Wayne
Ad hominem and insults clustered above. These do not help your arguments, and simply cause you to lose credibility.
Wayne, my apologies for our sloppy hello. I do admit I was nerved a bit when viewing your first post, soley to the extant of work it provided me. Please forgive, and let’s start fresh, eh?
Incidentally, my original post to which you replied (post #1577) wasn't directed you, it was to the people playing Mornington Crescent, and your response to my post (which was clearly not directed at you) implied that you wished for me to join in the non-Mornington Crescent aspect of the conversation, an invitation, of sorts. I obliged by responding to your post on its own merits.
Yes, I understand, and take responsibility for that comment, sorry.
If your post couldn't stand on its own merits and you didn't want criticism, you shouldn't have posted it in the first place, or should at least have provided reference material that would have clarified the rules you listed. Considering how incredibly illogical those rules were, however, I am certain now, and was certain at the time, that no set of references could possibly have made any difference.
Wonderfully put. Okay, fine, we have a clear disagreement whose truth value can be resolved using rationality and objectivity between two points of view. Will you join me?
Now, regarding your statement above, I explained carefully why the idea of the giant, furry, pink and green polka dotted bird is neither true nor false.
It depends upon how you are applying true or false. I apply them metalogically to statements, and metalogically, that is indeed a false idea. It is false because it’s existence is soley in subjective nature, imagination, and is inconsistent with operations in objective reality, whose ideas are signified as ‘true’
It is because there is no context in which to judge it. Without a context, it could be either true or false.
I’m sorry, but again, this is not true from a metalogical perspective. The context is in the content. The content refrences an imaginary creature. Imagination is the false relative to the true of objective reality metalogically.
Unless your framework implies some context, then the idea of the bird is still neither true nor false.
The context of the framework is awareness and perception of reality. We frame reality in sets of ideas for understanding. All of these ideas are distinguishable into three sets or limits of metalogical value.
If your framework does provide a context, then you need to define that framework and show what context it provides, otherwise your statement above does not hold up. As for your contention that "a false idea is a definition of a 02 value, not a 02 value a definition for false," the first part seems to define "02 value," but this is pointless since "02 value" wasn't even used in any of the preceding material, and the second part doesn't actually say anything at all.
All I need to state is that the framework is framed in ideas. That’s it. Ideas automatically assume a metacognitive environment by definition alone.
In order for an idea to be true or false, there must be some basis upon which to judge the truth or falsehood of the idea. In the bird example, until you apply that idea to, say, the real world in some way, perhaps by claiming that such a bird exists, you have no way to judge the idea itself, and the idea could be either true or false. By applying the idea, saying something like, "The bird exists in the real world," or "The bird does not exist in the real world," you gain a context in which to judge the truth or falsehood of the idea, although the idea itself without that context (that is, on its own) is still neither true nor false.
Metalogically, and even logically, true relates to the real and mutually viewable world by default. It’s founded in ‘existence’. So to state that an idea is true, it is true then, relative to it’s environment for existence.
Here are the definitions for true and false. These sources explain in my own language (English) just as well as I can. If your contention that "not true" implies false, this is simply not the case.
What I said was false implies ‘not true’ by default, and all definitions of false simply state that. All definitions of false given simply relate the logical operation, not the essence of what false is. False’s essence is not ‘not true’, rather, it’s essence is something illusory and subjective.
This is a logical fallacy.
It’s not a logical fallacy I have ever heard of. Where is stating false is ‘not true’ a logical fallacy?
False is, indeed, defined in terms of true. If something is false, then it is not true (by definition).
Exactly, but what is it other than not true? Unknown is not true either. What is false other than not true, can you define that?
Look at how it’s relationship to true is dependent in the majority of definitions
http://www.answers.com/false&r=67
This also means that if something is true, it is not false.
Yes, but the definitions of true are expandable beyond being ‘not false’. We don’t need to relate to false when defining true.
http://www.answers.com/true&r=67
However, the fallacy comes in when you try to say that if something is not true, then it is false, or if something is not false, then it is true. This is argument from fallacy, and that is pure logic, not merely my reasoning. Sorry.
That’s not a reasoning I have ever used.
So are you saying that you redefined "true" and "false" as well as "mystery" in your first rule? That would be the only instance where I would object to the use of the words "true" and "false." If you did redefine "true" and "false," how could you expect anybody to understand anything you're talking about?
True and false are not ‘redefined’ in OS 012, rather, they are ‘refined’ to include their values at a metalogical level, and these refinements are not contradictory with true and false in logic.
First, using nonstandard definitions or redefined terms leads to confusion, both for readers and for people who are trying to join into the discussion.
First off, there is not really a standard understanding of true or false or objective and subjective. These words are used quite inconsistently and there is no system that I know of that can allow or test for their objective validity in common usage, other than OS 012.
All we are given is the dictionary, and even some of these definitions in the dictionary are contradictory with other definitions of the same word.
Secondly, I do not redefine words outside of their sphere of relevance in the dictionary.
Further, I would like to encourage others to join in the discussion, something that the redefinition of terms will actively discourage in part because of the confusion redefinition causes.
this discussion already is a perfect example of the confusion that already exists with these terms. The reason there is so much confusion is that at the meta logical level, these terms can ONLY mean specific things, and we do not have a mutual language that communicates these shared perceptions, other than true, false, objective, subjective, which are very ambiguous in common language.
With redefinition of the term "mystery," if somebody uses that word then it becomes more difficult to know which, if any, definition should apply for that use.
I don’t accept much of your argument in princaple, even though it doesn’t apply to OS 012 regardless. It sounds like you think words are descriptions of things, not prescriptions for things. If what you were saying were true, then no new words could be created or could evolve to further clarification.
Take for example the word tautology. It has two usages, one in logic, and the other I believe in rhetoric. Those two usages are very distinct, so much so that if one uses the logical word tautology, someone else would get confused, as has happened with me and PV on this thread. He was unaware that something can be ‘tautologically’ true in logic even though the statement’s content may not be.
Third, when somebody uses a redefined word, the redefinition makes it possible for somebody to deliberately misinterpret what that person is saying, while maintaining a facade of credibility.
When we are defining our language into agreement, which is what contract negotiations are, we constantly have to define how we use certain ‘terms’ relative to the agreement and contract. Those terms are ‘refined’ into legal parsings. This is standard practice. You seem to be arguing against this, and this is what helps us get clarity in negotiation.
Fourth, as an extension of my third point, if I were to agree to use your redefined terms, it would then be much easier for my post to be entirely taken out of context, so that I could be made to seem like I'm saying something that I'm not actually saying. While this is always a possibility, it becomes much more of a possibility when the terms that we use in discussion aren't those that are in common use, and I will avoid, as much as I can, following a track that would knowingly open up my comments to that sort of intellectual dishonesty.
for anything that could said to exist, it’s actual word is almost irrelevant. A pig is still a pig if you call it a duck.
In Italian, ‘penne’ is a quality of pasta, in Mexican, it’s male genitalia.
We must define how we use words relative to our operations, and if those definitions do not contradict the dictionary, then our definitions are not ‘redefinitions’ but refinements relative to our operation.
Fifth, it is completely unnecessary to redefine terms in this (or almost any) discussion. If you wish to argue a point on "OS 012" where you have to use tricky ideas, then it is simple to spell out those ideas when they actually occur in your argument so that there is never any doubt as to what definitions you are using. Further, it is realistically no more difficult to continue to spell out those ideas wherever necessary.
The objective and common usage of the logical set true, false, and unknown are a perfect language for OS 012 to use, and your critique here is not valid or applicable, nor is it even logical. You are introducing a heuristic method for word usage, which is fine if you are an editor at a newspaper, but poor if you are developing a new dynamic framework.
Now, in case you are wondering if I consider you capable of the deliberate dishonesty that I have spelled out in points three and four above, then the answer is a resounding "yes." Perhaps if you weren't so insistent upon people using your ridiculously redefined term, were willing to work with standard definitions while spelling out your arguments when they occur, addressed points that people specifically ask you to address without resorting to non-responsive rhetoric, and avoided insults and ad hominem attacks, then I (and others) might feel differently. Of course, if those conditions had already been met then I would never have needed to address this issue in the first place.
Your comment simply isn’t valid. I am redefining no terms, I use commonly accepted usage, and produce no contradictions with reality.
BF
