Mojo
Mostly harmless
Yes, but probably not true.
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
Hmmm, so are you being objective here, or subjective?
Please provide evidence of my arguments being torn to shreds. You are confusing an antithesis with a truth. Just because there is an antithesis, that does not make the thesis false by default.
I find you to be highly delusional here. I have provided clear evidence of contradiction in every rebuttal. I can continue to maintain my argument, and NONE of you can. You simply make a rebuttal, and then assume your rebuttal destroyed my argument because your rebuttal 'felt good'.
You said that already, and still you come back here, reading EVERYTHING i write.
again, your own errors have been addressed considerably, and this is merely a projection. I challenge you or anyone here to copy and paste where my descriptions of these things is contradictory to common usage.
Ahh, i see you back to your satanism again.
What does Satanism have to do with your delusion?
Yup, Satan is coming back in a flashy red car.
Good luck, try Satan Forums.com, there are plenty of mystics there for you to argue with about who is right regarding Wicca. Tell them how advanced you are.
BF
In simple words:
We are saying that beauty is subjective.
taking the particular example of AJ: there are people who consider her to *not* be beautiful. There are others who do. There is disagrement (about a matter of aesthetics) this is because it is a subjective judgement.
In general the US public has tended to vote for the taller presidential candidate, does this mean that presidential suitability can be objectivel treanslated from a measure of height?
Your argruments would suggest so.
We are saying that beauty is subjective.
taking the particular example of AJ: there are people who consider her to *not* be beautiful. There are others who do. There is disagrement (about a matter of aesthetics) this is because it is a subjective judgement.
In general the US public has tended to vote for the taller presidential candidate, does this mean that presidential suitability can be objectivel treanslated from a measure of height?
Your argruments would suggest so.
But mojo, I thought you said that objective meant mutually viewable to all view points? If that is an objective statement, how come all view points dont view AJ as a dumptruck?
Can you explain this discrepancy?
erf, got that before the conversation of beauty even came up, that's why I introduced it.
Then what are their arguments for her ugliness or commoness in appearance? Can you rationalize them?
Your telling me there is disagreement regarding her beauty? Your telling me opinions holding she is not beautiful are VALID?
That's insane
huh?
Then you STILL dont understand the argument, after three months.
And the reason you are unable to frame my argument in your mind is because my argument is structured in three values, and you percieve things in two values. As long as you do, it is utterly impossible to percieve a three value argument, you havent a hope in the world. It's almost like sociopathy in the sense that some people simply do not have the biological framework in their brains for compassion and honest self reflection (Zaay for example), I'm not saying you are a sociopath, rather, i'm just saying that unless you have a framework that can account for higher ordering information, you simply won't see it.
Same thing for beautiful. If Beauty's objective element is perfect symmetry, then one has to have a framework with which to view perfect symmetry. Perfect Symmetry exists whether we see it or not, and if one does not have the framework to model it, then one can't see beauty by default, it's i mpossible.
Beauty is DISCOVERED.
I find it funny that you scientist pragmatic types are so mystical philosophicaly at this level. I would image you would prefer a more objective philosophy.
BF
Last edited:
Clarity! Oh how I laughed
Classic sinnikal. Not only do you read everything I write and follow me around the internet to do so, but you also read my edit reports! My lord, you are simply starving for information ala Bubblefish!
I'm so flattered I left you a little something special in the edit below.
Hehe, my words are like hunting for easter eggs, each one is a special find!
Bubblefish
Last edited:
Not a single issue you have raised has been supported by evidence, and "argument", insofar as your attempts at it are concerned, has been merely argumentative and devoid of meaningful content. Otherwise there is no issue here to confuse me or anyone else. Only you are confused. Sweet of you to ask, however.
Understand it now?
Last edited:
So to try summarising the previous 49 pages:
BF starts by claiming that it is closed minded to be sceptical of peoples claims, and it would be ebtter to assign a spurious "don't know" value to anything which isn't known with total certainty.
He then can't see the difference between faking psychic abilities to demonstrate the holes in a "research" methodology, including afterwards telling people about it; and fake psychics exploiting people's grief. (reference to project alpha).
Next there is a digression about STEORN and how they aren't performing a scam, despite their methods being highly reminiscent of scammers, and their product needing to violate the most fundamental physical laws. BF argues for "mystery" everyone else argues for scam, with *honest* mistake as far less likely.
OF course BF's lack of technical knowledge needn't be a hinderence here, as many other posters have spotted the dodgy nature of the STEORN approach, without detailed technical education, just commonsense.
Sometime there was a "discussion" about how the third value would solve the world's conflicts and IIRC poverty too. There has been no explaination as to how this would work if one protagonist refuses to use this system. (There has been quote-mining of Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Leonardo da Vinci and Buckminster-Fuller amongst others). There has also not been any explainiation as to how the system is superior to normal negotiation, which has worked in humans, chimps, and dolphins; so has probably been working in some form for more than six million years...
The rest of the thread seems to have been taken up with pointing out that in some situations true/false is the only response, whilst in others there are many graduations, neither situation is covered adequately by BF's system.
The final part gets down to the nub of the disagreement: BF confuses "True" with "Objective" and "False" with "Subjective". Can't be bothered to dig out the quote(s)...
He also claims to accept TS and FO, but doesn't seem to understand that he also claims otherwise.
Then we have the bizarre statements about beauty being objective when BF makes a statement, but not when other people make a statement (about Angelina Jolie in particular).
I have missed out the discussion about Qi, which was good light relief. BF claiming that Dr Lo was simultaneously a great scientist, and easily mislead, because he was too trusting in his association with a scam, where he was lending "scientific credibility"
I have also missed out BF's personal attacks, which he claims are "teasing", yet gets upset when similar tactics are tried on him.
Jim
BF starts by claiming that it is closed minded to be sceptical of peoples claims, and it would be ebtter to assign a spurious "don't know" value to anything which isn't known with total certainty.
He then can't see the difference between faking psychic abilities to demonstrate the holes in a "research" methodology, including afterwards telling people about it; and fake psychics exploiting people's grief. (reference to project alpha).
Next there is a digression about STEORN and how they aren't performing a scam, despite their methods being highly reminiscent of scammers, and their product needing to violate the most fundamental physical laws. BF argues for "mystery" everyone else argues for scam, with *honest* mistake as far less likely.
OF course BF's lack of technical knowledge needn't be a hinderence here, as many other posters have spotted the dodgy nature of the STEORN approach, without detailed technical education, just commonsense.
Sometime there was a "discussion" about how the third value would solve the world's conflicts and IIRC poverty too. There has been no explaination as to how this would work if one protagonist refuses to use this system. (There has been quote-mining of Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Leonardo da Vinci and Buckminster-Fuller amongst others). There has also not been any explainiation as to how the system is superior to normal negotiation, which has worked in humans, chimps, and dolphins; so has probably been working in some form for more than six million years...
The rest of the thread seems to have been taken up with pointing out that in some situations true/false is the only response, whilst in others there are many graduations, neither situation is covered adequately by BF's system.
The final part gets down to the nub of the disagreement: BF confuses "True" with "Objective" and "False" with "Subjective". Can't be bothered to dig out the quote(s)...
He also claims to accept TS and FO, but doesn't seem to understand that he also claims otherwise.
Then we have the bizarre statements about beauty being objective when BF makes a statement, but not when other people make a statement (about Angelina Jolie in particular).
I have missed out the discussion about Qi, which was good light relief. BF claiming that Dr Lo was simultaneously a great scientist, and easily mislead, because he was too trusting in his association with a scam, where he was lending "scientific credibility"
I have also missed out BF's personal attacks, which he claims are "teasing", yet gets upset when similar tactics are tried on him.
Jim
sinnikal
Muse
Jimbob, beautiful attempt to summarise it all but you still don't seem to get it. Everyone's attempts to refutte, refute, rebutte or even reboot Bubb's arguements (sic) are doomed to failure simply because Bubb says
Anyway he told us all a few pages ago it all adds up to no more than an elongated game of 'Last man standing'.
IF Only (hehe)
Anyway he told us all a few pages ago it all adds up to no more than an elongated game of 'Last man standing'.IF Only (hehe)
Mojo
Mostly harmless
It is an objective statement. She is not a dumptruck for all viewpoints.
Are you suggesting that for some viewpoints the statement "AJ is a dumptruck" is true?
But that's not what the statement says. The statement says she is a dumptruck.
'AJ is not a dumptruck' would be an objective statement that clarifies your point.
Like I said, can you explain this discrepancy?
No, I'm suggesting that it's not a true statement, is not mutually viewable, and therefore is not an objective comment.
You are confusing the usage of objective in bivalent logic/grammar with the common interpretation of objective. In bivalent logic, any closed sentence is objective and can be true or false. But that's in a bivalent logical operation, logic can't address any other form!
And as you can see, the meaning is contraditory to reality and philosophy, thus, here is the source of your goof.
BF
ahhh, so a baby's beauty is soley judged then on the symmetry of the child's face?
Note how you must AGREE then that some babies are beautiful, and some with a face only a mother can love for your statement to have truth value. That must mean there are some babie's faces that must be beautiful for everyone to appreciate, eh?
And a baby's beauty need not depend upon the face, poor form for beauty you have.
BF
Last edited:
No, my request asked you to advise what argument has not been supported.
For example, you could state that the argument of the third value has not been supported because the third value does not exist. Since I have given numerous examples of the third values existence in logic, philosophy, and common usage, your claim therefore cannot be true or substantiated.
Therefore, there must be another argument that you are suggesting is not supported. If that is true, then it must have slipped me eye, so will you then be so kind as to inform me which argument of mine you are referring to?
Please advise.
BF
jimbob, do you know the distinction between a story and a fact? A story in this sense is our personal interpretation or experience of the facts. And then there is just the facts. That's close to objectivism in journalism, to report the facts, not the story.
The story is the 2 value. The fact is the 1 value. Both relate similar information, yet the story covers the facts with personal interpretation.
So, your summary here is a story....watch.
This is a story. The fact is Bubblefish began a discussion on the nature of two valued and three value skepticism, and suggested that two value skepticism isnt fully rational, and not fully skeptical, and he did this 49 pages ago.
This is a story. There is a clear distinction in the groups of people, yet what both of them have in common is 'hoax'. A 'hoax' can be appropiate, or inappropiate, yet a hoax is performed by a hoaxter. James Randi performed a hoax that many would consider appropiate use of 'hoaxery', yet he performed a hoax regardless.
Again, this is a story, and not a fact. The fact is that BF argues in the voice of the skeptic regarding ALL claims regarding Steorn's Tech. Since BF is a three valued skeptic, it is natural he would apply critical thinking to claims regarding Steorn is a hoax just as much as he would Steorn's technology.
Again, I note:Then you STILL dont understand the argument, after three months.
And the reason you are unable to frame my argument in your mind is because my argument is structured in three values, and you percieve things in two values. As long as you do, it is utterly impossible to percieve a three value argument, you havent a hope in the world. If you frame three values into two, you will see two valued arguments all the time.
This is a story, not a fact. Bubblefish has stated on many occasions that it is irrelevant if the protaganist refuses to use the system,as the system is designed to outcompete the ideas of protaganists, and their input/output is irrelevant.
Yes, this is a fact.
This is a story, not a fact. Yet any explaination that provides a solution that is modeled in three values, again you are unable to frame my argument in your mind is because my argument is structured in three values, and you percieve things in two values. As long as you do, it is utterly impossible to percieve a three value argument, you havent a hope in the world.
This is a story, not a fact. In fact, many posters tried to use or assume OS 012 is a formal inferential logical system, and it's not, it's a metalogical system for IDEAS, not objective statements like bivalent logic. OS 012, in fact, does not replace any school of logic, it just allows us to understand how we are using it at a metalogical level.
Fact is, however, that ternary IS a valid formal logic for inference, and can handle statements that are NOT reducible into Boolean.
This is a story, not a fact. BF has stated, over and over, that one can infer true from objective and objective from true, they are not definitions of each other.
Again, you STILL dont understand the argument, after three months.
And the reason you are unable to frame my argument in your mind is because my argument is structured in three values, and you percieve things in two values. As long as you do, it is utterly impossible to percieve a three value argument, you havent a hope in the world.
This is a story, and not a fact. There are no contradictions regarding any truth value in OS 012 or this discussion on my end, and if there is, one can copy and paste which sentences, which, 49 pages later, everyone has failed to do.
Again, you STILL dont understand the argument, after three months.
And the reason you are unable to frame my argument in your mind is because my argument is structured in three values, and you percieve things in two values. As long as you do, it is utterly impossible to percieve a three value argument, you havent a hope in the world.
Again, you STILL dont understand the argument, after three months.
And the reason you are unable to frame my argument in your mind is because my argument is structured in three values, and you percieve things in two values. As long as you do, it is utterly impossible to percieve a three value argument, you havent a hope in the world.
Again, you STILL dont understand the argument, after three months.
And the reason you are unable to frame my argument in your mind is because my argument is structured in three values, and you percieve things in two values. As long as you do, it is utterly impossible to percieve a three value argument, you havent a hope in the world.
BF
PS
Again, you STILL dont understand the argument, after three months.
And the reason you are unable to frame my argument in your mind is because my argument is structured in three values, and you percieve things in two values. As long as you do, it is utterly impossible to percieve a three value argument, you havent a hope in the world.
Last edited:
Would that be West Kingsington, High Street Kingsington, South Kingsington, or Kingsington (Olympia)?
Again, ladies and gentleman, this discussion and argument is virtually over. There are no further rationalizations regarding objective/subjective on your end. There are many more rationalizations of objective/subjective on my end.
This is the final argument. If you agree with what is written below, then we agree on Objective/subjective.
If you disagree, then any rationalization you can possibly have has already been refuted. If I am mistaken, then address this post, no more tit for tat on the arguments, it's CONFUSING you about the argument.
I am reposting this for ease of argument. This objective/subjective argument is really beginning to bore the bears out of me. If you cannot address this argument in post, then you have no argument. Simply stating an opinion while you misrepresent my argument (zaay) is not a refutation.
So to close: Objective/Subjective can work logically and rationally, as well as intuitively, with true and false when a third value is available inside of the operation. By rationally I mean that their logical reasonings do not produce contradictions in reality or with the commonly accepted usage of the terms given in the dictionary.
The arguments against this seem to stress one point, and one point only. That objective statements can be parsed into true or false, and a false statement can therefore still be considered an objective statement in this regard. But it should be noted that it is this definition of objective that is incredibly narrow, and is only a focus on application of 'objective' used in grammar, or soley relative to grammar in bivalent logic, as in a "closed statement" is an "objective statement" which can only be true or false.
This usage, however is contradictory with THREE other common usages of "objective" in the dictionary, and ALL of which are in harmony with OS 012. These definitions of objective are:
1.) Of or having to do with a material object.
2.)Having actual existence or reality.
3.)Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Keep in mind that these three definitions of objective are the top three specified and COMMON usages of objective. There are two 'particular' meanings of objective that are given after these three, which state: Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
So the fifth definition of 'objective' does indeed support the logic of a closed statement being either true or false. The problem with that is that is a closed rule in grammar, does not coincide with any truth other than grammar, may produce contradictions with the first three definitions when used outside of closed sentences in logic. It's nothing more than how 'objective' is used inside of a closed set. And 'objective' still holds the same value of what it relates, the viewable grammatical 'object', relative to the invisible and subjectivly dependent verb. Note how you cannot have a verb function unless it relates to an 'object'. In grammar, the object takes hold as a linguistic struture soley to relate to the verb, it's existence is not in question in grammar.
Yet the arguments given trying to refute me claimed that it is my usage that is narrow, or not in step with common usage. That is clearly not a rational argument, they are far closer to normal and standard usage than the particular use in grammar.
Please dont bore me with tit for tat of previous arguments about this, this is the argument summed up with all sides squared.
If there is an argument to it, then you can extract it from this post. If you cant argue with it, then we are in agreement.
BF
This is the final argument. If you agree with what is written below, then we agree on Objective/subjective.
If you disagree, then any rationalization you can possibly have has already been refuted. If I am mistaken, then address this post, no more tit for tat on the arguments, it's CONFUSING you about the argument.
I am reposting this for ease of argument. This objective/subjective argument is really beginning to bore the bears out of me. If you cannot address this argument in post, then you have no argument. Simply stating an opinion while you misrepresent my argument (zaay) is not a refutation.
So to close: Objective/Subjective can work logically and rationally, as well as intuitively, with true and false when a third value is available inside of the operation. By rationally I mean that their logical reasonings do not produce contradictions in reality or with the commonly accepted usage of the terms given in the dictionary.
The arguments against this seem to stress one point, and one point only. That objective statements can be parsed into true or false, and a false statement can therefore still be considered an objective statement in this regard. But it should be noted that it is this definition of objective that is incredibly narrow, and is only a focus on application of 'objective' used in grammar, or soley relative to grammar in bivalent logic, as in a "closed statement" is an "objective statement" which can only be true or false.
This usage, however is contradictory with THREE other common usages of "objective" in the dictionary, and ALL of which are in harmony with OS 012. These definitions of objective are:
1.) Of or having to do with a material object.
2.)Having actual existence or reality.
3.)Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Keep in mind that these three definitions of objective are the top three specified and COMMON usages of objective. There are two 'particular' meanings of objective that are given after these three, which state: Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
So the fifth definition of 'objective' does indeed support the logic of a closed statement being either true or false. The problem with that is that is a closed rule in grammar, does not coincide with any truth other than grammar, may produce contradictions with the first three definitions when used outside of closed sentences in logic. It's nothing more than how 'objective' is used inside of a closed set. And 'objective' still holds the same value of what it relates, the viewable grammatical 'object', relative to the invisible and subjectivly dependent verb. Note how you cannot have a verb function unless it relates to an 'object'. In grammar, the object takes hold as a linguistic struture soley to relate to the verb, it's existence is not in question in grammar.
Yet the arguments given trying to refute me claimed that it is my usage that is narrow, or not in step with common usage. That is clearly not a rational argument, they are far closer to normal and standard usage than the particular use in grammar.
Please dont bore me with tit for tat of previous arguments about this, this is the argument summed up with all sides squared.
If there is an argument to it, then you can extract it from this post. If you cant argue with it, then we are in agreement.
BF
English is your first language is it?
Not a single issue you have raised has been supported by evidence, and "argument", insofar as your attempts at it are concerned, has been merely argumentative and devoid of meaningful content. Otherwise there is no issue here to confuse me or anyone else. Only you are confused.
It's not difficult, really. But if you don't have the nous get it by now then you aren't going to get it in the next 50 pages are you. I'm not here to help you just because you can't figure it out. And it's no use running off to a Wiki page looking for more stuff you don't understand - that won't help you either.
It takes you 50 pages to lose. It takes me 1 post to win. I win.
Take this post for example. It's full of finely crafted, literate argument incontrovertibly supported by evidence. Look at your rambling, shambolic efforts by comparison.
Every time I win. Every time, in all 50 pages, you lose.
Well that's how I covered my pawner, heading towards Kingsington is meant to possibly confuse competing players.
But since it's my move again, I shall head towards kingston without revealing my pawner, but my next stop getting there most certainly is
Chorleywood
Which I will stay until someone reaches Chalfont & Latimer
Your move.