Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

Wow, well, I wasn't interested in getting involved in this aspect of the conversation, but since I've been quoted. . .

eh, c'mon, you're desperate and lonely

Consider this: The idea of a giant, furry, pink and green polka dotted bird. This idea is neither true nor false, nor is it mystery by your definition (which is both true and false, and since the idea is neither true nor false, it cannot be both true and false).

dude, if you are going to jump in early in the converstation, at least do some background research. In this framework, that idea most certainly is a false idea as defined in OS 012. Remember, a false idea is a definition of a 02 value, not a 02 value a definition for false.

For an idea to be true or false, it must be applied to something for which true and false have some meaning.

erf, really?

Now, what does 'false' mean, can you explain in your own language without resorting to use 'not true or incorrect' in your definition?

What is something when it is false other than not true?

Your third category, mystery, or something that is both true and false, seems to imply that you define mystery as a logical contradiction. Since the definition of mystery is most certainly not logical contradiction , I'll simply ignore your definition of mystery.

Thanks, and i'll ignore the rest of your misinformed and longwinded post.

tell you what, since you are attached to language, take away all the words that you dont like represented that way, and just for now refer to them as 0, 1, and 2.

If you have a beef with me not using your definitions for terms, just let me know, and I'll let you know just exactly why redefinition of terms is such a bad idea, why people shouldn't use nonstandard definitions for words, why people don't use them, and why people will not appreciate you trying to get them to use your redefined terms.

Your high as a kite, arn't you?

 

[geoman]

Wow, I just read this entire thread from where I left off ages ago (OK, I might have missed out some of Bubb's more 'interesting' posts) & now I find Taffer got MC this very morning! Assuming Prof Yaffle's call for the adjudicator is unsuccessful, I will put myself in nip and go Morden

 

[flimflam_machine]

See what I mean Wayne. I was spot on about everything apart from Bubb's unexpected brevity. Oh, and he was a touch more abusive than I had anticipated.

Well if we're assuming that Prof. Yaffle's call for adjudication was unsuccesful then I shall indeed block him by moving to Liverpool Street. However the rules do require me to declare my vulnerability to a 10me arrondissement ambush since the relativistic effects of the Dubois jump mean that I'm technically also in Gare du Nord.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

See what I mean Wayne. I was spot on about everything apart from Bubb's unexpected brevity. Oh, and he was a touch more abusive than I had anticipated.

Well if we're assuming that Prof. Yaffle's call for adjudication was unsuccesful then I shall indeed block him by moving to Liverpool Street. However the rules do require me to declare my vulnerability to a 10me arrondissement ambush since the relativistic effects of the Dubois jump mean that I'm technically also in Gare du Nord.

Damn, that leaves me stuck for 3 moves on the Tyne and Wear metro between Byker and Chillingham Road

 

[flimflam_machine]

Damn, that leaves me stuck for 3 moves on the Tyne and Wear metro between Byker and Chillingham Road

Mwaaaahahahahhhaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

 

[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 subjectively true, however. Now what happens to your bivalency, logic, and sense of mathematics? If something is subjectively true, what then is it's distinguishable and logical complement?

 

[WWHP]

also, I am way behind on these posts.

 

[flimflam_machine]

It's subjectively true, however.

To you, yes. Maybe not to me, and in isolation the statement is simply subjective.

Now what happens to your bivalency, logic, and sense of mathematics?

Still here thanks. What's maths got to do with this specific query anyway?

If something is subjectively true, what then is it's distinguishable and logical complement?

Clarify please.

also, I am way behind on these posts.

In so many ways.

 

[WWHP]

First, not all ideas spread. I just had an idea, and I'm not going to tell you what it is. In fact, I'm going to keep it to myself until I die (or, perhaps forget it before I die), therefore that idea is not going to spread.

then if you keep your idea to yourself til you die, then that idea is making copies over time in your head, i.e. it's still spreading over time. and all secrets get shared at some point.

Actually, human beings are ideas.

ideas are ideas. human beings are human beings.

In fact, you, me, and just about everybody else has an idea about every other person they've ever met.

Indeed, and clearly there is a distinction between a concept and a physical material object.

So, a human being is both a real object, and a set of ideas that exists in other people that know of that human being.

can you find the person's set of ideas they have after a coronary and set them in an hermetically sealed plastic bag?

As far as humans not being in conflict, that's not true. Assuming that land is valuable and humans want to possess it, if I have a plot of ground, and another person moves in next door and claims part of my plot of ground for himself, then suddenly my neighbor and I are in conflict. It necessarily follows from the fact that we both have claimed the same plot of land, and we are both motivated to possess that land.

Yes, you and your nieghbor have a conflict of idea regarding property rights and values.

While it is certainly possible to have a non-zero-sum game, it is also possible to have a zero-sum game.

And the perfect sign that your opponent is indeed rational in any conflict is their response when given the choice to a non zero sum game, and a zero sum game.

Oh, and, incidentally, you'll notice that I removed the quotes around the word "win." I did this because either you were using the standard definition of the word, in which case the statement has a meaning that everybody can understand and therefore doesn't need the quotes, or it has a nonstandard (and unspecified) definition, and I've already mentioned that I won't be using nonstandard definitions.

Yes, you most certainly must be *high* as a kite.

Well, discussion can also be easily used as part of a methodology for determining truth and falsehood logically, and I prefer logic, since talking about the illogical seems to me a rather pointless waste of time.

If you value logic, then you will soon wish to make sure your metalogic is indeed logical as well. Currently, how you are defining things to yourself is evidence of an understanding of reality that produces contradictions.

 

[WWHP]

You're arguing with the Mojo in your head.

ahhh, good to see you are finally picking up on some of the form, Mojo. Ol' Wayne Witzke even got a kick out of it, hehe, see how all ideas spread?

The only problem is you are applying it in the wrong context.

I outlined the logical steps of conclusions to how you are using 'objective'. It clearly produces a contradiction if you follow your bivalent thinking through on the matter.

Your understanding of objective is ambiguous

 

[WWHP]

Some people may think so, others may not. It's a matter of opinion. That's the way it is with subjective statements: they're, well, subjective.

yes, they are subjectively true, i.e. they function as true for the individual for any possible number of reasons. They are subjectively true, and objectively false. Objectively they are false because a subjective idea is a false idea relative to a objective idea.

 

[WWHP]

That is, assessed using pure logic or via comparison to the real world without the introduction of bias arising due to the person making the comparison.

Then your usage of 'objective' in terms of statements is a very subjective and relative usage that produces contradictions via the same methodology of logic that insures that you will define objective in your very relevant terms.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Objectively they are false because a subjective idea is a false idea relative to a objective idea.

You know you're right Bubb! You weren't right before but now you've said it enough times for it to be true!

 

[WWHP]

I think the problem that's arising here is that the ideas of truth and falsehood have nothing to do with the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity.

There is natural and logical inference of truth and falsity with objective and subjective.

Objectivity and subjectivity have to do with personal bias.

You just defined all subjective and objective statements as personaly biased statements. So therefore, according to your contradictory logic, the statement's objective and mutually viewable truth value of "The word at the end of this sentence is the word this." is personally biased.

An objective statement has no personal bias, a subjective statement has personal bias.

Yet this statement is a logical contradiction of your previous statement. Your saying that the set 'objective/subjective' share the member 'personally biased' and then take it out of that set within two sentences!

If I were to give an objective statement, that is, one that was not dependent upon personal bias, then the truth or falsehood of that statement could be determined independent of the person making the statement.

So, "Newspaper taxi's appeared on the shore, waiting to take me away" is therefore an objective statement in your logic.

I could say "That brick is a sphere," and this statement would be true or false, and because its truth or falsehood could be determined independent of the person making the statement (since the definition of a sphere is well defined and measuring objects is a well established procedure), it is an objective statement.

What would that statement be if it was included as a line of poetry?

If I were to say, "That brick is beautiful," then that statement may still be true or false, but the truth or falsehood of the statement is entirely dependent upon who is making the statement.

So if you think the brick is 'ugly', and I think it 'beautiful', then only I get to decide it's true or false quality?

If I say it is beautiful, but in reality I think it is not beautiful, then it may be considered a false statement in that particular case.

But how would anyone know you were lying to make the distinction?

If another person were to say it who thought it actually was beautiful, then it may be considered true in that case. The fact that the truth or falsehood of the statement depends on the person making the statement makes it a subjective statement.

Oh my goodness, and to think you opened this post with the phrase "I think the problem that's arising here is that the ideas of truth and falsehood have nothing to do with the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity."

I think the problem is that you are entirely confused on the whole matter and don't appear to be able to parse your understanding into any consistancy. You contradict yourself within one or two paragraphs and sentences!

That's irrational thinking. You are expressing your confusion, not objectivety. Confusion is a subjective experience, thus, you just wrote a little confusion poem. nice work!


BF

 

[wwitzke]

his response to many rebuttals is along the lines of "you don't understand it yet, you're arguing with a poor interpretation of OS012 rather than the real thing." Strangely this is never accompanied by any attempt at clarification.

Then what's the point of his posting here, do you think? Just looking for some attention?

The closest that I have come to describing OS012 in a way that Bubb doesn't immediately reject is along the lines of: "a dialectic which logically proves whether statements made by parties within a discussion are objective, subjective or unknowable." Potentially this is quite a nice idea, if you could prove that what somebody thinks they know they only actually believe then resolutions of discussions could be made on the basis of fact to mutual benefit. Sadly there appear to be some fatal flaws:

Actually, there's another problem that you didn't mention. It should already be possible to use logic to determine if statements are objective, subjective, or unknowable, so why would we need "OS 012"?

(i.e., keeping on posting until other people get bored/offended and leave, and then claiming victory for yourself)

Yea, he's tried to offend me on at least one of his recent posts to me. Must have struck a nerve, eh?

The real problems:

4. There has been no detail on how it works. Bubb has claimed that this is for copyright protection etc. But he has provided no hints on how the required logical proofs might be reached or a discussion forwarded using OS012. This detail was requested back on badscience.net a few months ago and still no detail has been forthcoming.

5. There is no evidence that it works... at all. Bubb has cited a case to do with online music sharing but again has pleaded confidentiality requirements of one form or another.

So, I'm left to wonder again, what is his purpose coming here and posting? Does he enjoy the abuse? Having his idea shown to be wrong over and over, and then being frustrated because he just doesn't understand the arguments against them?

Thank you for the information. At least this clarifies, if not "OS 012," at least what the discussion has been about so far.

Wayne

 

[WWHP]

BF - I thought my deliberate misspellings would be enough to cue you that I was pulling your leg about "getting it". I was going to continue to tease you in this way, but I'm not in such a mischievious this morning.

I submit "Yaffles" response as evidence of change of behavior when the 'honest' quality of language is 'assumed' into the post and then addressed as such.

This is 'calling the opponent on thier language' and addressing it in honest terms.

Yaffle then had to call the bluff and show her honest hand. See how that works?

But if the statement "Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman" is objectively true, should I tell my husband he is simply wrong when he says he finds her weird looking?

Why is he wrong if he finds her weird looking? I don't follow. He would just be wrong if he said she was an 'ugly woman'.

How would I go about proving it to him?

You dont have to prove anything to him, if he thinks a beautiful woman looks weird, that's his joy to keep.

Surely if we can definitively state that it is objectively true, then we must have proof or at least strong evidence for it.

agreed.

Beauty may be based on objective, measurable qualities, but the importance we give to each of these qualities differs between us in an idiosyncratic way, and we may even use qualities that other people do not use at all in their assessment.

agreed.

"Most people consider AJ to be beautiful" is an objective statement - it can be verified by asking lots of people whether they find her beautiful.

It's a very vague objective statement, parsed conservatively so as not to defend some feared logical structure or sense of objectivety. Most people consider Laura Bush to be beautiful too, yet there is clearly a distinction in the beauty, no?

Angelina Jolie is known 'as' a beautiful woman, and Laura Bush is found to be beautiful by some people.

"AJ is a beautiful woman" is subjective.

It is objective, if it is not objective, i want to hear the rational argument supporting her physical ugliness.

Although True/false mainly pertains to the objective class of ideas, some subjective statements or ideas can also be true or false, so calling them all false is discarding information about the idea.

ALL ideas can be viewed potentially from ALL three possible values, so?

I could hold the idea "Mozart's music is amazing", which could be true to me (ie subjectively) , or it could be false - it could be a lie, or I could simply be mistaking Mozart's music for someone else's music.

"Mozart's Music is Amazing" is a 2 value statement, with some pretty strong 1 value qualifiers. It tells us first something about yourself REGARDLESS if you are lying or being honest. That you find him 'amazing' is not shocking, for his level of musical genius can surely be quantified and parsed into objective statements.

I think you are trying to fit a 3 dimensional space onto a one dimensional line.

hardly, I am fitting 3 dimensional space and TIME into a THREE value truth system.

The 3 relevant dimensions are like the x, y and z axes (some of them possibly as dichotomies??)

an example of poetic and subjective description being confused somehow as logic or mathematics. The second you wrote 'are like the x, y, and z axes' you succombed to poetry.

If you try to compress that into a one dimensional line, you are just discarding useful information, and it will involve tortuous justifications and twisted logic to make it work.

if you think that sounds tough, wait to you see how much over think your doing when you try to compress 3 dimensions onto TWO, as in forcing our natural ternary and logic into a two value system, which you and your posse seem quite adept at.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Bubba, you can't use two different definitions of a word and treat them as if they were one and the same in a logical framework. We are talking about the concept of "truth" and using the words true and false as they relate to that concept. So you can't just substitute a different definition of the word false into the argument as if it is the same as the first definition. You are doing exactly that when you use the meaning of false = 'not' or not real, eg - as in false nails, false teeth, false dawn etc and insert it into a discussion about truth and then try to manipulate it - taking its opposite as "true" which has gone back to the original set of meanings. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. And therefore it makes a nonsense of all your arguments.

 

[WWHP]

Then what's the point of his posting here, do you think? Just looking for some attention?

My intentions for these discussions have been addressed numerous times in this thread.

Discussions are my laboratory, I am testing ternary valued dialectic inside of a community that has evolved two value dialectic to most likely it's highest strata.

So far, my success rate is virtually 100%.

Actually, there's another problem that you didn't mention. It should already be possible to use logic to determine if statements are objective, subjective, or unknowable, so why would we need "OS 012"?

OS 012 is a three valued dialectic. It is useful to use to discover our own natural metalogic which governs all discussion and perception. If used, then more effecient problem solving and conflict resolution can be obtained.

Yea, he's tried to offend me on at least one of his recent posts to me. Must have struck a nerve, eh?

Yes, when you use your own framework to define the terminology and framework of OS 012, that gets on my nerves.

Having his idea shown to be wrong over and over, and then being frustrated because he just doesn't understand the arguments against them?

the arguments against this idea were clear to me before this discussion even happened. I am here to find antithesis.

You, my friend, are making the same error that is most commonly made in perception, which is the assumption that because an idea has an antithesis, then it must be 'false' by default.

There has been no argument put forth in antithesis to OS 012 which has not been rationally considered and refuted.

You arguments are structed in binary. My arguments are structured in ternary.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Why is he wrong if he finds her weird looking? I don't follow. He would just be wrong if he said she was an 'ugly woman'.

Because he doesn't find weird looking women beautiful. Are you saying he is wrong?

 

[flimflam_machine]

My work here is done!

Prof. Yaffle, are you still languishing in Geordieland? How long until you can play Fentiman's Discombobulator on geoman's Morden?