[EDIT: My reply to this was really really funny, but I just deleted it, I forgot that I am not allowed to speak in the same terms as others here seem to enjoy quite often]
Last edited:
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
[EDIT: My reply to this was really really funny, but I just deleted it, I forgot that I am not allowed to speak in the same terms as others here seem to enjoy quite often]
Z
Variable Constant
I suddenly get the impression we'll see Mr. V. on the late nite infomercials any day now...
Right after those midgets that promise to teach you the secrets of selling real estate.
Right after those midgets that promise to teach you the secrets of selling real estate.
Quotes on 'mysteries' in science regarding our 'laws' of the universe.
"We don't know anything. Everything about gravity is
mysterious." -- Michael Martin Nieto, theoretical physicist, Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Discover Magazine, October 2003
"Only a few people understand -- or think they
understand -- how a permanent magnet works. The
magnet of everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a
quantum-mechanics thing " -- Tatiana Makarova, physicist,
Umea University, Sweden. Discover Magazine, December 2002
"Gravity may not be working as advertised. Spacecraft
hurtling through the Solar System have been behaving
so bizarrely that some scientists wonder whether our
theories of gravity are wrong." -- Charles Seife,
New Scientist Magazine, September 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery
"We don't know anything. Everything about gravity is
mysterious." -- Michael Martin Nieto, theoretical physicist, Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Discover Magazine, October 2003
"Only a few people understand -- or think they
understand -- how a permanent magnet works. The
magnet of everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a
quantum-mechanics thing " -- Tatiana Makarova, physicist,
Umea University, Sweden. Discover Magazine, December 2002
"Gravity may not be working as advertised. Spacecraft
hurtling through the Solar System have been behaving
so bizarrely that some scientists wonder whether our
theories of gravity are wrong." -- Charles Seife,
New Scientist Magazine, September 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery
Last edited:
well I'm sorry to negate that hueristic, but it's simply not true. Existence of being and existence of universe is the biggest free lunch offered.
Noted. I will attend to your post shortly.
BF
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Still waiting on an answer BF:
"Also, I have, what I feel is, a very important question for you BF; are you in any manner affiliated with, compenstated by, or employeed by Steorn?"
"Also, I have, what I feel is, a very important question for you BF; are you in any manner affiliated with, compenstated by, or employeed by Steorn?"
This discussion is a perfect example of co-intelligence, which online dialectic offers, yes.
But what have you learned about OS 012 from Jonny, Zaay, or Dr. Kitten?
From Jonny we learn that there is no mathematical contradiction to OS 012.
From Zaay, if we take his words at face value, we NOW learn that he has virtually perfect agreement with OS 012, especially the beginning understanding of the 2 value in relationship to knowledge. From Zaay we learn nothing about logical rebuttals to OS 012, as Zaay was not arguing from the point of his world view, which is ONE THAT ACCEPTS MYSTERY.
From Dr. Kitten we have not learned anything in regards to OS 012 other than he agrees with some of the objective assesments of subjective statements that OS 012 offers.
Yes, BS is a perfect way to put badscience.net. You're insensed because I actually disagree with your conclusions and point out contradictions.
Bingo! Your mind is made up on the matter, and therefore, that is what your experiencing, your mind. Please don't blame the contents of your software on me!
Hopefully! If this discussion continues, we will have virtual agreement across the board, as has CONSISTANTLY happened with EVERYONE whom has stayed in the discussion.
It is YOU whom is TROLLING my thread in a community that I have been a member of for over a year and YOU just joined to POST on MY THREAD.
Your remarks are insulting, demeaning, and most importantly, FLAT OUT DISHONEST.
If you are going to bother to post ONE MORE THING that includes direct insults to my person, then please leave this discussion now, or I will ask the mods to look into your behavior.
You are more than welcome to address me analytically, but if you fail to do so, then you're trolling. You have some 40+ posts in this community, and ALL OF THEM PERSONALLY INFLAMMATORY. And one more time, and i will report your post and perhaps the mods will do the same to you that they did to PV. Notice we dont have him around here anymore, as such behavior is in clear violation of COMMUNITY POLICY.
Last edited:
Oh brother, are you for real?
Look, Arkan, instead of jumping to bizarre interpretations of who you think I am, why dont you simply just call me on my honest language?
I use Steorn as a perfect example of a third value event. I hope they have what they say that have, that would be great. If they have what they say they have, that means we may have a way out of this energy mess that would be completly surprising and globally appreciated, but it also means many scientists are wrong about allot of things about our universe. If they are wrong about laws of our universe, I want to know, and so should any SCIENTIST.
I am not affliated with Steorn. I appreciate their 'story' of dealing with orthodoxy, and find it consistant with my own stories of dealing with orthodoxy/fundamentalism, as well as any other human being who suggests something outside of the accepted paradigm.
So tell me, why the need to defend and protect something which NEEDS To be proven wrong for the very advancement of science itself? Why DISREGARD claims that DONT FIT your world view? If your interested in truth, you would disregard NOTHING. If your interested in protecting your beliefs in your head, then you naturally disregard anything that contradicts them, and that, my friend, is what I call BAD PHILOSOPHY.
I have consistantly and honestly revealed myself and my intentions, if you wish to counter those with more bizarre mysticisms like sinnikal from badscience.net, please know that in my eyes, YOUR PRACTICING WOOISM, and in your own ignorance, actually confuse it as logic and science.
HUMPF!
I am very grouchy today, very grouchy, and this discussion has nothing to do with it, rather some problems within my own family right now. So if I appear to harsh today, live with it, I am.
BF
Look, Arkan, I'm not a physicist, and I am not capable of explaing HOW or WHY other physicists discuss possible violations of second law on magnetic monopoles. It's hypothetical. I can't argue that, I'm not qualified.
but when you make a statement that 'no scientist' would question or hypothesize within the boundries of science the possibility of the second law's violation, I find that to be an innaccurate argument. And it appears so other scientists.
http://www.sandiego.edu/~jhwright/MaxwellDemonOct2002.pdf
I AM NOT A PHYSICIST, and can make no 'claim' honestly one way or another, I am merely bringing to your attention scientific contradictions to your claim.
Some scientists have suggested or hypothesized the existence of mirror matter, which in theory would not violate the second law, but would give us 'free' energy on our side, which is how it appears to me as a layman. Am I wrong? Probably, but who cares? That's not the argument, the argument is the possibility of the violation of the second law, and according to other scientists, your claim that this isnt a scientific possibility is contradicted.
Or am I misunderstanding you?
There is NO EVIDENCE that Steorn is committing fraud, indeed, they are taking clear steps to PROVE they are not fraudulent.
humpf! dont confuse your pseudo skepticism with skepticism, yours is closer to fundamentalist disbelief than true skepticism.
If you agreed in the provisional argument, then you would be more open to consider evidence that doesnt fit your world view.
BF
magentic monopoles and the second law
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...nd+law&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=safari
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...nd+law&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=safari
sinnikal
Muse
Bubba, with regard to the Mods you must do as you see fit, your threats are familiar from elsewhere on the wonderful interweb thingy. From your track record oblique reference to some nebulous legal action will probably follow soon.
BTW, you really do think Z has 'just joined the discussion' don't you?
As with everything else, you mistake a quick skim through text for thorough analysis and comprehension.
Are you sure you're feeling grouchy today, might it not just be a little cranky?
sinnikal... keep on target with the discussion, and do not personalize things with posts like this.
BTW, you really do think Z has 'just joined the discussion' don't you?
As with everything else, you mistake a quick skim through text for thorough analysis and comprehension.
Are you sure you're feeling grouchy today, might it not just be a little cranky?
sinnikal... keep on target with the discussion, and do not personalize things with posts like this.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: jmercer
Last edited by a moderator:
I was going to post that, IIRC, *except* for the big bang, there has been no other observed/hypothesised pase example of negative entropy.
Indeed I have seen some discussion about whether the whole idea f tiem i tied into entropy, as everything else is reversable wrt time.
I doubt that STEORN's device replicates conditions in the big bang
I have never made any legal threat, again, more dishonesty and NO analytical argument
hardly, he's not discussing anything
Please include a post where analysis was missed by myself, please.
My personal state of mind is none of your business. Go back to your delusions and mysticisms about me, I really dont care.
I am reporting your post now
BF
Z
Variable Constant
No, sin, I'm sure he realizes who I am.
He is right, in a way: pagans do accept the value of mystery. But we also recognize mystery not as a marker on a truth scale, but simply one on the scale of knowledge. Pagans accept moreso than many others do that the world is composed of many wonderful gradations between truth and falsehood; but those are the extreme ends of the scale, and mystery is not on the scale at all. Many pagans even accept concepts that are skeptically anethema, such as 'subjective truth'; some are even of the opinion that a subjective truth trumps ANY objective truth, and that the subjective truth SHAPES objective reality.
Of course, most Pagans are dope-fiends and losers...
But I'm not arguing from the point of view of my personal beliefs, because those subjective qualities of faith and reason which I maintain are not consistant nor logical, and I don't expect them to be. But when one argues for a value within a discussion framework, such as assigning 'unknown' to a true-false scale, one has to apply factors of reason and logic to the argument, and intuition must give ground to reason for any such discussion to have merit.
Now, I will say this much: IFF restricted to intersubjective communication, and IFF the participants are both willing, and IFF the participants agree that unknown is only a temporary, subjective, and unessential value when dealing with a given concept - then, yes, OS012 has some minimal merit in discussions. Unfortunately, as pointed out by others, the same level of rationality and reason required of participants to even consider using this system in discussion would generally mean that there would be no need to use such a system anyway defeats the purpose of OS012.
Or, to clarify: those discussions which would benefit most from application of OS012, are those discussion in which the participants can reach identical conclusions without OS012, or in which the participants are unlikely to use the system anyway.
See, in a scientific discussion, the participants nearly always admit that any statement is only as true as the current state of scientific knowledge permits it to be. This is partly why Steorn is facing such resistance: the statements they make are untrue, given the current state of scientific knowledge. It is up to Steorn to publish, properly, material which challenges the current state of knowledge. It is not up to the current scientific establishment to disprove its own current base of knowledge to support Steorn's unusual claim.
But the most important discussions, arguably, are not those within the scientific context, but those regarding beliefs - religious, social, and political -and it is precisely in these discussions that OS012 might benefit most, but is most unlikely to be applied.
You see, a person with a belief IS admitting that their belief statement is an unknown; faith is the process of assigning a truth value to an unknown statement and sticking to it in spite of further information or discussion. Revealing a statement of faith to be an unknown rather than a truth will not further discussion for the faithful, as the person of faith will continue to treat the unknown as a true value regardless, or suffer a 'crisis of faith'. Likewise, there are many statements that will continue to be treated as false, no matter that we demonstrate that their current value is unknown instead. No amount of philosophical dialectic will prevent people from denying that invisible pink unicorns orbit Pluto, even though we can show that this is merely an unknown, because the very statement itself is patently absurd.
To clarify: assigning the value of 'unknown' as if it were a true-false value will do nothing within a discussion in which faith is a factor, because faith treats unknown as true or false depending on the tennets of faith, and demonstrating that their truth value remains unknown does nothing for the discussion.
If, instead, this system had a means by which it forces participants to ACCEPT that the truth value of a given statement is unknown, and to treat it ACCORDINGLY, then you might have something. But until you can get a rabid Muslim jihadist fundamentalist in a room with a rabid Christian Capitalist fundamentalist, and get them to agree to set aside ALL their political, social, and religious beliefs as unknowns... you have nothing.
None of this, please note, changes the fact that unknown is not a truth value, but a knowledge value. Even in the case of philosophical fundamentals, it remains true that the infinite number of unknown statements has an objective true or false value; that their value remains unknowable is irrelevant.
He is right, in a way: pagans do accept the value of mystery. But we also recognize mystery not as a marker on a truth scale, but simply one on the scale of knowledge. Pagans accept moreso than many others do that the world is composed of many wonderful gradations between truth and falsehood; but those are the extreme ends of the scale, and mystery is not on the scale at all. Many pagans even accept concepts that are skeptically anethema, such as 'subjective truth'; some are even of the opinion that a subjective truth trumps ANY objective truth, and that the subjective truth SHAPES objective reality.
Of course, most Pagans are dope-fiends and losers...
But I'm not arguing from the point of view of my personal beliefs, because those subjective qualities of faith and reason which I maintain are not consistant nor logical, and I don't expect them to be. But when one argues for a value within a discussion framework, such as assigning 'unknown' to a true-false scale, one has to apply factors of reason and logic to the argument, and intuition must give ground to reason for any such discussion to have merit.
Now, I will say this much: IFF restricted to intersubjective communication, and IFF the participants are both willing, and IFF the participants agree that unknown is only a temporary, subjective, and unessential value when dealing with a given concept - then, yes, OS012 has some minimal merit in discussions. Unfortunately, as pointed out by others, the same level of rationality and reason required of participants to even consider using this system in discussion would generally mean that there would be no need to use such a system anyway defeats the purpose of OS012.
Or, to clarify: those discussions which would benefit most from application of OS012, are those discussion in which the participants can reach identical conclusions without OS012, or in which the participants are unlikely to use the system anyway.
See, in a scientific discussion, the participants nearly always admit that any statement is only as true as the current state of scientific knowledge permits it to be. This is partly why Steorn is facing such resistance: the statements they make are untrue, given the current state of scientific knowledge. It is up to Steorn to publish, properly, material which challenges the current state of knowledge. It is not up to the current scientific establishment to disprove its own current base of knowledge to support Steorn's unusual claim.
But the most important discussions, arguably, are not those within the scientific context, but those regarding beliefs - religious, social, and political -and it is precisely in these discussions that OS012 might benefit most, but is most unlikely to be applied.
You see, a person with a belief IS admitting that their belief statement is an unknown; faith is the process of assigning a truth value to an unknown statement and sticking to it in spite of further information or discussion. Revealing a statement of faith to be an unknown rather than a truth will not further discussion for the faithful, as the person of faith will continue to treat the unknown as a true value regardless, or suffer a 'crisis of faith'. Likewise, there are many statements that will continue to be treated as false, no matter that we demonstrate that their current value is unknown instead. No amount of philosophical dialectic will prevent people from denying that invisible pink unicorns orbit Pluto, even though we can show that this is merely an unknown, because the very statement itself is patently absurd.
To clarify: assigning the value of 'unknown' as if it were a true-false value will do nothing within a discussion in which faith is a factor, because faith treats unknown as true or false depending on the tennets of faith, and demonstrating that their truth value remains unknown does nothing for the discussion.
If, instead, this system had a means by which it forces participants to ACCEPT that the truth value of a given statement is unknown, and to treat it ACCORDINGLY, then you might have something. But until you can get a rabid Muslim jihadist fundamentalist in a room with a rabid Christian Capitalist fundamentalist, and get them to agree to set aside ALL their political, social, and religious beliefs as unknowns... you have nothing.
None of this, please note, changes the fact that unknown is not a truth value, but a knowledge value. Even in the case of philosophical fundamentals, it remains true that the infinite number of unknown statements has an objective true or false value; that their value remains unknowable is irrelevant.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
I'm understanding you. You went out and put in the first few Googled links you came up with without bothering to even read them close enough to understand what they said.
1) There is no evidence they are not committing fraud, therefore it must be kept as a possibility
2) They are not taking steps to provie they are nto fraudulent, they are following in the path of other hucksters that use a guise of scientific methodology to try to come across as legit.
I'm perfectly willing to consider all evidence. Oh, wait, that's right, Steorn isn't providing any.
You're an arrogant, ignorant woo BF. Take your pet theory and stuff it. If you have evidence to present, present it.
sinnikal
Muse
Peer review is for reporting and evaluating science. Academics get peeved when people ignore this process, but who cares? Peer review does not make something true, and not all papers can get published anyway. To assume that any editor would choose a paper that discusses an experiment with a over unity device would publish it is a stretch. It would get laughed at.
I think one of the most interesting theories of consciousness, which is Julian Jaynes "Origins of Consciousness and the Bi-Cameral Mind" is a wonderful piece of scholarship. It even influenced Daniel Dennet, who anyone can hardly call a woo. Yet it's main criticism when it came out was that Julian jaynes didnt publish it for academia first. They felt slighted, and dismissed it soley due to this. To this day, the 'word' is still out on bi-cameralism.
I think, Arkan, you fail to notice the role of 'academic politics' that effects so many decisions, and you place a white hat on academia as if academia is the new priestcraft, completly absolved from sin and irrationality.
Far from it. Academics can be just as metalogically irrational as anyone else. Having knowledge does not mean understanding knowledge.
BF
Jimbob,
Find your metalogic, that is all I am refrencing, and all OS 012 refrences.
That doesnt matter since you are simply referring to a piece of knowledge in semantical terms. It's the 'meaning' behind the statement. If a third grade school child points at a map of the solar system, and says, "Oh, the earth circles the sun!", we 'know' what he means, although he didnt say 'perfect circle' nor 'elliptical orbit', which is circular in simili.
So you're saying that it is TRUE that it is not relative to the truth, but a partial truth.
If you say 'hey, this is only partially true, but also partially false' your still saying 'Hey, it is TRUE that this is only partially true, and partially false'.
That's your metalogic. Your metalogic is the over riding logic of any statement, and it has a limit to three truth values.
For example, if someone says 'The earth is like a basketball swerving around", that is the 'false' metalogic operating
but you're still saying that's true, right?
can you see your metalogic? You're saying that it is true that it doesnt fit into the system, nor do any partial truths that people accept as being partial.
It is true that there are partial truths.
I agree with this. But your not including *how*religious hatred evolves and orders itself. It evolves and orders itself through politicians who manipulate feelings with charged rhetoric.
There are many incredibly rational muslims. The point of the human union is to ignore the politician, make them irrelevant, outcompete their ideas. Rational muslims will have a voice here.
Now please keep in mind, I speak of possibility. I'm not saying this will work for 100% certainty, I'm saying it's worth a shot.
Because it's the only platform politicians can run on there. they are oppressed and uneducated, the masses. In poverty. There is no solution for them. Do politicians in the middle east address that? no, they create FALSE problems which do no exist and then propose solutions for them
Sure it does, it creates more problems, you have the problem of dominating and oppressing an entire people! it takes allot of resource to do that. And how many successes have we had historically? All have failed in the middle east. South Africa Failed. Israel is failing with palestine. It's almost impossible to dominate people in the 21st century, the individual is too empowered.
That didnt work too well for Hitler, did it?
first off, the phrase 'master meme', although I argue is accurate, is for marketing sakes. It's just a 'meme' itself. OS 012 as a webpage will not do very much. but what I am referring to building, however, with many many others more intelligent than myself, can in theory deliever.
resources, properly managed, are replenishing, with the possible exception of oil (although there is speculation that oil reserves are boundless, and is a feature of geology, not dinosaurs). But oil is not the only source for energy, by any means, and such a problem needs global co-intelligence to solve it.
of course here is where I simply hope Steorn is right, naturally.
properly managed, we all have access to billiionaire wealth, according to Fuller's math.
I dont see what this has to do with anything. Billionaires live in Beverly hills and beverly hills (probably the safest place in los angeles!) is nice because so many people have access to resource. But the general land of Beverly Hills isnt special, it's just special because rich people live there.
OS 012 is a map for our metalogic and language. At the metalogical level, all sides winning is indeed quite rational. If we can adopt a dialectic framework that embraces our shared metalogic, we can refine our co-inteligence globally and have perfect agreement globally. Although we all may disagree on what is true, false, or mystery, we all agree metalogically that there is 0, 1, and 2. We all share that in common. It's our common 'meaning', and when allowed to operate freely and unrestricted, win win is a natural outcome.
We already all have OS 012. we just dont use it.
BF
PS, I note that my words of 'mystery' and 'world peace' are the most inflammatory words one can use in a discussion. Mention world peace and mystery, and people start seeing woos and hippies everywhere. That's one of the things I would like to change as an artist in media. to get others to consider world peace rationally, not emotionally.
Tim Leary once joked that the best cover any progressive minded invidual could use to protect themselves from being stalked or investigated by the government was to talk about world peace honestly. This is funny when you consider that anyone who talks about it is immediatly not taken seriously as a threat, but rather as a hippie. Yet Buckminster Fuller's ideas were the most revolutionairy and threatening ones around, yet no one was afraid of bucky.
Anyway, I am a member of a small group of individuals that has hope that we can do it, that we can make ourselves a successful species. I have always been that way, my whole life. I am a humanist pure and true. This side is very very small, and the other side very very big. But everyday, my side gets bigger and bigger, and the other side smaller and smaller.
BF
Find your metalogic, that is all I am refrencing, and all OS 012 refrences.
That doesnt matter since you are simply referring to a piece of knowledge in semantical terms. It's the 'meaning' behind the statement. If a third grade school child points at a map of the solar system, and says, "Oh, the earth circles the sun!", we 'know' what he means, although he didnt say 'perfect circle' nor 'elliptical orbit', which is circular in simili.
So you're saying that it is TRUE that it is not relative to the truth, but a partial truth.
If you say 'hey, this is only partially true, but also partially false' your still saying 'Hey, it is TRUE that this is only partially true, and partially false'.
That's your metalogic. Your metalogic is the over riding logic of any statement, and it has a limit to three truth values.
For example, if someone says 'The earth is like a basketball swerving around", that is the 'false' metalogic operating
but you're still saying that's true, right?
can you see your metalogic? You're saying that it is true that it doesnt fit into the system, nor do any partial truths that people accept as being partial.
It is true that there are partial truths.
I agree with this. But your not including *how*religious hatred evolves and orders itself. It evolves and orders itself through politicians who manipulate feelings with charged rhetoric.
There are many incredibly rational muslims. The point of the human union is to ignore the politician, make them irrelevant, outcompete their ideas. Rational muslims will have a voice here.
Now please keep in mind, I speak of possibility. I'm not saying this will work for 100% certainty, I'm saying it's worth a shot.
Because it's the only platform politicians can run on there. they are oppressed and uneducated, the masses. In poverty. There is no solution for them. Do politicians in the middle east address that? no, they create FALSE problems which do no exist and then propose solutions for them
Sure it does, it creates more problems, you have the problem of dominating and oppressing an entire people! it takes allot of resource to do that. And how many successes have we had historically? All have failed in the middle east. South Africa Failed. Israel is failing with palestine. It's almost impossible to dominate people in the 21st century, the individual is too empowered.
That didnt work too well for Hitler, did it?
first off, the phrase 'master meme', although I argue is accurate, is for marketing sakes. It's just a 'meme' itself. OS 012 as a webpage will not do very much. but what I am referring to building, however, with many many others more intelligent than myself, can in theory deliever.
resources, properly managed, are replenishing, with the possible exception of oil (although there is speculation that oil reserves are boundless, and is a feature of geology, not dinosaurs). But oil is not the only source for energy, by any means, and such a problem needs global co-intelligence to solve it.
of course here is where I simply hope Steorn is right, naturally.
properly managed, we all have access to billiionaire wealth, according to Fuller's math.
I dont see what this has to do with anything. Billionaires live in Beverly hills and beverly hills (probably the safest place in los angeles!) is nice because so many people have access to resource. But the general land of Beverly Hills isnt special, it's just special because rich people live there.
OS 012 is a map for our metalogic and language. At the metalogical level, all sides winning is indeed quite rational. If we can adopt a dialectic framework that embraces our shared metalogic, we can refine our co-inteligence globally and have perfect agreement globally. Although we all may disagree on what is true, false, or mystery, we all agree metalogically that there is 0, 1, and 2. We all share that in common. It's our common 'meaning', and when allowed to operate freely and unrestricted, win win is a natural outcome.
We already all have OS 012. we just dont use it.
BF
PS, I note that my words of 'mystery' and 'world peace' are the most inflammatory words one can use in a discussion. Mention world peace and mystery, and people start seeing woos and hippies everywhere. That's one of the things I would like to change as an artist in media. to get others to consider world peace rationally, not emotionally.
Tim Leary once joked that the best cover any progressive minded invidual could use to protect themselves from being stalked or investigated by the government was to talk about world peace honestly. This is funny when you consider that anyone who talks about it is immediatly not taken seriously as a threat, but rather as a hippie. Yet Buckminster Fuller's ideas were the most revolutionairy and threatening ones around, yet no one was afraid of bucky.
Anyway, I am a member of a small group of individuals that has hope that we can do it, that we can make ourselves a successful species. I have always been that way, my whole life. I am a humanist pure and true. This side is very very small, and the other side very very big. But everyday, my side gets bigger and bigger, and the other side smaller and smaller.
BF
Jimbob,
Find your metalogic, that is all I am refrencing, and all OS 012 refrences.
That doesnt matter since you are simply referring to a piece of knowledge in semantical terms. It's the 'meaning' behind the statement. If a third grade school child points at a map of the solar system, and says, "Oh, the earth circles the sun!", we 'know' what he means, although he didnt say 'perfect circle' nor 'elliptical orbit', which is circular in simili.
So you're saying that it is TRUE that it is not relative to the truth, but a partial truth.
If you say 'hey, this is only partially true, but also partially false' your still saying 'Hey, it is TRUE that this is only partially true, and partially false'.
That's your metalogic. Your metalogic is the over riding logic of any statement, and it has a limit to three truth values.
For example, if someone says 'The earth is like a basketball swerving around", that is the 'false' metalogic operating
but you're still saying that's true, right?
can you see your metalogic? You're saying that it is true that it doesnt fit into the system, nor do any partial truths that people accept as being partial.
It is true that there are partial truths.
I agree with this. But your not including *how*religious hatred evolves and orders itself. It evolves and orders itself through politicians who manipulate feelings with charged rhetoric.
There are many incredibly rational muslims. The point of the human union is to ignore the politician, make them irrelevant, outcompete their ideas. Rational muslims will have a voice here.
Now please keep in mind, I speak of possibility. I'm not saying this will work for 100% certainty, I'm saying it's worth a shot. If we can spend a half a trillion dollars on the war on terrorism which has no 'end' in sight and uses terminology of 'world peace' as well, then we can spend a few million dollars on buildng the framework of human union online, and test bucky's claim that it would only take 10 years to build such a system.
Keep in mind our choices that we have. Do we choose the politician's solution, or do we accept the possibility that Bucky could be right and build human union for a fraction of the cost?
Because it's the only platform politicians can run on there. they are oppressed and uneducated, the masses. In poverty. There is no solution for them. Do politicians in the middle east address that? no, they create FALSE problems which do no exist and then propose solutions for them
Sure it does, it creates more problems, you have the problem of dominating and oppressing an entire people! it takes allot of resource to do that. And how many successes have we had historically? All have failed in the middle east. South Africa Failed. Israel is failing with palestine. It's almost impossible to dominate people in the 21st century, the individual is too empowered.
That didnt work too well for Hitler, did it?
first off, the phrase 'master meme', although I argue is accurate, is for marketing sakes. It's just a 'meme' itself. OS 012 as a webpage will not do very much. but what I am referring to building, however, with many many others more intelligent than myself, can in theory deliever.
resources, properly managed, are replenishing, with the possible exception of oil (although there is speculation that oil reserves are boundless, and is a feature of geology, not dinosaurs). But oil is not the only source for energy, by any means, and such a problem needs global co-intelligence to solve it.
of course here is where I simply hope Steorn is right, naturally.
properly managed, we all have access to billiionaire wealth, according to Fuller's math.
I dont see what this has to do with anything. Billionaires live in Beverly hills and beverly hills (probably the safest place in los angeles!) is nice because so many people have access to resource. But the general land of Beverly Hills isnt special, it's just special because rich people live there.
OS 012 is a map for our metalogic and language. At the metalogical level, all sides winning is indeed quite rational. If we can adopt a dialectic framework that embraces our shared metalogic, we can refine our co-inteligence globally and have perfect agreement globally. Although we all may disagree on what is true, false, or mystery, we all agree metalogically that there is 0, 1, and 2. We all share that in common. It's our common 'meaning', and when allowed to operate freely and unrestricted, win win is a natural outcome.
We already all have OS 012. we just dont use it.
BF
PS, I note that my words of 'mystery' and 'world peace' are the most inflammatory words one can use in a discussion. Mention world peace and mystery, and people start seeing woos and hippies everywhere. That's one of the things I would like to change as an artist in media. to get others to consider world peace rationally, not emotionally.
Tim Leary once joked that the best cover any progressive minded individual could use to protect themselves from being stalked or investigated by the government was to talk about world peace honestly. This is funny when you consider that anyone who talks about it is immediatly not taken seriously as a threat, but rather as a hippie. Yet Buckminster Fuller's ideas were the most revolutionairy and threatening ones around, yet no one was afraid of bucky.
Anyway, I am a member of a small group of individuals that has hope that we can do it, that we can make ourselves a successful species. I have always been that way, my whole life. I am a humanist pure and true. This side is very very small, and the other side very very big. But everyday, my side gets bigger and bigger, and the other side smaller and smaller.
BF
Find your metalogic, that is all I am refrencing, and all OS 012 refrences.
That doesnt matter since you are simply referring to a piece of knowledge in semantical terms. It's the 'meaning' behind the statement. If a third grade school child points at a map of the solar system, and says, "Oh, the earth circles the sun!", we 'know' what he means, although he didnt say 'perfect circle' nor 'elliptical orbit', which is circular in simili.
So you're saying that it is TRUE that it is not relative to the truth, but a partial truth.
If you say 'hey, this is only partially true, but also partially false' your still saying 'Hey, it is TRUE that this is only partially true, and partially false'.
That's your metalogic. Your metalogic is the over riding logic of any statement, and it has a limit to three truth values.
For example, if someone says 'The earth is like a basketball swerving around", that is the 'false' metalogic operating
but you're still saying that's true, right?
can you see your metalogic? You're saying that it is true that it doesnt fit into the system, nor do any partial truths that people accept as being partial.
It is true that there are partial truths.
I agree with this. But your not including *how*religious hatred evolves and orders itself. It evolves and orders itself through politicians who manipulate feelings with charged rhetoric.
There are many incredibly rational muslims. The point of the human union is to ignore the politician, make them irrelevant, outcompete their ideas. Rational muslims will have a voice here.
Now please keep in mind, I speak of possibility. I'm not saying this will work for 100% certainty, I'm saying it's worth a shot. If we can spend a half a trillion dollars on the war on terrorism which has no 'end' in sight and uses terminology of 'world peace' as well, then we can spend a few million dollars on buildng the framework of human union online, and test bucky's claim that it would only take 10 years to build such a system.
Keep in mind our choices that we have. Do we choose the politician's solution, or do we accept the possibility that Bucky could be right and build human union for a fraction of the cost?
Because it's the only platform politicians can run on there. they are oppressed and uneducated, the masses. In poverty. There is no solution for them. Do politicians in the middle east address that? no, they create FALSE problems which do no exist and then propose solutions for them
Sure it does, it creates more problems, you have the problem of dominating and oppressing an entire people! it takes allot of resource to do that. And how many successes have we had historically? All have failed in the middle east. South Africa Failed. Israel is failing with palestine. It's almost impossible to dominate people in the 21st century, the individual is too empowered.
That didnt work too well for Hitler, did it?
first off, the phrase 'master meme', although I argue is accurate, is for marketing sakes. It's just a 'meme' itself. OS 012 as a webpage will not do very much. but what I am referring to building, however, with many many others more intelligent than myself, can in theory deliever.
resources, properly managed, are replenishing, with the possible exception of oil (although there is speculation that oil reserves are boundless, and is a feature of geology, not dinosaurs). But oil is not the only source for energy, by any means, and such a problem needs global co-intelligence to solve it.
of course here is where I simply hope Steorn is right, naturally.
properly managed, we all have access to billiionaire wealth, according to Fuller's math.
I dont see what this has to do with anything. Billionaires live in Beverly hills and beverly hills (probably the safest place in los angeles!) is nice because so many people have access to resource. But the general land of Beverly Hills isnt special, it's just special because rich people live there.
OS 012 is a map for our metalogic and language. At the metalogical level, all sides winning is indeed quite rational. If we can adopt a dialectic framework that embraces our shared metalogic, we can refine our co-inteligence globally and have perfect agreement globally. Although we all may disagree on what is true, false, or mystery, we all agree metalogically that there is 0, 1, and 2. We all share that in common. It's our common 'meaning', and when allowed to operate freely and unrestricted, win win is a natural outcome.
We already all have OS 012. we just dont use it.
BF
PS, I note that my words of 'mystery' and 'world peace' are the most inflammatory words one can use in a discussion. Mention world peace and mystery, and people start seeing woos and hippies everywhere. That's one of the things I would like to change as an artist in media. to get others to consider world peace rationally, not emotionally.
Tim Leary once joked that the best cover any progressive minded individual could use to protect themselves from being stalked or investigated by the government was to talk about world peace honestly. This is funny when you consider that anyone who talks about it is immediatly not taken seriously as a threat, but rather as a hippie. Yet Buckminster Fuller's ideas were the most revolutionairy and threatening ones around, yet no one was afraid of bucky.
Anyway, I am a member of a small group of individuals that has hope that we can do it, that we can make ourselves a successful species. I have always been that way, my whole life. I am a humanist pure and true. This side is very very small, and the other side very very big. But everyday, my side gets bigger and bigger, and the other side smaller and smaller.
BF
Last edited: