How could I misunderstand 'The third value doesnt exist" or 'the third value is meaningless"? I believe those are direct quotes.
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
How could I misunderstand 'The third value doesnt exist" or 'the third value is meaningless"? I believe those are direct quotes.
flimflam_machine
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 245
Ah the baffling use of "false" to mean "not having the property of". Tell you what Bubb, why don't you use it to mean "incorrect" like everyone else?
Bye now, have fun.
Edit: wwitzke, ignore the rules that Bubb has just posted. They are the rules only inside his own head. Some of them may bear a passing resemblance to the real world but they don't really hold up under scrutiny. I'll pass the real rules onto you as soon as I get a moment.
Last edited:
This means that we are allowing DLR:
So obviously:
Cockfosters
(I am using the mystery value to make my moves, please be gentle)
The distinction is thus:
"Non-object" = "subjective" = "pertaining to the subject of the thinking - the thinker"
"False objective" = "an objective statement that is false" = "a statement pertaining to the object of thought that is also a false statement"
I have explained this before. This is how the dictionary defines the words, and this is the common usage. If you're going to redefine things to fit your own system, I'm not on board with that.
No, they aren't subtle at all.
"Subjective" = "pertaining to the thinker, dealing with internal reality, of the mind, etc."
"Unknown" = "not yet understood, not yet known, etc."
No, you simply continue to explain things based on incorrect premises.
huh?? words like 'beautiful' and 'awesome' are mutually observable definitions. "Beautiful" itself can be, and has been, objectively defined as 'elegance, symmetry'.
The phrase "Sunsets are considered beautiful" is an OBJECTIVELY TRUE STATEMENT.
The statement "Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman" is an OBJECTIVE statement.
Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman represents reality
so poetry then is not subjective, is that what you are seriously going to argue?
Please copy and paste, still cannot find it
Your last two rules are naive and flawed. Ideas are not the only source of conflict, nor are they arguably the ultimate or most primal source of conflict.
That would be resource allocation. In the real world, there are zero-sum games. Energy is not unlimited, and neither are resources. Nobody gets to have everything they want, and conflict will ultimately arise out of this. Even if everyone agrees to do with much less in exchange for the worst off to have more than they do, there is still an upper limit on what the finite resources we have available to us can support.
Ultimately, time and space are our limits. While there are plenty on win-win scenarios in the short run, the long run appears to be a very large zero-sum game.
I don't like this anymore than anyone else, but I know better than to deny it.
If you believe your system could ever resolve all conflict, you need to study economics. If you think this concept of win-win applies to the universe as a whole, you need to study physics.
So if I write a poem, and say that 'newspaper taxi's appeared on the shore", that is still an objective statement?
Jonny, I honestly find you to be making a critical error here. First off, OS 012 is NOT REDEFINING WORDS, and such charge is outlandish. Secondly, you are confusing what can be 'inferred' from the values or statements as the intention of the statements. Then you claim that you usage is 'common'. Yet, in common usage and accounting of 'objective', as journalism is, your definitions are contradictory with that common usage.
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.
So if I have a near death experience, and report 'light exists after death' and relate my experience, you are telling me that the distinction is clear or one in the same?
If I state that Miles Davis is the best trumpet player in the world to my son, who doesnt have experience, is that statement unknown or subjective to him?
what incorrect premise? Please keep in mind that any value of a statement in OS 012 is STILL not contradicting ANYTHING in logic. All it contradicts so far is how you and a few others PERSONALLY use the term 'objective', which is ambigous in common usage. Your observations of objective/subjective are based on belief, and OS 012 it is based on mutual observation. There are no contradictions to reality in OS 012, and it updates our usages of truth values into an objective system metalogically. It is true at the metalogical level. I dont care to argue people's belief systems or argue against thier 'common' practice as they see it, I only care if their arguments produce contradictions in reality, or not.
BF
Your first phrase deals with the opinions of an unspecified group of people. It might or might not be true, and is certainly objective. If you used a group of people that hate sunsets as your sample, you might find that your statement is not, in fact, true. They key to it being objective is that it uses something that could in fact be quantified and observed. You haven't included enough information to determine the truth of your statement, but it is theoretically possible if you specified who considered sunsets beautiful.
Your second statement is subjective. The implication is that the person making the statement believes Angelina Jolie is beautiful. That depends entirely on the thinker's definition of beautiful. Hence, it is a product of the subject doing the thinking, not the object of thought. Although it does, in fact, include an object of thought, it does not include words that can be precisely quantified without resorting to the opinion of the thinker.
You don't appear to know what objective and subjective mean in terms of how everyone else speaking English uses the words, or you refuse to use those meanings for some reason.
No, beauty is subjective, it is a matter of aesthetics. Even if people share aesthetic ideas, it does not make their experience objective.
I imagine you are referring to studies that show animals preferring symmetrical mates. This just shows some judgement of fitness is often involved in assessing the "beauty" of animals or people.
Well done, we are at primary-school level, but still it is correct.
No, this is a subjective statement.
"Angelina Jolie is a woman"
Is an objective statement
"Angelina Jolie is not a woman"
is also an objective statement.
It is also false.
If you made the statement out of the context of a work of fiction, it would be. You are stating that taxis made of newspaper appeared on a shore somewhere. It's probably not true, but it describes something external to you that can be observed and quantified.
This is nonsense. First of all, I said you were redefining words, which you now very clearly are.
Secondly, "objective" used in the sense of journalism is another definition of the word in another context. A word can have multiple definitions, but you've introduced several that are not definitions of the word.
You've made a statement about observable reality (what you saw, or what everyone will see), although a fairly vague one, and one that would be almost impossible to test. The statement is objective in as far as you are phrasing it to refer to an observable fact. Whether or not it's true will likely remain unknown.
The statement is both. It's subjective because it represents your thoughts only, not some externally observable thing. Whether or not your son liked Miles Davis would remain unknown until he heard it.
That doesn't link up with the contrast between subjective and objective statements at all, it's a whole different thing.
The usage isn't ambiguous, there's simply more than one definition. You've equated the two several times, and I still don't know why.
This isn't about my "observations" of anything. I draw my understanding of these words from the dictionary. Can you provide some concrete proof that your usage of these words has some kind of widespread acceptance?
Basilio
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 139
Ah BF!
I always bow to superior firepower, even if it is custard pies. I left it to the experts about 30 pages or so back. You remind me of one of my old correspondants who alway had to have the last word. I would send 2 sentences, and he would send back 2 paragraphs!
Guys, Im glad you don't play a conservative game:
Sloane Square ( a dockland decoy) Try to work around that!
This is my last post for the time being..
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'.
well, I am contradicting you here then, arnt I?
"Resource allocation" is dependent upon our ideas about resource. Currently, we have the idea that resources are finite, and resources, properly managed and designed, are replenishing.
agreed
you are now contradicting the laws of thermodynamics. there is infinite source of energy available, and it is niether created, nor destroyed, but eternal and replenishing.
Resources, properly managed, are replenishing. Consult Buckminster Fuller.
http://www.bfi.org/taxonomy/term/41
Bucky has ideas about resources that are in conflict with you ideas about resources
according to bucky fuller, with proper managment of resources, all human beings can have access to billionaire wealth.
resources, properly managed, are replenishing.
Aubrey Degray argues that our limits of time may be exceeded to 1000 years. In 2007, we are officially a post terrestrial species, and space gives us an infinite amount of it to move into.
thus, your philosophy is limited clearly to the ideas you have about energy, time, and space.
well, there is rational hope out of it. There is rational argument out of it. It is reasonable to consider humanities higher options available to us.
Non Zero sum games are starting to sweep economics, perhaps you have heard of John Nash?
The universe is the most elegant model of 'win win' how I define the term (synergy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy
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'.
well, I am contradicting you here then, arnt I?
"Resource allocation" is dependent upon our ideas about resource. Currently, we have the idea that resources are finite, and resources, properly managed and designed, are replenishing.
agreed
you are now contradicting the laws of thermodynamics. there is infinite source of energy available, and it is niether created, nor destroyed, but eternal and replenishing.
Resources, properly managed, are replenishing. Consult Buckminster Fuller.
http://www.bfi.org/taxonomy/term/41
Bucky has ideas about resources that are in conflict with you ideas about resources
according to bucky fuller, with proper managment of resources, all human beings can have access to billionaire wealth.
resources, properly managed, are replenishing.
Aubrey Degray argues that our limits of time may be exceeded to 1000 years. In 2007, we are officially a post terrestrial species, and space gives us an infinite amount of it to move into.
thus, your philosophy is limited clearly to the ideas you have about energy, time, and space.
well, there is rational hope out of it. There is rational argument out of it. It is reasonable to consider humanities higher options available to us.
Non Zero sum games are starting to sweep economics, perhaps you have heard of John Nash?
The universe is the most elegant model of 'win win' how I define the term (synergy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy
well they are not doing so good either, but your poetry is better than theirs, i must say
Ahh, another metaphor from basillo. it's not important, the length my friend, what is important is the dialectic or exchange. was either of you considering the truth value of the other? or did you both declare victories in your heads and run away from the synthesis?
Maybe this is what someone means by objective:
OBJECTIVE:Ministries
Basilio: A smart move but, in honour of science and evolution, I am going to play the museum riposte
South Kensington
OBJECTIVE:Ministries
Basilio: A smart move but, in honour of science and evolution, I am going to play the museum riposte
South Kensington
Z
Variable Constant
Bingo. Just wanted to step in here, to point out that one of Rome's obvious flaws - aside from the flaw of not thinking before he posts potentially alienating accusations - is that he lacks an understanding of the basic terms and concepts that he bandies about with such abandon.
Notice, for example, Gentle Reader, how he insists on adding 'unknown' as a TRUTH value, when, in fact, it is simply a KNOWLEDGE value.
And now, he's decided that objective and subjective have ENTIRELY DIFFERENT values from what the REMAINDER of the English-speaking world has given them.
Objective: unaffected by the perception of the observer.
Subjective: affected by the perception of the observer.
The statement, "Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman," is subjective. The statement, "Angelina Jolie is a woman," is objective.
Rome's use of language obviously hampers his dealings in philosophy, as evidenced by his star example, "she may come, she may not come." An educated speaker of the language recognizes the problem with this sentence immediately: it is two sentences, two complete thoughts, that is bound together incorrectly. To place it into a singular statement, "she may or may not come" is more correct, and is, quite simply, a true statement.
Yet not only does he insist on using this in its incorrect fashion, when cornered on its poor construction and incorrect interpretation, he waffles on about the South American tribe who made the original sentence, and their wonderful ternary language - which has done so much for their people that now they're dying off.
This is Rome's game, unfortunately - not pushing his OICU812, not learning truth, but playing with language and childish insults to drive others away from his arguments. For example, he resorted to calling me a satanist - a chide which is not only completely wrong and absolutely off the mark, but is also a grave insult at the moment, though I honestly doubt he understands that.
(For the reader's benefit: the Correllian Nativist Tradition is presently in a state of schism, after one of the Tradition leadership began associating heavily with the Church of Satan, and was since warlocked from our church. In case you don't comprehend, Satanism is, in fact, an offshoot of Christianity; that is, in order to embrace Satanism, you have to accept the given mythologies of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim church - which, of course, Wicca does not. There's no 'Adversary' in Wicca, no 'Satan' to worship in the first place. Secondly, while Wicca's central tenet of faith is, "An it harm none, do what thou will," the central tenet of faith for Satanism is only, "Do what thou will." Their ability - and, indeed, willingness - to cause harm places Satanists directly in opposition to the ways of Wicca. Therefore, calling a Wiccan a Satanist, is not only terribly misguided, but a grave and awful insult as well. I might as well have 'jokingly' called him a pedophile and child rapist. Ha. Ha.)
I'm assuming the Fuller thing you're referring to is this quote attributed to him about how if we divided up all the money in the world, we'd each have x million dollars.
Well, not really. Even using fairly liberal allocations for total wealth, we'd have something like 12 grand. Not exactly millionare money, and it would bankrupt the world's governments. I suppose you could argue if we were somehow able to magically split every resource on the planet... but that's not very useful for practical discourse.
Replenishing resources are still limited by the laws of physics and the capacity of our planet.
And the laws of thermodynamics don't say what you think they do. In fact, they state that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form. However, the total energy in the entire system appears to remain constant. I don't know where you got the idea that universal energy is infinite, but it wasn't from any mainstream physics.
As far as expanding out into space goes, there are very critical issues to overcome. In fact, it very well may be an insurmountable problem. Time will tell.
Well, not really. Even using fairly liberal allocations for total wealth, we'd have something like 12 grand. Not exactly millionare money, and it would bankrupt the world's governments. I suppose you could argue if we were somehow able to magically split every resource on the planet... but that's not very useful for practical discourse.
Replenishing resources are still limited by the laws of physics and the capacity of our planet.
And the laws of thermodynamics don't say what you think they do. In fact, they state that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form. However, the total energy in the entire system appears to remain constant. I don't know where you got the idea that universal energy is infinite, but it wasn't from any mainstream physics.
As far as expanding out into space goes, there are very critical issues to overcome. In fact, it very well may be an insurmountable problem. Time will tell.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
An amazing coincidence that you played that move so soon after Miles Davis was mentioned! It's a little known fact that many of the jazz musicians of the immediate post war generation were keen players of the noble game. That's the very move with which Miles trumped Charlie Parker's move of Sloane Square backstage at the Club Riviera in East St Louis when Bird and Diz were there with the Billy Eckstine Orchestra in 1944. Diz was so impressed with the move that he invited the 18 year old Davis to sit in with the trumpet section. The rest is history.
Unfortunately for you, though, the partial revision of the reverse diagonal move introduced under the 1953 Munich Rules allows an escape if the player concerned has been in spoon:
Totteridge and Whetstone
Last edited:
Basilio
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 139
Victory over what? How can I or any other poster win something that isn't there? It is like two dogs fighting over an ancient, bleached cow bone. If I'm the dog that wins, I get something that is useless and which I didn't really want, but is in the nature of the dog to be dominant. If you win, you get something that 99% of this list feels is useless, but you feel (apparently) that since it came from a cow, there must be meat somewhere. Look, if you want to claim victory over me since I have no interest in discussing this, fine, you win the useless discussion on the pointless dialectic system (really, 30 pages ago), and show that you have far more stamina to type than I do. Battle won, war goes on. Buck up! If you can change one mind, then, well.... well, good luck with that.
Me? I have to prep for a production of The Tempest next week, sing a concert in May, and direct The Pirates of Penzance in June, so yes, I don't have time for your victory.
Basilio
Basilio
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 139
Damme, ya almost had me in a corner! This far into the match I think I can use
Willesden Green!