Who is Telling the TRUTH?
chazwin
A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
item
is unique but of no utility except for its beauty. He askes £300 for
it and says it is cheap. I think it is too expensive but another person
thinks it is about right.
So is he, me, or the other person telling the truth???
One of us must be telling the truth.
The item is either cheap, just right, or expensive.
Any reactions welcome but especially Mike Gordge whose single
definition of truth should make it easier to answer.
l...@rdfmedia.com
The truth is that the peice of art is actualy a piece of crap and I
would not take it off your hands if you gave me money.
The point being that the truth in this occasion is subjective to
whosoever wishes to buy it. We can safely ignore my truth as
irrelevent as I'm not interested in it. We can ignore the sellers
truth as irelevent as he can only get what people are propeard to pay
for it.
So the real truth is that he would be better off holding out for the
person who falls in love with the piece and would gladly pay whatever
the man wanted.
Immortalist
chazwin wrote:
> A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
> item
> is unique but of no utility except for its beauty. He askes £300 for
> it and says it is cheap. I think it is too expensive but another person
> thinks it is about right.
> So is he, me, or the other person telling the truth???
> One of us must be telling the truth.
> The item is either cheap, just right, or expensive.
>
It's not a question of deductive truth but instead, inductive truth
which is probabal and theoretical and not necessarily non-contradictory
as in deductive reasoning; Prescriptions vs descriptions.
Value judgements
The discovery of the pleasure centres in the brain has fundamental
consequences for philosophy and practical affairs. It influences our
ideas about the aims of human actions, which are basic to all social,
political, and moral theories. It is not possible any longer to
consider that human aims and values are set by some transcendent,
intuitive process that is as Wittgenstein put it 'not in the world'.
We know now that they are basically regulated by the organization and
activities of certain parts of the brain, however much they may be
complicated and varied by culture and experience. Some recent
philosophers have accordingly changed ground from the attack on
naturalism, and they see the problem rather as a need to find out
what is the special
character of statements
about values.
It may help to discuss them. One way of putting it is that if value
statements are accepted by the listener it is implied that he will do
something. Some philosophers have compared statements of value to
imperatives, and this agrees with our idea that decisions about value
spring from the effort to meet needs.
Value judgements include
statements about what is
good and what people
ought to do.
They contrast with statements
of fact, whose acceptance
does not (necessarily)
entail action.
'It is raining' is merely factual. 'You ought not to hit that child'
implies a value judgement. One way of putting this is that value
statements are prescriptive, not purely descriptive (Hare 1963).
Another terminology is that;
value statements are practical,
while purely factual statements
are theoretical (Quinton 1973).
The great question is then, can we find a basis for prescriptive
statements in descriptive ones? Broadly speaking naturalists hold that
you can and antinaturalists still maintain that you cannot. Hare says,
for example,
'If asked why are strawberries good you can say they taste nice and are
sweet, but this does not define goodness.' Moore's way of putting it
was, 'If I am asked what is good my answer is that good is good and
that is the end of the matter.'
Similarly, as he says, one cannot define yellowness-yellow is yellow.
But how could one describe it except as that which is experienced with
light of a certain wavelength? Instead of trying to define yellowness
we search for the conditions outside and inside the body in which we
experience it. The whole of physics consists in making such enquiries.
Similarly we can look for the conditions that we associate with
goodness both outside and inside.
Quinton's reply to Hare's challenge about the strawberries is that by
strawberries are good (we mean) they belong to the class of fruit that
most people enjoy. He also says:
Most of the judgements of value about which there is some sort of
consensus of opinion are just what they would be if to ascribe value to
something were to assert that it is such as to give satisfaction to
people in general in the long run (p. 366).
To evaluate something is to say something about its capacity for giving
satisfaction. This of course is a controversial position, to which many
philosophers have objected, and we shall have to take a lot of trouble
to defend it, especially when we come to consider judgements about
ethics and morals. The point is that the biologist sees that at least
part of the basis of judgements of value lies in the fact that all
living actions are directed towards aims or objectives, which are
determined by their fundamental programs. The programs we have
inherited tell us to continue to promote life. Every creature organizes
its activities so as to attempt to follow this instruction, though it
may interpret it in such a manner that its actions even lead to its own
individual death.
If we can show that in every human being there are appetitive
mechanisms at work in all the programs of the brain, then surely we can
no longer continue to hold that 'good is good is the end of the
matter'. These systems provide the stimulants for all the aims of
self-maintenance that constitute living. J. S. Mill's thesis that
pleasure alone is the object of desire is an understatement. All
cerebral operations are related in some way to the set of standards and
aims dictated initially by our genes. But of course the cerebral
programs that we learn are so immensely complicated that they may seem
to show little connection with the basic standards set by the genes and
the hypothalamus. It is characteristic of humans that they learn to
obtain satisfaction in many different ways. But if the reward centres
are not working even the most refined cultural or religious programs
act in vain. The individual becomes unhappy and depressed, useless to
himself and others and, ultimately, suicidal.
Many people have a different and less complicated sort of 'belief about
human values, relating them to a divine source. Goodness is what God
wills us to do, as he has shown in the Scriptures and life of, say,
Christ, Buddha, or Mahomet. All human beliefs are to be respected and
studied, but when we look at religious beliefs we shall find that they
too are the product of people, which have involved action by many parts
of their brains including the reward centres we have been discussing.
This does not mean that we shall find them ultimately either right or
wrong, there is very little we can say about ultimates. But we can now
say something about the origins of human beliefs just as we can about
the origins of our desires and fears. They are all the products of our
human nature and the complicated cultural conditions that this nature
has brought about. I am claiming that we are more likely to reach
useful and satisfactory conclusions by considering this knowledge about
origins than by assuming that our values are set by a divinely endowed
inner imperative.
We now know that satisfaction and happiness depend upon the proper
functioning of certain reward centres in the brain. If these are not
working well, no actions, or indeed thoughts, will produce satisfaction
or happiness. These areas are necessary for satisfactory individual and
social life, though not of course sufficient in themselves. This does
not tell us that happiness is in the hypothalamus or that it is
noradrenaline-we all know that it is simply happiness just as yellow
is yellowness. What we now know is a great deal more about its origins
and how to obtain it. It may well be objected that there is nothing new
in all this, everyone knows that human beings are influenced by needs
and desires and seek happiness. What is new is the knowledge of the
unity of the whole brain program, and the part that the centres that
generate needs play in it. Already with still imperfect knowledge we
can see something of the relations between the operations of the
hypothalamus and basal forebrain centres and the frontal areas of the
cortex. Together these set the 'tone' of operations of the parts of the
cortex involved in even the most abstract operations of thinking.
Programs of the brain.
J. Z. Young 1978
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/
tooly
"chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158332223.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
item
is unique but of no utility except for its beauty. He askes Ł300 for
it and says it is cheap. I think it is too expensive but another person
thinks it is about right.
So is he, me, or the other person telling the truth???
One of us must be telling the truth.
The item is either cheap, just right, or expensive.
Any reactions welcome but especially Mike Gordge whose single
definition of truth should make it easier to answer.
One way to answer this is to broaden the sample...to that of the entire
market. Given all the people who might be willing and able to buy this
item, there would be a theoretical 'equilibrium' of demand on that supply of
this object, where price could be theorietically quantified.
One thing about a demand curve though, is that each point represents a
legitimate price, high to low. In fact, there is a scheme of pricing that
'steps' price up for richer folk, while stepping it down for poorer folk
etc.
But youre probably shooting for a discussion about 'value' and how it is
created? "Cost" I believe carries the weight of both scarcity and labor in
today's economic thinking...which are the two classical elements of value
creation.
I've personally often thought of the market for art to be stranger though.
Perception has everything to do with the value of art I think. If in this
case and to skip some logical sequence here...if Perception can be
identified as the 'truth' [at least for the pricing of art], then this would
suggest that 'truth' is a variable since surely perception can change.
Ha....my mind just skipped forward as it was in realization of the struggle
between heaven and hell on earth...summed up in this changing
'perception'...changing 'truth' idea. Talking about far afield...LOL.
Immortalist
tooly wrote:
> "chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158332223.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
> item
> it and says it is cheap. I think it is too expensive but another person
> thinks it is about right.
> So is he, me, or the other person telling the truth???
> One of us must be telling the truth.
> The item is either cheap, just right, or expensive.
>
> Any reactions welcome but especially Mike Gordge whose single
> definition of truth should make it easier to answer.
>
> One way to answer this is to broaden the sample...to that of the entire
> market. Given all the people who might be willing and able to buy this
> item, there would be a theoretical 'equilibrium' of demand on that supply of
> this object, where price could be theorietically quantified.
>
> One thing about a demand curve though, is that each point represents a
> legitimate price, high to low. In fact, there is a scheme of pricing that
> 'steps' price up for richer folk, while stepping it down for poorer folk
> etc.
>
Isn't that like saying what is good and beautiful is what most people
like at a particular time?
If most people would like to drive 55 in a residential 25 mph zone,
should we lock up the kids and change the laws?
At least sometimes appealing to the masses or popularity will not be
allowed for the protection of individual rights.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ad+populum
gibbs
" A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
item
is unique but of no utility except for its beauty. He askes Ł300 for
it and says it is cheap. I think it is too expensive but another person
thinks it is about right.
So is he, me, or the other person telling the truth???
One of us must be telling the truth.
The item is either cheap, just right, or expensive."
"Cheap" is an inherently relative term and is not a truth condition unless
there is something identical to compare it to. If there were lots of other
identical items that were of a lesser, greater, or equal value then a
judgment could be made relative to what it would typically sell for.
A paradox that might interest you is the highest bidder paradox. The winning
bid in an auction is already over-valued because no one else would pay that
much for that item.
Moana
chazwin a écrit :
The answer is here: the man doesn't sell the item, he only"askes" money
for it(- joke), therfore the item isn't expensive nor cheap, the real
question is about how much does the seller needs...(serious)
Chris H. Fleming
Since you want to perturb Mike, here is an objective answer.
Until you define a metric, the question is incomplete.
You, the man, and the other person have 3 different metrics. You are
all saying different things, only using the same words.
Bret Cahill
school, show it off and tell everyone [his dad's lie] that came from
Disney World. Later, due to the "magic of demand and supply" the canes
would actually appear in Disney World.
Bret Cahill
"The world revolves, not around the inventor of new noises but the
inventor of new values; it revolves inaudibly."
-- Nietzsche
Anthony Buckland
A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
item
is unique but of no utility except for its beauty. He askes Ł300 for
it and says it is cheap. I think it is too expensive but another person
thinks it is about right.
So is he, me, or the other person telling the truth???
-- You can't go any further with this until all three of you agree
-- either on definitions of cheap, about right, and expensive,
-- or that you can't arrive at such definitions.
One of us must be telling the truth.
-- OK, now you have to define truth. I would define it as
-- that which corresponds to reality. You might define it
-- otherwise, and if I can't accept your definition then we
-- can't agree that one person must be telling the truth.
The item is either cheap, just right, or expensive.
-- Maybe, depending.
...
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Anthony Buckland wrote:
> -- OK, now you have to define truth. I would define it as
> -- that which corresponds to reality. You might define it
> -- otherwise, and if I can't accept your definition then we
> -- can't agree that one person must be telling the truth.
Thank christ (take note Brian) another mind of reason. Great answer,
but it wont change anything, he'll still laud as virtues the actions of
the murdering swine of a human dog Fido Castro.
Michael Gordge
Bret Cahill
with Nietzsche:
"Truth has never yet clung to the arm of an inflexible man."
"Convictions are a greater enemy of Truth than lies."
"He who has never told a lie has no love of the Truth."
"Of what use is Truth to woman?"
"It doesn't take courage to stick to your convictions; it takes courage
to go against your convictions."
"To say philosophy hinges on science is to stand Truth Herself on Her
head."
"Supposing Truth is a woman?"
"Truth is an old hag."
Have fun.
Bret Cahill
captini...@hotmail.com
the cost of the materials and the amount of time the artist spent on
the work.. then add in the cost of rent transportation, and utilities
and there you have it.
captini...@hotmail.com
crap on the wall... a sculpture that very precisely represents "dog
trails" In this case the artist may be an excellent one with an
acurate representation of reality.....but his art
stinks.............figurativly
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
You left out one of the most important, the meaning of art.
Its one of the Randaphobic unthinkers favourite slangs to regurgitate
their indoctrianted crap *art can mean anything you want it to mean*
which is the stupid prick/esses saying *art has no meaning*
A word that is said to mean anything, is a word that has no meaning
about anything, a word with no meaning about anything, means nothing,
art is something, so what is are in reality?
Answer that question FIRST and then, and only then, can you find out
what it is THAT helps you to determine the true value of ANY real art.
Michael Gordge
Russ Rose
A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
item
is unique but of no utility except for its beauty. He askes Ł300 for
Anthony G. Rubino
To Immortalist:
I found your post particularly interesting, and I am only mildly
surprised that no one else commented on it. It points to, and
substantiates, a fundamental premise that I have asserted a number of
times: i.e., we think in terms of values.
The idea that we are genetically programmed with tendencies to value
experiences in particular ways in specialized brain centers is
particularly interesting.
The position presented would be much closer to mine with just one
conceptual extension which can be summarized with a quotation you
presented from:
Programs of the brain.
J. Z. Young 1978
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/
"Most of the judgements of value about which there is some sort of
consensus of opinion are just what they would be if to ascribe value to
something were to assert that it is such as to give ____________ to
people in general in the long run (p. 366)."
The author filled in the blank with the concept of satisfaction. I would
fill in that blank with the concept of meaning.
"Most of the judgements of value about which there is some sort of
consensus of opinion are just what they would be if to ascribe value to
something were to assert that it is such as to give <meaning> to people
in general in the long run (p. 366)."
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
tooly
"gibbs" <gib...@fakedemailaddress.edu> wrote in message
news:eMadnY_ZpPRkm5bY...@comcast.com...
Thanks for the monkey wrench gibbs, ha. I can't argue against your point
here. I'm thinking on it...
Immortalist
This was a narrative telling of Quniton's position by Young. Young on
the other hand tried to connect valuing, satisfaction and I would
predict meaning as you use it as goals and aims, which are based upon
drives of satisfaction nontheless;
Quinton's reply to Hare's challenge about the strawberries is that by
strawberries are good (we mean) they belong to the class of fruit that
most people enjoy. He also says:
Most of the judgements of value about which there is some sort of
consensus of opinion are just what they would be if to ascribe value to
something were to assert that it is such as to give satisfaction to
people in general in the long run (p. 366).
To evaluate something is to say something about its capacity for giving
satisfaction. This of course is a controversial position, to which many
philosophers have objected, and we shall have to take a lot of trouble
to defend it, especially when we come to consider judgements about
ethics and morals.
The point is that the biologist sees
that at least part of the basis of
judgements of value lies in the
fact that all living actions are
directed towards aims or
objectives, which are
determined by their
fundamental
programs.
The programs we have inherited tell us to continue to promote life.
Every creature organizes its activities so as to attempt to follow this
instruction, though it may interpret it in such a manner that its
actions even lead to its own individual death.
> Programs of the brain.
> J. Z. Young 1978
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/
> Tony, philosopher
AlanS
> A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
>item
>is unique but of no utility except for its beauty. He askes Ł300 for
>it and says it is cheap. I think it is too expensive but another person
>thinks it is about right.
>So is he, me, or the other person telling the truth???
> One of us must be telling the truth.
> The item is either cheap, just right, or expensive.
Question is ill stated / incomplete.
Is it against the law to go naked? Depends. "Where" and "when" needs
to be specified: Is it against the law to go naked in a nudist camp?
Is it against the law to go naked in central park in Aug 14, 1947?
Queston is still not complete. "Who" or "what"? Is it against the law
for a chihuahua to go naked in central park in Aug 14, 1947? We can go
on to make it even more specific (do we by any chance mean the Mexican
state?), but language will always be ambiguous. We make innumerable
assumptions in any conversation.
Now, "is it cheap" is incomplete. Is it cheap for Bill Gates? Most of
us would automatically assume yes. But is it cheap for Bill Gates of
1972?
>Any reactions welcome but especially Mike Gordge whose single
>definition of truth should make it easier to answer.
The problem is language. In axiomatic systems, you can make
unambiguous statements, and leaving aside Goedel for a moment, any
question that can be asked in the system has an answer one way or the
other. When language isn't formal, statements carry hidden assumptions
with them, and it's practically impossible to form a question that
remains legitimate in any context. Truth well may be singular - any
well formed question about anything will have a definite answer, but
we have just seen we can only come close to constructing such
questions.
chazwin
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> Anthony Buckland wrote:
>
> > -- OK, now you have to define truth. I would define it as
> > -- that which corresponds to reality. You might define it
> > -- otherwise, and if I can't accept your definition then we
> > -- can't agree that one person must be telling the truth.
>
> Thank christ (take note Brian) another mind of reason. Great answer,
You you still wont be able to aswer the fucking qustion because your
version of truth is crap.
You are totally unable to answer the most fundementally easy value
judgement.
>
>
> Michael Gordge
chazwin
tooly wrote:
> "chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158332223.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
> item
> it and says it is cheap. I think it is too expensive but another person
> thinks it is about right.
> So is he, me, or the other person telling the truth???
> One of us must be telling the truth.
> The item is either cheap, just right, or expensive.
>
> Any reactions welcome but especially Mike Gordge whose single
> definition of truth should make it easier to answer.
>
> One way to answer this is to broaden the sample...to that of the entire
> market. Given all the people who might be willing and able to buy this
> item, there would be a theoretical 'equilibrium' of demand on that supply of
> this object, where price could be theorietically quantified.
This is not only impracticle but vertually impossible. You would need
to canvas every human on earth, by which time more people would have
been born.
>
> One thing about a demand curve though, is that each point represents a
> legitimate price, high to low. In fact, there is a scheme of pricing that
> 'steps' price up for richer folk, while stepping it down for poorer folk
> etc.
>
> But youre probably shooting for a discussion about 'value' and how it is
> created? "Cost" I believe carries the weight of both scarcity and labor in
> today's economic thinking...which are the two classical elements of value
> creation.
I was shooting for a simple plea that there are many versions and
definitions of the word truth and to hold to one simple one has such
limited utility as to be worthless. Truth has many meanings.
chazwin
Thank you for making a pro-relativist statement.
To each his own version of truth and personal reality.
chazwin
AlanS wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2006 07:57:03 -0700, "chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
> >item
If incomplete then aren't most questions of truth incomplete?
Surely those questions, as yet unformed, which you assert may yet be
stated, would only be of the most simple self defining in nature: to
assert simple logical inductions wherein the assumptions and original
premises are already fully stated.
chazwin
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> captinillro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > As for cheapness of expensiveness or just rightness. I would just add
> > the cost of the materials and the amount of time the artist spent on
> > the work.. then add in the cost of rent transportation, and utilities
> > and there you have it.
>
> You left out one of the most important, the meaning of art.
>
> Its one of the Randaphobic unthinkers favourite slangs to regurgitate
> their indoctrianted crap *art can mean anything you want it to mean*
> which is the stupid prick/esses saying *art has no meaning*
>
> A word that is said to mean anything, is a word that has no meaning
> about anything, a word with no meaning about anything, means nothing,
> art is something, so what is are in reality?
It sells for millions! That is the nub and the crux of the question.
>
> Answer that question FIRST and then, and only then, can you find out
> what it is THAT helps you to determine the true value of ANY real art.
>
>
> Michael Gordge
The answer is that "art" is a thing desired that people will be willing
to spend money on. But like most questions of truth, answers require
judgement.
It seems that your continued failure to offer the slightest attempt at
an answer to the very most simple everyday question has shown your
utterly useless tunnel vision version of truth and how to arrive at it
to be a bag of narrow minded shit.
Your version of truth could not determine the price of fucking carrots,
let alone art!!
chazwin
The Mona Lisa only cost 4 ducets to make but is priceless.
AlanS
>If incomplete then aren't most questions of truth incomplete?
All questions are incomplete, as are all answers.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
>
> The answer is that "art" is a thing desired that people will be willing
> to spend money on.
Oh so the chicken shit in my garden is art? And there was me thinking I
bought it for fertilizer, silly me, I should have realised I was buying
it for its artistic presentation and value, you know chazzzzzzzzzz I've
never given chicken shit a second glance, I will from now on, thanks
for the head's up.
Gosh you certainly know how to think clearly and precisely about any
and all subjects dont you? You certainly know how to define and
seperate one entity from another dont you?
Did you notice that Fido Castro's brother's bogus medals, the medals
his brother probably gave him for shooting peaceful human beings in the
back at point-blank range, on his military dictator's uniform, needed a
polish?
If he was willing to pay you for that thing of service, then that would
be art too wouldn't it? So why dont you fuck off to Cuba and become an
artist?
Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
> You you still wont be able to aswer the fucking qustion because your
> version of truth is crap.
Is that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
you Fido's Castro's brother? Who BTW desires that the bogus medals on
his Military Dictators handmedown Uniform be polished and who is I
suspect willing to pay you for polishing each of those things, so as
you can call yourself an artist. Hahhahahahahah
Hhahahahhaah Chazzzzzzzzzzzzzz reckons the meaning of art is::
Quoting alt.philosophy's most knowledgable on the meaning of art
Quote
"The answer is that "art" is a thing desired that people will be
willing
to spend money on." Quote unquote.
> You are totally unable to answer the most fundementally easy value
> judgement.
And that coming from the author and originator of ::
"The answer is that "art" is a thing desired that people will be
willing to spend money on."
Hahahahhahah you're a crack-up chazzzzzzzzzzzz you are. You know lots
of really really intelligent things dont you chazzzzz?
Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
You and chazzzzzzzzzzz are of course regurgitating the exact same crap,
but dont worry chazzzzzzzzzzzzzz has a habbit of running away for a few
days after making a big tool of himself.
chazwin
Actually Chaz has a habit of travelling to interesting and exciting
countries and leaving this often stupid newgroup behind so that he can
"get a life" unlike Mike Gordge who seriously needs to get a life!!!
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
> Actually Chaz has a habit of travelling to interesting and exciting
> countries
Like most of repressed China, the world's largest and poorest democracy
India, totally repressed North Korea and Castro's Cuba eh chazzzzzzz
the cesspits of humanity?
> and leaving this often stupid newgroup behind
Oh come come its only stupid when dumb fucks come on here and claim
e.g. people willing to buy bags of chicken shit, is the real meaning of
art. I see you dont want to talk about that anymore and you accuse me
of running away, which I never have.
> so that he can
> "get a life" unlike Mike Gordge who seriously needs to get a life!!!
My life is a zillion times more exciting and much much better and more
meaningful than a fucking liar and a commie Castro arse licking
fuckwit's life could ever be.
Michael Gordge
Chris H. Fleming
I didn't.
chazwin
Acknowledgement of 3 individual metrics upon a truth question of a
singular object necessitates 3 relativist positions!
I use your own words here btw.
Chris H. Fleming
The existence of 3 different metrics says nothing about the existence
or nonexistence of a single underlying reality.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
> The existence of 3 different metrics says nothing about the existence
> or nonexistence of a single underlying reality.
Why bother, you're both as epistemologically and philsophically as
stupid as each other anyway.
Truth is absolute and corresponds with and to reality.
There are no contradictions in reality, thereore none in the truth and
indeed, you can not deny that without using it as the standard to deny
it, which chazzzzz had not ever thought of untilI I told him.
There are no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) because what is
real is real, what is true is true, when faced with a contradiction
then you must check your premises, because at least one of them is
wrong.
When the faulty premise has beeen found and eliminated and when it is
has been checked and checked and rechecked, (that process can take as
little time as a reflex or as long as many years) checked that the
right faulty premise was identified and eliminated, then you are left
with the truth.
NOTE, man is not always right, but of course, reality is, the truth is.
Man not being right all of the time (which means he has failed to
identify a contradiction or it means has discovered NEW therefore
previously unknown knowledge) is the part of man's nature that enables
him to know when he is right.
Its called his faculty of reason.
e.g. typical Kantian nonsense *Nobody can ever know the absolute truth*
the process of logic applied says *therefore you can never know that to
be a true statement* therefore you could know it, therefore it is a
stupid stand alone contradiction to say that *the truth can never be
known* because the statement itself says it could be.
Chazzzzzzzz and you both confuse values with truth, e.g. when the clown
chazzzzzzzzz says *what's true for him may not be true for anyone
else*, what he is in reality saying is *his values might well be
different to anyone elses values* the truth is he has many identical
values as the murdering dog Fide Castro, but thats digressing.
Whether or not chazzzzzzzzzzzz's values are *true to reality* depends
on what meaning he gives to true, which of course to this point he says
*the truth is something believed and validated*
But something validated just means something is proven as true, which
means that in reality dopey chazzzzzzzzzzzzzzz is saying is that true
means
*believing something to be believed*
He has since chosen not to defend that particluar contradiction and
stupidity, perhaps you could do it for him Chris, given you obviously
think (not) just like him.
Michael Gordge
chazwin
The 3 metrics insist that there are 3 different ways to interpret the
same reality. Afterall, even if you were able to use the metrics to
measure value effectively, how would you ultimately choose between them?
chazwin
There are no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.
There are no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.
There are no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.
There are no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are
no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.
There are no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are
no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are no
contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are no
contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are no
contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are no
contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are no
contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are no
contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are no
contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.There are no
contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
> I wondered when the scratched record would speak again.
>
> There are no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.
> There are no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.
> There are no contradictions in reality (nor the truth) CLICK.
The teacher told you to write it a thousand times NOT just because you
were naughty and fucking dumb but also because she hoped that you may
spend enough time giving the substance of it, a little thought in the
process.
Why dont you at least answer chazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz do you NOW accept
that non-contradiction is the excellent and only standard / the
excellent and only yard stick an excellent and only method of
validating an idea, a claim, an action or an event to see if it is
*true* to see i it corresponds to the reality of *non-contradiction*?
NOTE Its OK to say you are wrong, I stopped laughing at your stupidit
ages ago, so you needn't think I am going to laugh, very much, when you
admit I am right and you are stupid as all fuck.
Michael Gordge
NOTE Chazzzzzzzzzzzzz other people are reading this.
chazwin
mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> chazwin wrote:
> > I wondered when the scratched record would speak again.
> >
>
> Why dont you at least answer chazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz do you NOW accept
> that non-contradiction is the excellent and only standard / the
>
<Repeated bollocks sniped>
I have continued to answer all the questions you have put. However you
have answered not a single one that I have put to you. The only answer
you have given is that you refuse to answer becasue you think it is a
trap - you are a silly little troll - go away!
I showed you several verions of truth from various dictionaries and
philosophy books, but you insist upon your one unverifiable,
unsupported version of truth.
You have not told me how or why the other versions are incorrect,
neither have you attempted to build an argument to support your own
claims on truth.
I also posed a very simple value question and you have failed
miserably to show how your truth methodology could be used to approach
the question. I can only conclude that your philospohy unworkable.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
Typical lies and crap snipped
> I showed you several verions of truth
And that is what makes you so fucking stupid, there is NO such thing
you fucking goose, FFS wake the fuck up.
chazwin
Why not open Hospers Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, but if you
can't read very well , why not open a fucking dictionary and look up T
R U T H.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
> Why not open.....
I am going to have a crack at being civil, you are after all a teacher
and it is my desire to not see the minds of students poisioned by
Platoian Kantian Russellian Poppereen Zeno trash, eventhough you have
done absolutely nothing to deserve me being civil to you. I ask only in
return that you read this several times and do NOT drop context in your
questions or comments.
An adjective preceeding tree e.g. Pine / Maple does not change the
*meaning* (the theory) of tree.
An adjective preceeding brick e.g. red / masonary does not change the
*meaning* ( the theory) of brick.
An adjective preceeding temperature e.g. cold warm hot does not change
the meaning (the theory) of temperature.
And for the identical reasons,
An adjecting preceeding truth does NOT change the meaning (the theory)
of truth.
The truth has only one meaning, only one theory, only one standard,
(why is explained later) that meaning, that theory the standard for
truth is, something (e.g. a claim - an idea - an action) conforming to,
or corresponding with or to reality, which means, truth is a statement
idea claim which has no contradictions with reality.
Why is that the case?
Because we know absolutely that reality has no contradictions, to test
the theory of that statement as being true, then all you have to do is
to deny it, or try and contradictict it, without using it as the
standard to do so.
Do you understand that chazwin, because you have yet to make a rational
comment on it?
Placing an adjective in front of truth, can not and does not change the
reality of the fact, that the theory of truth, the meaning of truth,
the standard of truth in every and ALL applications means, to
correspond to non-contradictory reality.
Indeed chazwin, several posters to this very forum, who are my arch
political enemies have conceeded and agreed to that very meaning.
> You have not told me how or why the other versions are incorrect,
The subject is the meaning of truth, the subject is therefore
**epistemology**, you are talking metaphysics, which is a different
subject, chazwin, in a philosophical debate that is called, dropping
context.
Man can not claim that WHAT he knows, (which is metaphysics) as being
true as being real - unless he ALSO learns HOW to validate that what he
knows is real / is true, which IS the purpose and the meaning of
epistemology.
Each and every word we use has its own unique meaning, its own
epistemology, it HAS to have its own unique meaning in reality because
we want the meaning to be real, which means, the meaning we give to a
word MUST be linked to someTHING in reality, so as to give it ANY
meaning in reality.
The link between truth and reality IS *sensory evidence and
non-contradiction*
Your thesaurus should be burnt.
Michael Gordge
Chris H. Fleming
Three men have three different rulers and all measure the length of
stick. The three men measure three lengths.
One man says the length is 66 centimeters.
One man says the length is 26 inches.
One man says the length is 47/360 of a rod.
As long as their rulers are all functioning correctly it doesn't matter
whose ruler you use. But you can't directly compare 66 cm to 26 in
without some kind of map between the two answers. And so you cannot say
that the answers are different at all.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
> you ultimately choose between them?
>
>
> Three men have three different rulers and all measure the length of
> stick. The three men measure three lengths.
>
> One man says the length is 66 centimeters.
> One man says the length is 26 inches.
> One man says the length is 47/360 of a rod.
>
> As long as their rulers are all functioning correctly it doesn't matter
> whose ruler you use.
hmmmm how can an inch not function correctly?
> But you can't directly compare 66 cm to 26 in
> without some kind of map between the two answers.
That does not make the slightest bit of sense, the only link between
inch, yards rods is, that thay are all only different concepts or tools
of man, which man uses to measure (even the same) distance.
> And so you cannot say
> that the answers are different at all.
Chaz says the first thing that pops into his head, e.g. the meaning of
art is a bag of chicken shit. or the meaning of truth is anything
believed and is true, dont worry about chaz he's beyond worry, worry
about yourself.
Michael Gordge
Chris H. Fleming
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>
> > you ultimately choose between them?
> >
> >
> > Three men have three different rulers and all measure the length of
> > stick. The three men measure three lengths.
> >
> > One man says the length is 66 centimeters.
> > One man says the length is 26 inches.
> > One man says the length is 47/360 of a rod.
> >
> > As long as their rulers are all functioning correctly it doesn't matter
> > whose ruler you use.
>
> hmmmm how can an inch not function correctly?
The inch ruler could be missing a 3.
> > But you can't directly compare 66 cm to 26 in
> > without some kind of map between the two answers.
>
> That does not make the slightest bit of sense, the only link between
> inch, yards rods is, that thay are all only different concepts or tools
> of man, which man uses to measure (even the same) distance.
Then compare the answers of an inch ruler to that of a centimeter ruler
without a mapping function between inches and centimeters.
Sean
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158804482....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>>
>> > you ultimately choose between them?
>> >
>> >
>> > Three men have three different rulers and all measure the length of
>> > stick. The three men measure three lengths.
>> >
>> > One man says the length is 66 centimeters.
>> > One man says the length is 26 inches.
>> > One man says the length is 47/360 of a rod.
>> >
>> > As long as their rulers are all functioning correctly it doesn't matter
>> > whose ruler you use.
>>
>> hmmmm how can an inch not function correctly?
>
>
> The inch ruler could be missing a 3.
>
Then it wouldn't be a "true" ruler in reality. It would be an irrational to
call it a ruler.
>
>> > But you can't directly compare 66 cm to 26 in
>> > without some kind of map between the two answers.
>>
>> That does not make the slightest bit of sense, the only link between
>> inch, yards rods is, that thay are all only different concepts or tools
>> of man, which man uses to measure (even the same) distance.
>
>
> Then compare the answers of an inch ruler to that of a centimeter ruler
> without a mapping function between inches and centimeters.
>
I think you are unnecessarily complicating the obvious.
Both rulers measure the same stick. No mapping function is needed. It is the
actual length of the stick that is the "real" answer. One ruler indicates
the stick is 66 cm, the other indicates the stick is 26 inches. There is
no contratiction here, because the length of the stick is the length of the
stick, so irrespective of what measurement language is used the stick has a
"true" and verifiable length in reality.
That can be tested by getting or cutting another stick to exactly the same
length as the first stick, and then seeing if the two rulers arrive at the
same answers of 66cm, and 26 inches.
No mapping function is required, no mathematical equation is required to
prove the length is the same for both sticks.
otoh a mapping function or maths is required to describe the relationships
between cms and inches, but that has nothing to do with the stick itself or
length, but with comunication between sentient beings via language.
A rose by any other name, is still a rose, iow.
Chris H. Fleming
> "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158804482....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
> >>
> >> > you ultimately choose between them?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Three men have three different rulers and all measure the length of
> >> > stick. The three men measure three lengths.
> >> >
> >> > One man says the length is 66 centimeters.
> >> > One man says the length is 26 inches.
> >> > One man says the length is 47/360 of a rod.
> >> >
> >> > As long as their rulers are all functioning correctly it doesn't matter
> >> > whose ruler you use.
> >>
> >> hmmmm how can an inch not function correctly?
> >
> >
> > The inch ruler could be missing a 3.
> >
>
> Then it wouldn't be a "true" ruler in reality. It would be an irrational to
> call it a ruler.
Tell me what a "true" ruler is then.
> >> > But you can't directly compare 66 cm to 26 in
> >> > without some kind of map between the two answers.
> >>
> >> That does not make the slightest bit of sense, the only link between
> >> inch, yards rods is, that thay are all only different concepts or tools
> >> of man, which man uses to measure (even the same) distance.
> >
> >
> > Then compare the answers of an inch ruler to that of a centimeter ruler
> > without a mapping function between inches and centimeters.
> >
>
> I think you are unnecessarily complicating the obvious.
As it turns out, you are oversimplifying the nontrivial by arguing from
your premise.
> Both rulers measure the same stick. No mapping function is needed. It is the
> actual length of the stick that is the "real" answer.
Tell me, what is a length? What is the actual length of something?
> One ruler indicates
> the stick is 66 cm, the other indicates the stick is 26 inches. There is
> no contratiction here, because the length of the stick is the length of the
> stick, so irrespective of what measurement language is used the stick has a
> "true" and verifiable length in reality.
I take some very accurate calipers, something much better than a slide
ruler, and I make 3 measurements of this stick, I get.
66.745 cm
66.821 cm
66.951 cm
Which one of those 3 measurements is the "true" and verifiable length?
> That can be tested by getting or cutting another stick to exactly the same
> length as the first stick
What does it mean to have exactly the same length? My expensive
calipers seem to yield a slightly different answer every time I make a
measurement.
>, and then seeing if the two rulers arrive at the
> same answers of 66cm, and 26 inches.
>
> No mapping function is required, no mathematical equation is required to
> prove the length is the same for both sticks.
I was talking about comparing the answers that different rulers give.
You imply that (as long as they are all good rulers) they all give
equivalent answer, which may be approximately true here but is not true
in the original hypothetical. With the rulers and the stick, there is
pretty much a 1-to-1 mapping between what is measured and what the
measurement states. With the consumers and the heirloom, there is a
many-to-1 mapping between what is measured and what the measurement
states. Information is lost, there is not likely a mapping function,
the answers are likely not equivalent.
> otoh a mapping function or maths is required to describe the relationships
> between cms and inches, but that has nothing to do with the stick itself or
> length, but with comunication between sentient beings via language.
If one man says the length is A cm and the other man says the length is
B in, then the mapping function is required compare their answers.
Sean
> Sean wrote:
>> "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158804482....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> >> Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > you ultimately choose between them?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Three men have three different rulers and all measure the length of
>> >> > stick. The three men measure three lengths.
>> >> >
>> >> > One man says the length is 66 centimeters.
>> >> > One man says the length is 26 inches.
>> >> > One man says the length is 47/360 of a rod.
>> >> >
>> >> > As long as their rulers are all functioning correctly it doesn't
>> >> > matter
>> >> > whose ruler you use.
>> >>
>> >> hmmmm how can an inch not function correctly?
>> >
>> >
>> > The inch ruler could be missing a 3.
>> >
>>
>> Then it wouldn't be a "true" ruler in reality. It would be an irrational
>> to
>> call it a ruler.
>
>
> Tell me what a "true" ruler is then.
>
how about a one foot ruler that isn't missing an inch at # 3. a one foot
ruler that is divided equally into 12 inches.
No need to obscure the obvious point being made.
>
>> >> > But you can't directly compare 66 cm to 26 in
>> >> > without some kind of map between the two answers.
>> >>
>> >> That does not make the slightest bit of sense, the only link between
>> >> inch, yards rods is, that thay are all only different concepts or
>> >> tools
>> >> of man, which man uses to measure (even the same) distance.
>> >
>> >
>> > Then compare the answers of an inch ruler to that of a centimeter ruler
>> > without a mapping function between inches and centimeters.
>> >
>>
>> I think you are unnecessarily complicating the obvious.
>
>
> As it turns out, you are oversimplifying the nontrivial by arguing from
> your premise.
>
>
>> Both rulers measure the same stick. No mapping function is needed. It is
>> the
>> actual length of the stick that is the "real" answer.
>
>
> Tell me, what is a length? What is the actual length of something?
>
You don't need me to tell you the answer. If you did you wouldn't be a
scientist.
>
>> One ruler indicates
>> the stick is 66 cm, the other indicates the stick is 26 inches. There
>> is
>> no contratiction here, because the length of the stick is the length of
>> the
>> stick, so irrespective of what measurement language is used the stick has
>> a
>> "true" and verifiable length in reality.
>
>
> I take some very accurate calipers, something much better than a slide
> ruler, and I make 3 measurements of this stick, I get.
>
> 66.745 cm
> 66.821 cm
> 66.951 cm
>
> Which one of those 3 measurements is the "true" and verifiable length?
>
You are aware of the point i was making, no need to split hairs, or delve
into obscurity to a molecular level of measurement. Strawman, iow.
>
>> That can be tested by getting or cutting another stick to exactly the
>> same
>> length as the first stick
>
>
> What does it mean to have exactly the same length? My expensive
> calipers seem to yield a slightly different answer every time I make a
> measurement.
>
Well go sit in your professors office and contemplate on your expensive
calipers if you wish. :-)
When you want to come back and deal with your original argument about 3
different rulers using 3 different languages/representatives for
measurement, I'd be happy to accept your agreement with what I was saying,
which is nothing like what you are now turning it into. That's usually
called a straw man. ;-)
>
>>, and then seeing if the two rulers arrive at the
>> same answers of 66cm, and 26 inches.
>>
>> No mapping function is required, no mathematical equation is required to
>> prove the length is the same for both sticks.
>
>
> I was talking about comparing the answers that different rulers give.
> You imply that (as long as they are all good rulers) they all give
> equivalent answer, which may be approximately true here but is not true
> in the original hypothetical. With the rulers and the stick, there is
> pretty much a 1-to-1 mapping between what is measured and what the
> measurement states. With the consumers and the heirloom, there is a
> many-to-1 mapping between what is measured and what the measurement
> states. Information is lost, there is not likely a mapping function,
> the answers are likely not equivalent.
>
if 3 rulers measure the same stick then all answers are equivalent.
>
>> otoh a mapping function or maths is required to describe the
>> relationships
>> between cms and inches, but that has nothing to do with the stick itself
>> or
>> length, but with comunication between sentient beings via language.
>
>
> If one man says the length is A cm and the other man says the length is
> B in, then the mapping function is required compare their answers.
>
B in what?
that imho is a language translation issue, and not relevant to the truth of
the length of the stick.
They could easily use the stick itself to compare answers, so doing they
will see with their own senses that each measurement they took was exactly
the same.
<smile>
Chris H. Fleming
That's a circular definition. Try again.
Define your "true" ruler without relying on the definition of a ruler.
> No need to obscure the obvious point being made.
>
> >
> >> >> > But you can't directly compare 66 cm to 26 in
> >> >> > without some kind of map between the two answers.
> >> >>
> >> >> That does not make the slightest bit of sense, the only link between
> >> >> inch, yards rods is, that thay are all only different concepts or
> >> >> tools
> >> >> of man, which man uses to measure (even the same) distance.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Then compare the answers of an inch ruler to that of a centimeter ruler
> >> > without a mapping function between inches and centimeters.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I think you are unnecessarily complicating the obvious.
> >
> >
> > As it turns out, you are oversimplifying the nontrivial by arguing from
> > your premise.
> >
> >
> >> Both rulers measure the same stick. No mapping function is needed. It is
> >> the
> >> actual length of the stick that is the "real" answer.
> >
> >
> > Tell me, what is a length? What is the actual length of something?
> >
>
> You don't need me to tell you the answer. If you did you wouldn't be a
> scientist.
You aren't going to like my answer, so I'd rather teach you with the
Socratic method.
> >> One ruler indicates
> >> the stick is 66 cm, the other indicates the stick is 26 inches. There
> >> is
> >> no contratiction here, because the length of the stick is the length of
> >> the
> >> stick, so irrespective of what measurement language is used the stick has
> >> a
> >> "true" and verifiable length in reality.
> >
> >
> > I take some very accurate calipers, something much better than a slide
> > ruler, and I make 3 measurements of this stick, I get.
> >
> > 66.745 cm
> > 66.821 cm
> > 66.951 cm
> >
> > Which one of those 3 measurements is the "true" and verifiable length?
> >
>
> You are aware of the point i was making, no need to split hairs, or delve
> into obscurity to a molecular level of measurement. Strawman, iow.
I have built no strawmen thus far. Tell me what the "true" length is.
> >> That can be tested by getting or cutting another stick to exactly the
> >> same
> >> length as the first stick
> >
> >
> > What does it mean to have exactly the same length? My expensive
> > calipers seem to yield a slightly different answer every time I make a
> > measurement.
> >
>
> Well go sit in your professors office and contemplate on your expensive
> calipers if you wish. :-)
>
> When you want to come back and deal with your original argument about 3
> different rulers using 3 different languages/representatives for
> measurement, I'd be happy to accept your agreement with what I was saying,
> which is nothing like what you are now turning it into. That's usually
> called a straw man. ;-)
Nope, I am afraid you are missing a very important point. And to get to
the point, you have to answer my very innocent-looking questions.
> >>, and then seeing if the two rulers arrive at the
> >> same answers of 66cm, and 26 inches.
> >>
> >> No mapping function is required, no mathematical equation is required to
> >> prove the length is the same for both sticks.
> >
> >
> > I was talking about comparing the answers that different rulers give.
> > You imply that (as long as they are all good rulers) they all give
> > equivalent answer, which may be approximately true here but is not true
> > in the original hypothetical. With the rulers and the stick, there is
> > pretty much a 1-to-1 mapping between what is measured and what the
> > measurement states. With the consumers and the heirloom, there is a
> > many-to-1 mapping between what is measured and what the measurement
> > states. Information is lost, there is not likely a mapping function,
> > the answers are likely not equivalent.
> >
>
> if 3 rulers measure the same stick then all answers are equivalent.
What if one ruler says it's 66 cm and the other two rulers say it's 67
cm?
> >> otoh a mapping function or maths is required to describe the
> >> relationships
> >> between cms and inches, but that has nothing to do with the stick itself
> >> or
> >> length, but with comunication between sentient beings via language.
> >
> >
> > If one man says the length is A cm and the other man says the length is
> > B in, then the mapping function is required compare their answers.
> >
>
> B in what?
cm = centimeters
in = inches
> that imho is a language translation issue, and not relevant to the truth of
> the length of the stick.
No, it's not that simple in general.
Wordsmith
l...@rdfmedia.com wrote:
> chazwin wrote:
> > A man was trying to sell a unusual art item on a market stall. The
> > item
> > is unique but of no utility except for its beauty. He askes £300 for
> > it and says it is cheap. I think it is too expensive but another person
> > thinks it is about right.
> > So is he, me, or the other person telling the truth???
> > One of us must be telling the truth.
> > The item is either cheap, just right, or expensive.
> >
> > Any reactions welcome but especially Mike Gordge whose single
> > definition of truth should make it easier to answer.
>
> would not take it off your hands if you gave me money.
>
> The point being that the truth in this occasion is subjective to
> whosoever wishes to buy it. We can safely ignore my truth as
> irrelevent as I'm not interested in it. We can ignore the sellers
> truth as irelevent as he can only get what people are propeard to pay
> for it.
>
> So the real truth is that he would be better off holding out for the
> person who falls in love with the piece and would gladly pay whatever
> the man wanted.
Let the buyer beware. Let the seller be shrewd.
W : )
Sean
No, I don't need to define my definition of a ruler. Go look in your desk
draw. It's real simple.
You were the one who brought up rulers anyway. ;-)
ipso facto >> >> >> > Three men have three different rulers .............
>
>> No need to obscure the obvious point being made.
>>
>> >
>> >> >> > But you can't directly compare 66 cm to 26 in
>> >> >> > without some kind of map between the two answers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That does not make the slightest bit of sense, the only link
>> >> >> between
>> >> >> inch, yards rods is, that thay are all only different concepts or
>> >> >> tools
>> >> >> of man, which man uses to measure (even the same) distance.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Then compare the answers of an inch ruler to that of a centimeter
>> >> > ruler
>> >> > without a mapping function between inches and centimeters.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I think you are unnecessarily complicating the obvious.
>> >
>> >
>> > As it turns out, you are oversimplifying the nontrivial by arguing from
>> > your premise.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Both rulers measure the same stick. No mapping function is needed. It
>> >> is
>> >> the
>> >> actual length of the stick that is the "real" answer.
>> >
>> >
>> > Tell me, what is a length? What is the actual length of something?
>> >
>>
>> You don't need me to tell you the answer. If you did you wouldn't be a
>> scientist.
>
>
> You aren't going to like my answer, so I'd rather teach you with the
> Socratic method.
>
The method doesn't a Socrates make. ;-)
>
>> >> One ruler indicates
>> >> the stick is 66 cm, the other indicates the stick is 26 inches.
>> >> There
>> >> is
>> >> no contratiction here, because the length of the stick is the length
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> stick, so irrespective of what measurement language is used the stick
>> >> has
>> >> a
>> >> "true" and verifiable length in reality.
>> >
>> >
>> > I take some very accurate calipers, something much better than a slide
>> > ruler, and I make 3 measurements of this stick, I get.
>> >
>> > 66.745 cm
>> > 66.821 cm
>> > 66.951 cm
>> >
>> > Which one of those 3 measurements is the "true" and verifiable length?
>> >
>>
>> You are aware of the point i was making, no need to split hairs, or delve
>> into obscurity to a molecular level of measurement. Strawman, iow.
>
>
> I have built no strawmen thus far. Tell me what the "true" length is.
>
and denial is a river in Egypt.
>
>> >> That can be tested by getting or cutting another stick to exactly the
>> >> same
>> >> length as the first stick
>> >
>> >
>> > What does it mean to have exactly the same length? My expensive
>> > calipers seem to yield a slightly different answer every time I make a
>> > measurement.
>> >
>>
>> Well go sit in your professors office and contemplate on your expensive
>> calipers if you wish. :-)
>>
>> When you want to come back and deal with your original argument about 3
>> different rulers using 3 different languages/representatives for
>> measurement, I'd be happy to accept your agreement with what I was
>> saying,
>> which is nothing like what you are now turning it into. That's usually
>> called a straw man. ;-)
>
>
> Nope, I am afraid you are missing a very important point. And to get to
> the point, you have to answer my very innocent-looking questions.
>
No, strawman. I delt with your 3 ruler and a stick example. If you can't
stick with your own premises, that's not my concern.
Keep digging, China is thatta way. ;-)
>
>> >>, and then seeing if the two rulers arrive at the
>> >> same answers of 66cm, and 26 inches.
>> >>
>> >> No mapping function is required, no mathematical equation is required
>> >> to
>> >> prove the length is the same for both sticks.
>> >
>> >
>> > I was talking about comparing the answers that different rulers give.
>> > You imply that (as long as they are all good rulers) they all give
>> > equivalent answer, which may be approximately true here but is not true
>> > in the original hypothetical. With the rulers and the stick, there is
>> > pretty much a 1-to-1 mapping between what is measured and what the
>> > measurement states. With the consumers and the heirloom, there is a
>> > many-to-1 mapping between what is measured and what the measurement
>> > states. Information is lost, there is not likely a mapping function,
>> > the answers are likely not equivalent.
>> >
>>
>> if 3 rulers measure the same stick then all answers are equivalent.
>
>
> What if one ruler says it's 66 cm and the other two rulers say it's 67
> cm?
>
then one or two of your rulers are not accurate. But again this is a
phurphy. In your original premise one was cms, one was inches, and the other
was a rod.
Do you play ego games like this with your students in class?
>
>> >> otoh a mapping function or maths is required to describe the
>> >> relationships
>> >> between cms and inches, but that has nothing to do with the stick
>> >> itself
>> >> or
>> >> length, but with comunication between sentient beings via language.
>> >
>> >
>> > If one man says the length is A cm and the other man says the length is
>> > B in, then the mapping function is required compare their answers.
>> >
>>
>> B in what?
>
> cm = centimeters
> in = inches
>
yes ok.
>> that imho is a language translation issue, and not relevant to the truth
>> of
>> the length of the stick.
>
>
> No, it's not that simple in general.
>
In general for whom? <G>
I maintain my original response is valid. and am even more sure you're
making this far more complicated than necessary, as well as shifting the
original premises into a completely different issue. ie strawman, but other
fallacies may well cover it too.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
> > hmmmm how can an inch not function correctly?
>
>
> The inch ruler could be missing a 3.
yes of course silly me, why couldn't the four be called a three the
five the four....., or the ruler couldn't be shifted along every two
inches because?
> Then compare the answers of an inch ruler to that of a centimeter ruler
> without a mapping function between inches and centimeters.
Still doesn't make sense. If its a problem then use one or the other.
Michael Gordge
Chris H. Fleming
You said if my inch ruler was missing a 3, then it was not a true
ruler.
But now you can't tell me what a true ruler is. It's your problem.
I never told you what my rulers were because it was of no consequence.
Whatever they were, I told you what measurement they made.
There are other possiblilities as well.
> But again this is a
> phurphy. In your original premise one was cms, one was inches, and the other
> was a rod.
Maybe the in and rod rulers are bilingual as you would like to say.
Maybe they are 3 different rulers. It doesn't matter as for what I was
trying to get at with that hypothetical.
> Do you play ego games like this with your students in class?
You are the one repeating false statements with confidence.
> >> >> otoh a mapping function or maths is required to describe the
> >> >> relationships
> >> >> between cms and inches, but that has nothing to do with the stick
> >> >> itself
> >> >> or
> >> >> length, but with comunication between sentient beings via language.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If one man says the length is A cm and the other man says the length is
> >> > B in, then the mapping function is required compare their answers.
> >> >
> >>
> >> B in what?
> >
> > cm = centimeters
> > in = inches
> >
>
> yes ok.
>
> >> that imho is a language translation issue, and not relevant to the truth
> >> of
> >> the length of the stick.
> >
> >
> > No, it's not that simple in general.
> >
>
> In general for whom? <G>
>
> I maintain my original response is valid. and am even more sure you're
> making this far more complicated than necessary, as well as shifting the
> original premises into a completely different issue. ie strawman, but other
> fallacies may well cover it too.
You have a blindspot to the flaw in your thinking and you seem to be
highly resistant to uncovering it.
chazwin
Nothing makes sense to you in your little world of truth!
>
>
> Michael Gordge
Sean
I have a blindspot? mmmmm Let's review todays lesson Socrates? ;-)
>
> The inch ruler could be missing a 3.
>
Then it wouldn't be a "true" ruler in reality. It would be irrational to
call it a ruler.
---------------------------
if 3 rulers measure the same stick then all answers are equivalent.
>
> Then compare the answers of an inch ruler to that of a centimeter ruler
> without a mapping function between inches and centimeters.
>
I think you are unnecessarily complicating the obvious.
Both rulers measure the same stick. No mapping function is needed. It is the
actual length of the stick that is the "real" answer. [ be it cm, in, or
rods ]
otoh a mapping function or maths is required to describe the relationships
between cms and inches, but that has nothing to do with the stick itself or
length, but with comunication between sentient beings via language.
A rose by any other name, is still a rose, iow.
--------------------------------------------------------------
See it really is simple to me. The length of the stick is "X", no matter
what ruler you use to measure it, that's the truth. Everything else is
over-complicated fluff, imho.
Now if you wish to discuss issues about variations in your expensive
callipers, fine go ahead, but I'm not interested in that aspect. I responded
to what I responded to. If you still think I'm wrong, that's fine too. I can
live with it. I'm perfectly happy with my imperfections. <G>
Tim
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1158738180.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> chazwin wrote:
>> Why not open.....
>
> I am going to have a crack at being civil, you are after all a teacher
> and it is my desire to not see the minds of students poisioned by
> Platoian Kantian Russellian Poppereen Zeno trash, eventhough you have
> done absolutely nothing to deserve me being civil to you. I ask only in
> return that you read this several times and do NOT drop context in your
> questions or comments.
>
> An adjective preceeding tree e.g. Pine / Maple does not change the
> *meaning* (the theory) of tree.
>
Theory of tree? Is this more of your Randian nonsense?
> An adjective preceeding brick e.g. red / masonary does not change the
> *meaning* ( the theory) of brick.
See above.
>
> An adjective preceeding temperature e.g. cold warm hot does not change
> the meaning (the theory) of temperature.
>
> And for the identical reasons,
>
> An adjecting preceeding truth does NOT change the meaning (the theory)
> of truth.
What theory of truth? Are you seriously suggesting that there is but one
epistemology?
>
> The truth has only one meaning, only one theory, only one standard,
> (why is explained later) that meaning, that theory the standard for
> truth is, something (e.g. a claim - an idea - an action) conforming to,
> or corresponding with or to reality, which means, truth is a statement
> idea claim which has no contradictions with reality.
>
> Why is that the case?
>
> Because we know absolutely that reality has no contradictions, to test
> the theory of that statement as being true, then all you have to do is
> to deny it, or try and contradictict it, without using it as the
> standard to do so.
When a neutron is absorbed into an uranium-235 atom, what particles are to
be found in the resulting decay? Are they always the same? If they are not
what is the truth of this observable phenomenon? Have you heard of the three
polarizer paradox? Can you explain how and why it is not a contradiction?
How about particle/wave duality? You know the difference between a particle
and a wave, right Randroid?
>
> Do you understand that chazwin, because you have yet to make a rational
> comment on it?
>
> Placing an adjective in front of truth, can not and does not change the
> reality of the fact, that the theory of truth, the meaning of truth,
> the standard of truth in every and ALL applications means, to
> correspond to non-contradictory reality.
>
> Indeed chazwin, several posters to this very forum, who are my arch
> political enemies have conceeded and agreed to that very meaning.
>
>> You have not told me how or why the other versions are incorrect,
>
> The subject is the meaning of truth, the subject is therefore
> **epistemology**, you are talking metaphysics, which is a different
> subject, chazwin, in a philosophical debate that is called, dropping
> context.
>
> Man can not claim that WHAT he knows, (which is metaphysics) as being
> true as being real - unless he ALSO learns HOW to validate that what he
> knows is real / is true, which IS the purpose and the meaning of
> epistemology.
>
> Each and every word we use has its own unique meaning, its own
> epistemology, it HAS to have its own unique meaning in reality because
> we want the meaning to be real, which means, the meaning we give to a
> word MUST be linked to someTHING in reality, so as to give it ANY
> meaning in reality.
You should have a look in a dictionary; there are many English words that
don't have a unique meaning.
>
> The link between truth and reality IS *sensory evidence and
> non-contradiction*
>
>
> Your thesaurus should be burnt.
>
>
As should The Fountainhead, Atlas Shit, The Virtue of Randian
masturbation,... You sure do talk a lot of shit--hey, are you that Peikoff
dullard posing as a sheep shagger?
> Michael Gordge
>
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Tim wrote:
>
> Theory of tree?
Yes thats right, obviously your first sensible question, poor sod.
Define tree, give the meaning of what a tree is, without using the word
tree and do so, so as it can not be mistaken for anything else.
> Is this more of your Randian nonsense?
Randaphobia is a curable disease, the cure is called thinking for
yourself, the process is called reason.
>
> See above.
Ditto jerk.
>
> What theory of truth?
Truth conforms or corresponds to reality, reality has no contradictions
because what is real is real, you can not deny that without using it as
the standard to do so.
> Are you seriously suggesting that there is but one
> epistemology?
Is that a serious question?
> When a neutron is absorbed into an uranium-235 atom, what particles are to
> be found in the resulting decay?
Who cares? Each entity acts according to its own nature and there is
fuckall you can do to change that, check out your questions, they are
the questions of a fool you are acting according to your nature,
although ONLY you can change that.
> Are they always the same? If they are not
> what is the truth of this observable phenomenon? Have you heard of the three
> polarizer paradox?
In reality there are no contradictions and in reality you can not deny
that without using it as the standard to do so.
Paradox = faulty premise
> Can you explain how and why it is not a contradiction?
OK, Its a contradiction of reality - existing inside the mind of a
fool.
> How about particle/wave duality?
There are no contradictions in reality, check your premise.
> You know the difference between a particle
> and a wave, right Randroid?
Word of advice arsewipe, ewe fucking useless knuckle dragging bonehead,
dont try and be rude or smart to me, ewe fucking useless fucking
pathetic limp wristed excuse of a Castro commie cunt, because ewe have
and will continue to come off second best, experts from all over the
world have tried to fuck me over and have all, bar none, failed, got
that?
I have been kill-filed by some of the most self professed intelligent
creeps on earth for no other reason than they're cowards just like you.
> As should The Fountainhead, Atlas Shit, The Virtue of Randian
> masturbation,...
Randaphobia is curable ewe Randaphobic moronic leftist commie cunt.
> You sure do talk a lot of shit--hey, are you that Peikoff
> dullard posing as a sheep shagger?
As if you have never fucked a sheep, what a liar.
Michael Gordge
Chris H. Fleming
Tell me what the actual length of something is then.
kevirwin
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote: to someone
>word of advice arsewipe, ewe fucking useless knuckle dragging bonehead,
> dont try and be rude or smart to me, ewe fucking useless fucking
> pathetic limp wristed excuse of a Castro commie cunt, because ewe have
> and will continue to come off second best, experts from all over the
> world have tried to fuck me over and have all, bar none, failed, got
> that?
>
> I have been kill-filed by some of the most self professed intelligent
> creeps on earth for no other reason than they're cowards just like you.
>
Been gone for awhile...see things haven't changed..Mikey is still on
his mission to alienate every possible member of alt.philosophy and
doing real well at it!!!! No other conclusion is possible faced with
the overwhelming evidence of anti-social venom spewed without
reason!!!!
But gee whiz, look at this from Mikey:
<Quote>
....experts from all over the world have tried to fuck me over and have
all, bar none, failed, got that?
<End quote>
First mistake is use of the word "experts", substitute "everyone who
has ever come in contact with me" and the obvious second mistake
.."all, bar none, failed" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey; I looked up delusional in the dictionary; yes,
that's right, it said Mikey Sludge. Living in the jungles of New
Zealand with the aborigines has given you an over-inflated sense of
your own mental acuity; it's almost understandable, while still
pathetic.
Well, I'm game to try and fuck you over; hey I'm even willing to
relocate previous "discussions" we've had and put it to a vote {of
course you realize the vote would be on who is more offensive, but on
the positive side, the more offensive in a "clever way". We can make a
game of it!!! (oh, and keep saying "ewe rude cunt", it's just
so-o-o-o-o funny every fucking time I see it!!). See how many of your
posse thinks you're as clever as you do!!!!
BRING IT ON MIKEY!!!!!
yours truly
K e v
chazwin
chazwin
kevirwin wrote:
> mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote: to someone
>
> >word of advice arsewipe, ewe fucking useless knuckle dragging bonehead,
> > dont try and be rude or smart to me, ewe fucking useless fucking
> > pathetic limp wristed excuse of a Castro commie cunt, because ewe have
> > and will continue to come off second best, experts from all over the
> > world have tried to fuck me over and have all, bar none, failed, got
> > that?
> >
> > I have been kill-filed by some of the most self professed intelligent
> > creeps on earth for no other reason than they're cowards just like you.
> >
>
> Been gone for awhile...see things haven't changed..Mikey is still on
> his mission to alienate every possible member of alt.philosophy and
> doing real well at it!!!! No other conclusion is possible faced with
> the overwhelming evidence of anti-social venom spewed without
> reason!!!!
>
> But gee whiz, look at this from Mikey:
> <Quote>
> ....experts from all over the world have tried to fuck me over and have
> all, bar none, failed, got that?
> <End quote>
All this says is that Mikey has failed to listen to sound advice. He
reminds my of a little child who puts hers fingers in her ears and
sings loudly when there are people tying to tell her something that she
does not want to hear.
>
> First mistake is use of the word "experts", substitute "everyone who
> has ever come in contact with me" and the obvious second mistake
> .."all, bar none, failed" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Mikey, Mikey, Mikey; I looked up delusional in the dictionary; yes,
> that's right, it said Mikey Sludge. Living in the jungles of New
> Zealand with the aborigines has given you an over-inflated sense of
> your own mental acuity; it's almost understandable, while still
Whilst you are looking things up look for "libertarianz" they are a
kooky political party that have (thankfully) managed to lose more
elections in New Zealand than any others. Mikey's fav party, slavishly
following the wacky ideas of disgruntalled J.A.P. Ayn Rand..
> pathetic.
>
> Well, I'm game to try and fuck you over; hey I'm even willing to
> relocate previous "discussions" we've had and put it to a vote {of
> course you realize the vote would be on who is more offensive, but on
> the positive side, the more offensive in a "clever way". We can make a
> game of it!!! (oh, and keep saying "ewe rude cunt", it's just
> so-o-o-o-o funny every fucking time I see it!!). See how many of your
> posse thinks you're as clever as you do!!!!
I vote thumbs down on M Gordge, he has been very offensive but utterly
inaffective.
chazwin
A true ruler is the leader of a country that was honest, but as all
politicians are dishonest such a concept is either a contradiction in
terms or just means that the ruler is who he says he is: Like Bush is
leader of USA.
Actually I think your discussion has gone off topic totally. So I was
being silly.
I'd like to hear what you had to say about the original question.
I would like to suggest that as no two objects can be absolutely
identical, then measurement is only an approximation, and that no
values can be decided absolutely.
kevirwin
Didn't mean to "hi-jack" your thread, but as previously stated, I've
been gone awhile but noticed that some things hadn't changed. There are
actually times I agree with Mikey, but his delivery is so vile and
confrontational that it obfuscates his point (on the rare occasion that
he has a point)....but enough about Mikey!!!
To show you my hearts in the right place; here's a pragmatic view of
your topic question(of course IN MY HUMBLE OPINION!!)....
Truth in your example is relative given personal bias of each
individual's view, so in that regard, all three sentences are
subjectively truthful to the individual (which I imagine has already
been said, so I'm just casting my vote with theirs {unless Mikey said
that, in which case I need to re-think my position}).....As with many
of the subjects in this forum, i.e. "Time", "God" "Reality", etc.
unless "hard" definitions are given up-front of what is meant by a very
generic term i.e. "Truth", semantical arguments will (and do) abound,
IMHO...
Back for more knowledge,
K e v
Sean
> Actually I think your discussion has gone off topic totally. So I was
> being silly.
> I'd like to hear what you had to say about the original question.
good luck with that. ;-)
Sean
>
> Tell me what a true ruler is then.
>
>
>
> Tell me what the actual length of something is then.
>
You already told me what you wanted me to do, and I gave responses.
Nothing's changed.
Chris H. Fleming
If you check your definition, you defined a ruler in terms of a ruler.
That's not a good definition.
Sean
Really? In your opinion perhaps, and that's all.
Since I was 5 year old, I have never found anyone who had difficutly knowing
what a ruler was or recognising one. I don't need philosophy or your
opinions about what is a good or bad definition either.
You used the term yourself in context without any need to define it, except
clarifying some were marked in inches some were cms, and some were rods. I
knew what you were talking about, and I suspect so did everyone else.
Seems to me you have some other kind of problem here, and it's not mine.
Chris H. Fleming
My original point was that there are 3 men using 3 different rulers to
measure the same thing. Assuming that all of their rulers are good,
there is still the problem that you can't necessarily compare their
answers because their rulers are a many-to-one mapping. There are many
variables concerning the heirloom, but there is only one output that
they give for it's value. With such a situation, information is lost,
and it is generally not the case that you can compare their answers to
see if they truely disagree because generally there is no mapping
between their answers.
In a simpler situation like measuring a length, the ruler gives a
one-to-one mapping. Assuming the stick has one length and the ruler
also reports one length. So for good rulers, you can always compare
their answers.
But say if 3 men with rulers were asked to measure the length of a
large stone, or other object that is not approximately 1-dimensional,
then we would be back in a situation much like with the heirloom. There
are many lengths to be measured on on a rock. If on man says the rock
is 3m and another says it is 2m there really is no way to compare those
answers without more information about their metric. One man might have
measured across and another man diagonally. A single length cannot
contain the full information describing the rock.
Then we got off onto a tangent about what is a ruler and thus what is a
length.
If you were to ask Einstein what is length, he would say that length is
what you measure with a ruler.
If you were to ask Einstein what is time, he would say that time is
what you measure with a clock.
If you ask Einstein what a ruler and a clock are, he would then give
you a circular definition refering back to length and time. If you call
him on it, he would say that he takes lengths and durations of time as
an axiom.
Why was a smart guy like Einstein using an axiomatic system. The
existence of lengths is obvious as well as validated by science (at
least well above the plank scale).
A long time ago Buddhist philosophers in India argued that you cannot
define what is a length without resting upon the assumption that
lengths exist. Try it for your self. I almost 100% guarantee that if
you attempt to write a definition of what a length is, then it will be
circular.
For a scientist measuring a stick, first we assume lengths exist and
that the stick has a length, next we apply the ruler to make a
measurement, and finally assuming the ruler is good we need a method
comparing answers that our different rulers give. Otherwise we would
have to measure everything with that one ruler.
For measuring lengths this is easy. We can line up two rulers and
compare their demarcations. And humans created a universal "language"
of measuring lengths by comparing each and every ruler to a ruler that
was compared to a ruler that was compared to ... a prototype bar of
platinum at certain temperature and pressure. (Later they redefined the
meter in terms of something with less variation: how far light travels
in so many oscillations of a cesium atom.) Intrinsically you always
have some method of indirectly comparing your measurements with your
ruler to measurements with another ruler.
There are all kinds of assumptions made with making measurements. And
assuming that any of the three men is not telling the truth in their
measurement is to make a number of assumptions which is not necessarily
true, in particular that their answers can be compared at all.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
> There is a cure for Randism: rationalism, history and common sense.
Who but another fucked in the head, Castro arse kissing licking
fuckwit, would ever want to have ANY sense in common with you?
Griste what an arrogant ignorant Randaphobic fuckwit. Fuck off to Cuba
idiot.
Chris H. Fleming
I agree that we all intuitively know what length is and as children we
are easily taught what a ruler is.
But I was chastized for not having a "true" ruler, so I had to ask for
some clarification.
Sean
No you weren't chastized. For chastisment see other posters, far better at
it than me.
again, it is real easy. You said to Mike a ruler missing a 3 .... I simply
pointed out the obvious problem with that statement, and what you had
previously said.
after that well everything pretty well went downhill into a theoretical
realm of unrelated nothingness. imho.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
kevirwin wrote:
> There are
> actually times I agree with Mikey,
Its Mr Gordge to commie scumbags like ewe, you fucking rude immoral
cunt.
When you agree with me then thats called a coincidence or an accident,
its not a consequence of your thought process, so dont go getting
yourself too excited.
Michael Gordge
Chris H. Fleming
But without a definition of a ruler, there is no .... ah nevermind.
kevirwin
> kevirwin wrote:
> > There are
> > actually times I agree with Mikey,
>
> Its Mr Gordge to commie scumbags like ewe, you fucking rude immoral
> cunt.
No, no... It's whatever I feel like calling, arguably, the most vile
poster in this forum, be it "mikey Sludge", "Mike the Grudge", or just
plain cunt-faced, mother-fucking, pussy-bitch, dick-sucking
asshole...It's all good!!! and DAMN if you didn't say "ewe rude
fucking cunt" again!!!!!! As to my political beliefs, well, this is a
philosophy forum...
> When you agree with me then thats called a coincidence or an accident,
> its not a consequence of your thought process, so dont go getting
> yourself too excited.
> Michael Gordge
The consequence of agreement with a sociopath of your ilk merely causes
me to rethink my position, Mikey.....I'm not pleased with it, but
even a blind fucking squirrel like yourself finds an acorn every once
in awhile, so. . . . .
But back on topic, even as I've been gone for a while, I observe you
have not changed in the slightest. I noticed you even had the
unmitigated audacity in another post to accuse people of cowardice in
the face of your diatribes by kill-filing you...Like there is something
to fear from a worm like you!!!!!! Have you ever asked anyone who knows
you, to read some of your shit??? (I would have said "anyone who
**likes** you", but that would be a long shot)...
Well, you're in luck now Mikey Grudge, cause I'm back and I
**promise** I won't kill file you . I will be replying, and even if
your best ain't good enough, EWE RUDE FUCKING CUNT, (that gets
funnier every time I see it!!!!!!) keep trying, Mikey....
Oh, and its OK to snip my posts for your pathetic replies..You need
every advantage you can get..Interested readers (and I hope there
**aren't** many) can peruse, at their convenience, the text that
interests them (if any)..I'm happy to keep this between me & you; Close
up & Personal!!!
Your good pal,
K e v
Oh, and apologies to Chazwin for re-naming your thread, I needed to get
Mikey's attention.....
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
> kevirwin wrote:
Nothing on the subject at all, attacked me as usual and not a mention
of my ideas, suffers from accute Randaphobic depression, a sorrowful
scourge if ever there is and even tried to change the heading to suit
his own fucked up little retarded brain. Come on ewe flea brained
knuckle-draggin cowardly moron, where's this challenge dopey, what's
the topic? waiting waiting waiting.
Michael Gordge
Sean
<smile>
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
>
> Nothing makes sense to you in your little world of truth!
Goodgod chaz z lost and you wonder why you cant attract anything but
Randaphobic seriously depressed moronic retarded parasitical
knuckle-dragging little germs like kevirwin to come to your aid.
The truth is 100% absolute chaz because the truth corresponds directly
to and with reality, sensory reality, because reality has no
contradictions, and not even you can deny that without using it as the
standard to do so, so get used to it bozo.
Here's another fact of absolute truth i.e. absolute reality chazzz, (
oh and even funnier you simply cant deny it as an absolute fact,
without using it as the standard to claim your position as true) unless
any and all ideas of man can be linked directly to sensory
non-contradicting evidence, i.e. sensory reality, matter of existence,
which is saying, that unless ANY and ALL ideas of man can be reduced
right back down to an irresducible sensory level of perception, then
that idea is born entirely in and of his mind, and man trusts and and
all such ideas at his peril, eg god, eg the greater good, eg the entire
Platonian / Kantian / Russellian / Rawlian / Poppereen / Zenoian
philosophy of fucked up socialism.
Michael Gordge
chazwin
Your views exactly accord with my own. Truth has to be relative to the
individual on nearly all issue, certainly all issues of value. Mikey
insists that "subjective truth" is an oxymoron. I have to conclude that
Mikey is incapable of making such a distinction: fact and truth. He has
not attempted to answer this question himself and it is claer to me
that his notion of Truth can only fail here.
Chazwin
catchya later.
chazwin
You keep saying the same thing but do not seem to have an argument.
Describing your views is not the same as explaining them or persuading
others to see your point. It seems you don't really have a point
really.
Congratulation on your ability to cut & paste though. Nice One!!!
>
>
> Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
>........ Mr Gordge
> insists that "subjective truth" is an oxymoron.
That's because it is you dumb arse.
> I have to conclude that
> Mr Gordge is incapable of making such a distinction: fact and truth.
Oh so is that the truth or a fact?
> He has
> not attempted to answer this question himself and it is claer to me
> that his notion of Truth can only fail here.
What question? I have told you a million times the meaning of truth.
Michael Gordge
chazwin
It is an unworkable meaning as you continually fail to show that you
can APPLY it.
>
>
> Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
> It is an unworkable meaning......
So how come you know ?
chazwin
See above!
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
I did and you dont make any sense.
What part of the following meaning of truth doesn't work, how doesn't
it work and what the fuck do you mean.
I am saying, this is the standard I use to determine what is and what
is not true.
*the truth means, to correspond to reality, man knows absolutely that
reality has no contradictions because what is real is real, he knows
that as an absolute fact because to deny it, requires the use of
*non-contradiction* as the standard to do so, therefore, the truth
corresponding to reality contains no contradictions.
Your turn now, explain what is not workable in that meaning of truth.
Michael Gordge
kevirwin
**Nothing** on the subject at all, you brainless twit????
YOU are the subject and I'm gonna change the title again...Define
"cowardly" Mikey; something from your personal history will do. I'm
100% certain I would read every single mother-fucking word I've written
**to you** and **about you** into your face; my guess is you'd pee all
over yourself trying to find a rock to crawl under (and I'm almost
60!!!!!).
Then you have the audacity to complain - -"Attacked me, as usual", --
like 99% of your crap isn't personal attacks on people who do not see
the "MIKEY WAY". The degree to which you must be delusional staggers
the imagination. Are you completely oblivious to the shit that pours
out of your posts??? Is it even remotely possible you're not cognizant
of the opprobrium you freely heap on others while pretending to have
some philosophical point that negates common courtesy???
Here's my point, shmuck; allow your closed, egocentric mind to reach
out and grasp what someone is constructively pointing out to you: YOU
PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE, FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN YOU DISAGREE WITH
THEIR VIEW...
YOU *****START***** BEING RUDE AND OFFENSIVE WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY
NO CALL FOR IT; IN OTHER WORDS, ewe ARE THE ONE THAT INVARIABLY
INITIATES THE INVECTIVES..IT'S **you** **EWE** **U**.....
All you need to do to verify "WHO is telling the TRUTH", is to read
what you've posted; it's that simple "ewe rude fucking cunt"!!!!
and last, but certainly not least, the maggot spews this:
<quote more Mikey bullshit>
and even tried to change the heading to suit his own fucked up little
retarded brain.
<end of Mikey's bullshit.....yea, like that'll ever happen>
Original subject was TRUTH in **this** thread, right, shit-for-brains.
Besides being logically incoherent, your quoted statement is 100%
false. I changed the title then, like I'm gonna do now, so you couldn't
possibly say you didn't see it. I say I'm smarter than you (IQ - 151),
stronger than you, and that you don't possess a positive trait that I
can't beat. I think you're the classic example of an "Internet
Superman", a wannabe tough guy who tries to generate attitude on a
keyboard and would shake like a leaf if an actual physical altercation
occurred. Call my bluff, pussy. Maybe you're 6'5'' and 250
pounds of pure muscle; I'll take my shot anyway. Define
"cowardly", punk....Have you figured out what the subject is
yet?????????????
Here to stay,
K e v
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
kevirwin wrote
> YOU are the subject and I'm gonna change the title again...
Nope the subject is *Who is Telling the Truth* and as much as you keep
wanting to dishonestly change it by starting new and pathetic wanky
sub-threads, I am not going to let you.
You have challenged me to debate any subject and have claimed an
ability to hack it to the end.
However, before that starts then obviously there needs to be some
common ground on the standards for adjudicating the debate, e.g. what
standard is to be used to judge truth or lies, right or wrong?
I say, that the standard of what is *true* and *right* is, that,
something true and something right must conform to reality, to explain
further, I say that reality has no contradictions because what is real
is real, I say even further, that it is not possible to deny reality
has no contradictions, without using the reality of non-contradiction
to do so.
> Define
> "cowardly" Mikey;
Not until you tell me how the answers and the debate you want will be
judged.
> over yourself trying to find a rock to crawl under (and I'm almost
> 60!!!!!).
Gosh senile dementia sets in earlier each year. Fish Oil should help.
> YOU
> PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE, FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN YOU > DISAGREE WITH
THEIR VIEW...
Stop shouting idiot, what is it with you scumbag parasitical socialists
kev, why do you feel a need to steal everything that you cant and dont
think of yourself e.g. my use of *ewe*?
> YOU *****START***** BEING RUDE AND OFFENSIVE WHEN THERE IS > ABSOLUTELY NO CALL FOR IT;
Thats not true. I am really nice to nice people.
> I say I'm smarter than you (IQ - 151),
Oh my god loook, what a foolish dickhead, an assault from his Ivory
Tower.
Hey guess what bozo? Hitler had an IQ of around 150 too. Mugabee has
and IQ of around 140, Karl Marx 150, Hussein's IQ 140, see the fucking
link egghead?
You stupid arrogant prick, was that meant to humiliate me?
What delinquent retards intelligent people in reality are.
> Here to stay,
Yes sure.
Michael Gordge
kevirwin
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> kevirwin wrote
>
> > YOU are the subject and I'm gonna change the title again...
>
> Nope the subject is *Who is Telling the Truth* and as much as you keep
> wanting to dishonestly change it by starting new and pathetic wanky
> sub-threads, I am not going to let you.
**You're** not going to let me. By what power? Is it the same one that
deludes you into thinking you, and ewe alone, have the ability to
define reality??
> You have challenged me to debate any subject and have claimed an
> ability to hack it to the end.
Yea, it's a simple subject: Is Mikey a cancerous slug in the philosophy
forum?
> However, before that starts then obviously there needs to be some
> common ground on the standards for adjudicating the debate, e.g. what
> standard is to be used to judge truth or lies, right or wrong?
Easy, go with consensus opinion; I'm not likable either, so we start
even.
> I say, that the standard of what is *true* and *right* is, that,
> something true and something right must conform to reality, to explain
> further, I say that reality has no contradictions because what is real
> is real, I say even further, that it is not possible to deny reality
> has no contradictions, without using the reality of non-contradiction
> to do so.
I don't disagree with that paragraph; we'll have to debate **you**,
**ewe**, **u**.
> > Define
> > "cowardly" Mikey;
>
> Not until you tell me how the answers and the debate you want will be
> judged.
I did, so do you qualify as a coward under your own definition??
> > over yourself trying to find a rock to crawl under (and I'm almost
> > 60!!!!!).
>
> Gosh senile dementia sets in earlier each year. Fish Oil should help.
I take MSM for joints, so I can still bench-press around 300 pounds. I
need more than light weights like you to keep my mind active.
> > YOU
> > PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE, FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN YOU > DISAGREE WITH
> THEIR VIEW...
>
> Stop shouting idiot, what is it with you scumbag parasitical socialists
> kev, why do you feel a need to steal everything that you cant and dont
> think of yourself e.g. my use of *ewe*?
What source of knowledge do you draw from to decide political
affiliations; you're wrong again {you really suck at Truth, or you
could just be consistently mistaken)
> > YOU *****START***** BEING RUDE AND OFFENSIVE WHEN THERE IS > ABSOLUTELY NO CALL FOR IT;
>
> Thats not true. I am really nice to nice people.
Than for that statement to be true, you're saying there are NO NICE
PEOPLE in this forum. I believe a quick perusal of posts you've made in
this forum will show a clear majority of expletive laden responses
initiated by you **without** provocation
> > I say I'm smarter than you (IQ - 151),
>
> Oh my god loook, what a foolish dickhead, an assault from his Ivory
> Tower.
> Hey guess what bozo? Hitler had an IQ of around 150 too. Mugabee has
> and IQ of around 140, Karl Marx 150, Hussein's IQ 140, see the fucking
> link egghead?
>
> You stupid arrogant prick, was that meant to humiliate me?
Wrong, again; in a planet of 6 billion, my IQ leaves roughly
120,000,000 people smarter than me. I'm saying **you** aren't one of
them.
> > Here to stay,
>
> Yes sure.
As long as you infest ALT.P, guaranteed.....
K e v, the Mikey slayer