I got attached to words and language?
Yes, you got attached to words and languages, wanna know how?
Well yes, in that I responded to what you wrote.
and you reacted to what you 'felt' my words meant. You're 'attached' to words via feelings.
You see that's pretty standard practice when communicating, to react to what someone says or writes.
I see that is standard for you to react to words, but in rational and honest dialectic, we dont react to words, rather, we consider words and meaning, i.e. trying to see what the opponent 'means', not what our reactions mean. Our reactions are most likely always going to be highly subjective
Of course that does require that you are communicating with someone who actually says what they mean, uses language in a standard and consistent way, and doesn't require several "passes" just to make themselves clear.
Well then what is your excuse? I say what I mean, and communicate with perfect honesty. Yet the more honest i become, the more confused you get.
Consider; meta logic or a subject matter of this scope, very few people get it 'on the natch', and such people generally have gotten something similar from another framework already. So it taking a couple of passes to clarify meaning is completly rational and normal with honest people.
I can see that a different approach may be required here, perhaps we should open your head and try to observe directly what you have there in place of a brain.
Ahh, I see you are introducing quite an outlandish claim regarding biology! So tell me more about this theory, you are saying that certain members of homo sapiens sapiens can actually have a different organ in the head other than the brain?
My my my, and you all think Rupert Sheldrake is outlandish!
Okay, back to your old confusion
All ravens are made of rock" is a subjective statement.
Nope, it pertains to, and deals with, objects and matters external to the mind in terms not dependent on personal preference.
Flim, my man, think about the absurdity of what you just wrote. You are saying that the statement "All ravens are made of rock" deals in matters and objects external to the brain. Well, if that were true, then we would find ravens made of rocks, as that is the 'matter' of the statement!
I'm sure glad FOX News here in America hasnt heard of your argument yet, they would love it. Why, when asked how their reports contain so many factual errors when we depend upon objectivity in journalism, FOX News could respond "Hey, what are YOU talking about, they are OBJECTIVLY FALSE STATEMENTS! Therefore, they are written in the highest standard of objectivity!"
And note here too, my man flim, the distinction between an OBJECTIVE statement, and an objectively FALSE STATEMENT. Note the LY on the end of OBJECTIVELY.
That makes it an adverb, dig? An adverb indicates manner, time, place, cause, or degree and answers questions such as "how," "when," "where," "how much".
And 'OBJECTIVE' in a 'objective' statement is an adjective, which modifies a noun or a pronoun by describing, identifying, or quantifying words. An adjective usually precedes the noun or the pronoun which it modifies.
And think about this, ya moo moo. In OS 012 ternary logic, "all ravens are made of rocks" is still a FALSE STATEMENT. a false statement in OS 012 is an OBJECTIVELY FALSE STATEMENT.
So have you bothered to ask yourself how it is that we both agree the statement is false, yet you are arguing with me that OS 012 is inconsistant and give me this as a rebutal?
The statement says what it says.
What it says is false. You are unaware of your meta argument, and metalogically, you are TELLING YOURSELF that all ravens are rocks is true because you are telling yourself that a false statement is a result of objectivity.
To clarify: "All members of the species Corvus Corax are composed of the stratified or igneous mineral constituents of which the earth's crust is composed."
O thank you, I didnt understand it before when you wrote it in common language, you know how us intellectuals are, cant stand the common tongue. Anyway, it's still false. You focusing on the form, as in the logical form is tautologically true,(X contains C) yet the inherent content is false (x is animate matter, C is inanimate matter). So you are saying that all tautologically true statements are objective statements, even if they are objectively false.
True, such a statement does imply the existence of both ravens and rock but does not say that ravens are rocks, merely that they are made of rock.
To deconstruct your argument, you statement says animate matter is composed of inanimate matter, and that's an objective statement because you said it!
Please stay away from blogs or any responsible position where you are editing news media! It's bad enough your spreading this in a public forum as it is.
Well that's a pretty good refutation of OS012 right there.
Oh an astounding one!
It's not a subjective statement because we have shared, solid definitions of "raven" and "rock", unlike "beautiful" or "awesome".
huh? if you look up beautiful and awesome in the dictionary, you will find definitions of those words too.
According to you, the statement;"Newspaper taxi's appeared on the shore, waiting to take me away." is also an objective statement because we have shared meaning of newspaper and taxi, as well as beach. Although no one has ever seen a newspaper taxi on the beach, other than John Lennon on LSD. LSD is a powerful mind altering substance that allows people to have powerful SUBJECTIVE experiences.
The statement wasn't used in poetry or prose and certainly did not communicate a personal truth, feeling, or experience.
Then what was it used for and what did it communicate in truth value?
Since it is something that I have never, felt, experienced or considered to be true. So what was your point again?
Sorry Flim, but you composed that sentence in creative mode, not rational and objective mode. And you cant base the sentence on soley your usage of it! That's absurd! Your claiming the only value of your sentence is when it is used in an example to refute objectivity! That's magical thinking.
If one's intention is to be objective and describe reality as they believe others see it as well, no one would write "all ravens are made of rocks". And if anthropologists from the future stumbled upon that phrase in the future, I sure hope they wont judge you as a scientist on the objective face value of the statement! Rather, a statement like that can, in princaple, be appreciated as a subjective prose. If it isnt used subjectivly for personal expression, it STILL HOLDS NO OBJECTIVE VALUE other than an example of a OBJECTIVELY FALSE STATEMENT that could only function metalogically as a subjective phrase.
You're correct though that an objective statement refers to some observable object.
Thank you, and how then could an objective statement refer to both an objectively viewable object to be objective, and also refer to objects that do not exist to be also objective? Would'nt that be contradictory?
No, "Betty is hotter than Wilma" is a subjective statement because, although it refers to observable objects, it does so in terms based on personal preference i.e., people's individual, subjective perception of "hotness".
We all know what 'hotness' means, however. If I think betty is hotter than wilma, and you think wilma is hotter than betty, we all know what we are each getting out of it, right? We agree that both of us are turned on, just not by the same woman. Both betty and wilma exist, and each one of them capable of 'hottiness' to a subjective viewpoint in princaple, where as there is absolutly NO subjective viewpoint that could observe honestly and externally 'ravens are made of rocks'
Where have I contradicted myself?
"All ravens are made of rocks" is an objective statement because it is objectively false is your contradiction. It's a contradiction in reality to the only thing 'objective' can mean, existing independently of a subjective view.
Here comes another contradiction:So now, I can say that 'all girls are really tall boys and all tall boys are really girls' is also an objective statement in your meaning. Right?
Yes, a false objective statement.
Flim, you really need to get your truth values situated. Do you know what TRUE means? do you know what it 'can' mean? Do you realize how contradictory your own personal metalogic of 'true' is revealed here?
Something that is 'true' has 'existence', right? So 'false', as you use the term, is something that is 'not true', correct? So if false is 'not true', then false refers to something that does not exist, right? So when you say a 'false objective statement', you do realize that you are also saying that the objective statement does not exist, it is false, not true.
Yes, you did contradict him: you said he was wrong. Go back to the definition of "contradict" and notice that it does not mean "disprove" or "refute". You didn't prove him to be in error or that his arguments were self-contradictory. In fact, allow me to summarise your arguments that you think disproved Jonny's:
---My definitions are correct, yours are wrong. I'm right. Blah, blah blah... roughly a page of extraneous bollocks... blah blah blah. I'm right---
umm, I dont think those are my words. and besides, Jonny removed himself from the tit for tat process, so I rebutted, and he didnt. Therefore, my truth advanced, and his didnt. It's no more complex than that.
What's to rebut? You didn't actually create an argument, you just restated over and over again in different ways, and with no reference to external evidence that you were right. Which is exactly what you are doing here.
dude, you can either agree with what I write in contradiction to your statements, or you can disagree. If you disagree, then you can put forth your disagreement.
So put forth your disagreement to my rebuttals in this exchange, or note where you agree.
This is your assumption Bubb, and just your assumption. It is the reason that you think I am contradicting myself and it happens to be wrong. Do you deny that the statement "Bubb is wearing a pink frilly dress" deals with something external to the mind (i.e., you) just because it is incorrect?
If bubb is not wearing a pink frilly dress, then how could it deal with something external to the mind? It's dealing with something INTERNAL in SOMEONE's MIND, you dirty pervert!
I happen to be wearing blue jeans that snug my cute tush.
We strategize in binary, which cannot account for the uncertainty conceptually, so we naturally fail to incude uncertainty into our logic and framework.
in general, yes. By we I mean us human people.
Although statements about the real world are true or false we deal every day with statements whose truth value we don't know, we use a best guess or delay until we have more information.
Exactly, the logic process stops because it has no logical deduction it can make given the facts, so it 'fills' in the blanks with 'guesses', 'intuitions', 'hunches', and then plots objectivly around those false ideas, which is simply irrational and doenst make much sense, as you could imagine.
Like Z said to understand the world we probably tacitly use a multi valued logic.
huh? ternary logic is a mutli valued logic, so if zaay said that, then he agrees with me.
I would suggest categories such as "statments whose truth value I will never know", "statements whose truth value I don't need to know", "statements whose truth value I will know in the future", "statements whose truth value I need to find more evidence to discover now" etc.
that's fine as a heuristic, but it's not a logical relationship, and all of those statements are simply doing is refering to the third value, or a third value event. Why make it so complex?
So you're still not going to take it like a man and admit that you're wrong eh?
Sure, I admit when I am wrong all the time, and have a few times on this threads, and when I do, i also apologize to the community.
But they can't both apply. They're diametrically opposite things.
Watch a contradiction to your statement occur before your eyes.
"I know that I dont know". That's both knowing and not knowing at the same time, two diametrically opposite things occuring at once.
any rebut which the framework recieves which proves itself to be logical and more effecient simply gets upgraded into the framework
Care to reveal how Bubb? Or would that involve actually explicitly stating that it's all a load of nonsense.
sure, through discussions just like this. For example, there are six 'laws' of ternary dialectic. Right now ,you are just trying to rebut one of those laws, which is "All ideas can either be true, or false, or mystery". Both you and Zaay, and a few others, are trying to convince me that all ideas are only true and false. then you are arguing that false ideas are really true ideas. Now, that doesnt make much sense to me so far, your arguments that is, especially when we already have confirmation of formalized ternary logic, research which shows ternary logic to be a metalogic, and bivalent logic merely a subset of ternary logic, and also new information coming in now that our brains are ternary in nature.
However, I am still willing to hear your case further! (being of infinite compassion and patience, my joy is only to see your joy)
You see, this is what you just have to be a troll Bubb. Nobody can be as stupid and impervious to reason as you are without real effort.
Hmm, does that make you then a troll in my eyes too? NO! For i love you, little flower, and although you're thinking is as stupid as the rocks in those ravens, I know you can do better! And ol fun lovin' bubblefish has plenty of patience for the slow ones. Come on, little turtle, come on!
With much tender patience,
Your Guru,
Bubblefish
