phrases use one definition of the word, and then by slippingly seamlessly to another definition of the word without agknowlegding that you have done so you come to a strangely bent conclusion.

Incidentally, when are you going to answer Prof. Yaffles interesting question?

 

[WWHP]

If I may jump in (under rule 43a) with the suprise use of

Maida Vale (the postman's redirect)

ahh, nice to see that you are still reading the discussion, basillo, and stil contributing the same poetic values as you were earlier.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Saying that Miles Davis is the best trumpet player in the world is objectivly false

Well that's true, because he's dead. But "Miles Davis was the best trumpet player in the world" isn't objectively false, it's subjective.

Are we allowing DLR?

 

[WWHP]

Spot on Jonny. I'd say that subjective statements don't have a truth value because they use terms whose definitions depend entirely on the individual.

they have a value of 2, false. it is a truth to the individual.

The funny thing is, I can see exactly how Bubb has got where he is. He's started from objective=biased and subjective=unbiased and extrapolated from there.

try again....

See Jonny's post (see Bubb, not just my usage).

I did, see my reply

Also, many of your phrases use one definition of the word, and then by slippingly seamlessly to another definition of the word without agknowlegding that you have done so you come to a strangely bent conclusion.

one can infer the same thing when one sees the harmonies that relate to two distinct sets of truth values.

Incidentally, when are you going to answer Prof. Yaffles interesting question?

I cant find an interesting question from wee_eck, so please bring it to my attention

 

[WWHP]

Well that's true, because he's dead. But "Miles Davis was the best trumpet player in the world" isn't objectively false, it's subjective.

it's objectivly false by default, as in it cannot be mutually observed to be objectivly true.

Dude, think about what you are saying and your contradiction. First, you state that an objectivly false statement is an objective statement, because it's values do not exist in reality and it's objective to state that if it's the intention of the statement to do so.

then you state that a statement whose values can also not be observed is not objectively false.

You are contradicting your own definitions!


BF

 

[JonnyFive]

Jonny, think about it. If a subjective statement refers soley to information that exists soley in the subject, then it's truth value is soley related to the subject, right? If it's not related to all of us, then it naturally produces a false objective statement. Try it.

Nope. It produces a non-objective statement, not one that can necessarily be evaluated as true or false. I have explained this several times and backed it with both examples and dictionary citations that describe the commonly used definitions of these words.

 

[WWHP]

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

agreed

I don't think anyone here has a problem with ternary logic.

both zaay and a few others have argued that the third value is meaningless and misleading in the bivalent sense of the word. OThers have said it doesnt exist.

I thought you said OS 012 was more than that.

It is, ternary logic is just one of it's laws, as in "All ideas can only be true, or false, or mystery" there are 5 more laws to address. If ternary logic is meaningless or non existant, then OS 012 crumbles into delusion

 

[JonnyFive]

it's objectivly false by default, as in it cannot be mutually observed to be objectivly true.

Not every statement pertains to objective reality, hence not every statement can be assigned a "truth" value, objectively speaking.

The statement implicitly deals with the subject of thought, as it refers to an opinion. A statement like "Miles Davis is considered by many people to be the best trumpet player ever" would be a similar objective statement, as it does not rely on the subject's thoughts, but on something that can be measured.

 

[JonnyFive]

both zaay and a few others have argued that the third value is meaningless and misleading in the bivalent sense of the word. OThers have said it doesnt exist.

I think you misunderstood them.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Dude, think about what you are saying and your contradiction. First, you state that an objectivly false statement is an objective statement, because it's values do not exist in reality

Nope, it's objectiveness (used for clarity) is not defined by anything to do with the way reality actually is, it is defined by the words used (all concrete words for which we have shared, solid definitions e.g., raven, rock, but not beautiful, awesome etc.). It's truth value is determined by whether it accurately represents reality or not.

then you state that a statement whose values can also not be observed is not objectively false.

Correct, it's not objectively anything. If it depends on subjective terminology (e.g., best, foxier etc.) it's a subjective statement.

For Prof Yaffle's Q, go back a page, it's about the holocaust.

 

[wwitzke]

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.

"It's a man, man!" Name's Wayne. Nice to meet you

I'd join in, but what are the rules?

 

[WWHP]

Nope. It produces a non-objective statement,

and what is the distinction between a 'non-objective' statement and a 'false objective' statement?

False means or infers 'not true', as in this 'truly is not an objective statement'.

Non means 'non existing'. true can only mean 'existing'. if it's not true, it' false in bivalent logic, and in ternary, either 2 or 0.

not one that can necessarily be evaluated as true or false.

So you agree that the third value is then relevant? Agreed, a subjective statement can also be a mysterious or unknown statement, as well as an objectively false statement. I can coincede to that, but that also is addressed in OS 012 already.

Is Miles Davis mutually observed to have 'objectively' obtained the status of the best trumpet player in the world? No, for NO such OBJECTIVE status could exist, and at best, it's value could simply be 'unknown' objectively.

The distinctions between *subjective* and *unknown* are subtle, and you cannot exclude the third value when you infer that the value cannot be t or f.

I have explained this several times and backed it with both examples and dictionary citations that describe the commonly used definitions of these words.

me too, yet I dont produce contraditions upon further investigation, and you appear to to me.

BF

 

[flimflam_machine]

Nice to meet you too wwitzke, the name's Flim. I'm afraid though that you'll have to wait for the next time round.

Elephant and Castle!

 

[WWHP]

I'd join in, but what are the rules?

1.)All ideas can either be true, or false, or mystery (both true and false at once), and quantified perceptionally as 0 (m), 1(t), or 2(f). Our metalogic is ternary in nature.

2.)Ideas trigger human behavior, and human behavior influence ideas.

3.)All ideas spread, multiply in a way that can be likened to cell division. Ideas ‘copy’or dupiclate themselves exponentially and through time.

4.)All ideas are in conflict, or have the potential for conflict.

5.)Human beings are not ideas, and are not in conflict.

6.)All human dilemma and problem can be said to be resolved when all sides or points of view ‘win’. Non zero sum strategies and games exalt human interactions to their fullest potential naturally. Discussion is a rational win win game in the metalogical strategy for 'truth'.