Principia Discordia

after reading about maybe logic and e-prime
it seems that there is suggestion that perhaps not only is the verb 'to be' not good to use
but
it may in fact be a fallacy altogether



as in - it may be inherently contradictory to say this IS that


has anybody here read into any of this e-prime or maybe logic business?



if the language we use to communicate really does reveal itself as faulty as it seems
then perhaps maybe logic goes a long way in determining how the mess developed on this planet




adherance to maybe logic immediately puts to rest nearly all causes of conflict that are known
there does not seem to be any room for opinions in maybe logic
and as such
no room for differences of opinion



the biggest drawback that i can see regarding maybe logic
would be that it could prove difficult to come to an agreement to get certain things done
(basically anything political)
but
that may not be such a bad thing



maybe logic also lends itself to all the new age folks hellbent on crowley - aquarius - the mayans - 2012 - ufos - etc etc etc

as all of these can be summed up with a resounding maybe



does anybody have any insights on e-prime or maybe logic?

the shit is looking pretty damn good from where i am sitting right now

Logos died in 2000.

STOP EXISTING!!!!!  
Solves everything.

Quote from: SchizzySTOP EXISTING!!!!!  
Solves everything.

YUO FIRST, OPIE!
\
(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/hammertime.gif)

NEXT!
\
(http://asmallvictory.net/archives/explodehead.jpg)

Quote from: SchizzyNEXT!
\
(http://asmallvictory.net/archives/explodehead.jpg)

CHEF LIED.

(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/digtbk.gif)

OBLIVION > CHEF

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerLogos died in 2000.

pardon my retardation yet again
but
i didnt catch that one


logos?

Quote from: LHX

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerLogos died in 2000.

pardon my retardation yet again
but
i didnt catch that one


logos?

okay

i did some reading

to say that logos died in 2000
has some fascinating implications




most of which make me want to slam a door on my face



interesting

Quote from: LHXafter reading about maybe logic and e-prime
it seems that there is suggestion that perhaps not only is the verb 'to be' not good to use
but
it may in fact be a fallacy altogether

as in - it may be inherently contradictory to say this IS that

"To be" or not "to be", that is.. er, um,...

Define existance without refering to existance. In other words, define existance in such a way that we can conclude, after due analysis, that a thing does or does not possess the quality or property of existance.

Can't be done. We can define hot as "an ambient temperature above 70 degrees Farenheit", instead of saying "Hot is not cold" or "Hot makes you sweat" or "Hot burns".

I never looked into maybe logic, but I've read enough about e-prime to not bother writing a post in it.

The real problem with e-prime involves the way the mind thinks. We build associations, categories, and relationships, all of which can be easily described using "to be". (Assoc: A is B; Cat: A is a member of B; Relat: A is [damned if I know the term for words such as "closer" but what it boils down to is describing an association in terms of comparison] than B.)

For example: "The apple is closer to me than the orange." Both the apple and the orange are associated with the observer and categorized according to proximity.

Another example: "That is mine." is more common than "I own that." because "that is mine" shows a categorization of possession ("Some things are mine. Some are not mine.") whereas "I own that." is a verb, ownership as a continuing action.

Which is why "You are owned" or "You got owned" ("got" as a colloquialism for "have been") is more common than "I owned you".

Anyway, that is my two-cents.

Third cent:

Also, Gor:

QuoteWhy do I bring this up? There is a common phenomenon in online Gor, in discussions about how to think and be Gorean, in conversations in which people "ask how to live"... the phenomenon of "ought". The idea that people "should" attempt to behave this way or that way, not because they will gain benefit or happiness from doing so, or avoid disadvantage or misery, but simply in order to fulfill some abstract, arbitrary, and inflexible ideas about "The way things should be."

It's all so much bosk dung.

[...]

Should a woman defer to a man whose presence is no reward, and whose disdain is no punishment? Why the hell should she? It is just as much a denial of the realities of power and nature to treat such a man as if he has power which he does not, as it is to pretend that the other, more masterful sort of man has no power whatsoever.

[...] if I want something, I'll take it if I can, and if I can't, I'm not going to complain that the woman didn't play along like she was supposed to. If I can't get it myself, I don't deserve it.

And, in another essay:

Quote
The Gorean lives in an Aristotelian world where A is always A, recognizing that it is pointless to speculate about anything which cannot be either perceived or deduced since such things can have no effect on the real world.

[...]

The only reasonable criterion for judging an ethical system is objective success: How well do those who practice these ideas survive, prosper, and propagate, compared to those who practice other ideas? Natural selection applies to philosophy, just as it does to any other characteristic of a man: A good philosophy will increase his viability, his ability to overcome the challenges of environment and competitors, while a poor philosophy will lead to his defeat, poverty, eventual extinction.

However, we cannot place the viability of the individual organism as the sole criterion of value, because all individual organisms die, and a philosophy which does not propagate itself will likewise die. Rather, we must judge the viability of a population as a whole, and see how the philosophy espoused by that population enables the population to survive, prosper, and propagate itself, even as individual members leave the population and others enter it.

[...]

So, where does this leave us in terms of ethics? Simply, here: each individual has a right and duty to seek to understand the consequences of his choices, as a rational human being living in an objectively real world. Moral action, for any individual, is that action which will best enable him to accomplish whatever goals he chooses for himself, while exposing himself and his people, however he defines that community, to the least risk of harmful consequences.

Or, in short, the Gorean metaethics can be simply stated as, "Nature is the only judge of morality."

[...]

This, then, is the Gorean philosophy: A philosophy grounded in the world as it is instead of as we think it might be, one which recognizes that the failure of a people is the failure of their philosophy, one which declares boldly that things are as they are, that the mystical is not the rational, that failure is not achievement, and that nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

To put it simply: you have to be what you are.

Or, to paraphrase Yoda: You are or you are not. There is no Maybe Logic.

And, according to Gorean philosophy, English has and will continue to thrive, as it is, "to be" and all. (Cindy Crawford's mole, I say! MOOOOOOLLEE!)

Quote from: TOAThe real problem with e-prime involves the way the mind thinks. We build associations, categories, and relationships, all of which can be easily described using "to be". (Assoc: A is B; Cat: A is a member of B; Relat: A is [damned if I know the term for words such as "closer" but what it boils down to is describing an association in terms of comparison] than B.)

The mind thinks you need to get back in touch with how nobody knows what the mind "is" let alone all the ways it works.

We're all blind people touching an elephant here and I think you've got a hand in it's ass.

Quote from: Netaungrot the FarragoThe mind thinks you need to get back in touch with how nobody knows what the mind "is" let alone all the ways it works.

We're all blind people touching an elephant here and I think you've got a hand in it's ass.

We may not know exactly how it works, but we aren't completely ignorant, either.

We have enough info to make fair guesses and reasonable generalizations.

Like, for example, the notion of 'property' and the notion of 'people as property' is so ingrained into our psyche that people voluntarily submit to slavery. Q.E.D. RBTL BABOA

I'm a big fan of both e-prime and maybe logic.

to me, it's all about clarity and accuracy, to myself as well as to others.

The only problem is, it tends to make for shitty rants, and it can suck the fun out of a good joke.

I think the big problem with the "is of identity" seems not to be so much that it labels an object, but that it tends to exclude all aspects of the object that are not part of the label ("the flower 'is' red" excludes all the other aspects of flower-ness).

Also, inserting the observer as part of the observation tends to remind us that subjectivity plays a key part in most observations (and even can remind us of basic physical properties of seeing - Cf: the "Blood is blue/red" thread).

it may be possible that e-prime still holds the trump card -


it could be said that the IS of identity has no real function anyway

since coming to this forum
i have been made aware that classifying and defining things seems to be nothing more than trifles and a cause for debate



as in
"this is a real discordian"


it always comes down to
'well - what do you mean by that'


how many different words are there for 'red'

it may be comfortable to use 'is'
but
it may also be something that is on its way out
seriously

Not on it's way out-- it has to do with the way the primate brain functions.  Labeling, categorizing-- hell, even the bible has Adam classifying things right off the bat.

humanity as a whole will probably never get over "is".  But trying to escape tends not only to be fun, but itis mildly enlightening as to how we function as humans.

Also, as Hugh will probably point out, it can be a mistake to put too much faith in simple semantic word games to lead us into bliss.  Just because you sometimes use maybe/fuzzy logic doesn't make you much better tham the pinks/greys/cabbages/opiez.

believe it or not
it may not have anything to do with 'being better than'

actually
it doesnt




maybe the only thing it changes is that you will not find yourself in a situation where you were depending on something (an implication of using the word 'IS')
only to have that something not dependable



also
doesnt this whole thing point out that even the bible (gasp) could be subject to this fallacy?

or perhaps even takes advantage of this fallacy?


i agree that conspiracy has gone out of style
but
that does not mean that any and every advantage was used throughout history


even a salesman knows that
(this is the last appliance you will ever need)





maybe the only difference between us and pinks/greys/cabbages/opiez is restlessness and discomfort

I love E-Prime.

At work I speak almost solely in E-Prime, but it's difficult and almost pointless to try to speak in E-Prime when simply shooting the shit with friends.  Although if an argument pops up it is very helpful.

It's a conspiracy.  Er, it seems to be a conspiracy to knock the fundamentalist existentialists off-kilter.  They're watching!  I never relayed this message.  It doesn't exist.  Think of a pink golf ball!  ::POOF::

Quote from: LHXdoesnt this whole thing point out that even the bible (gasp) could be subject to this fallacy?

The bible does indeed seem to be filled with this apparent fallacy (even down to YHWH,Äôs ,ÄúI am that I am.,Äù).  My point was that the tendency to name and classify things can be traced all the way to the creation myths.  Even in our beloved Tiamat and Marduk story, we had Things (stuff that has been ,Äúis-ed,Äù) separated from chaos (undefinable; Cf: the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao, etc).

We are in a sea of information that is now proven to be indestructible.

For us to feel as if we understand, we label, assign limits, delineate rules and place it into our constructed system.

However, we cannot be complacent!  Filet mignon is not simply a delicious dish, it has many levels, which may or may not be appreciated by our little minds.

Mu

miao.

People that misunderstood my previous statement = 1

Quote from: erotic

Quote from: LHXdoesnt this whole thing point out that even the bible (gasp) could be subject to this fallacy?

The bible does indeed seem to be filled with this apparent fallacy (even down to YHWH,Äôs ,ÄúI am that I am.,Äù).  My point was that the tendency to name and classify things can be traced all the way to the creation myths.  Even in our beloved Tiamat and Marduk story, we had Things (stuff that has been ,Äúis-ed,Äù) separated from chaos (undefinable; Cf: the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao, etc).

fuck
that tao thing fits right in

i forgot about that



just because the fallacy might be deeply rooted does not really mean that it can be written off

it also doesnt mean that it wasnt put in motion with conscious intent



the more i look into it
the more evidence there seems to be that 'IS'ness might be an anomaly





the leap from communicating to recording information to recording false information may be a lot more significant that it appears at first



the only way you can broadcast false information seems to rely on 'IS'


there IS a god and he IS watching
vs
there might be a god and he might be watching




how else can you send someone down the wrong path than by selling them a definitive reality?

Quote from: Rev ThwackPeople that misunderstood my previous statement = 1

Persons that cared about what you were talking about = 0.
Persons that simply wanted to miao = 1.
Persons that were persons and not people = subject to debate.

If/not nor, bleep, bleep...

Quote
the only way you can broadcast false information seems to rely on 'IS'


there IS a god and he IS watching
vs
there might be a god and he might be watching

How about:
god exists and watches all.

Quote from: LHX
just because the fallacy might be deeply rooted does not really mean that it can be written off

Agreed.  Nor should it, IMO.

Quoteit also doesnt mean that it wasnt put in motion with conscious intent

Then again, it doesn't mean it was.

Quotethe only way you can broadcast false information seems to rely on 'IS'

how else can you send someone down the wrong path than by selling them a definitive reality?

It appears that I seem at this current moment using the best perceptive skills possible, that I probably am wearing the bodies of dead babies as shoes.

^written in E-prime, and false.




Wait a minute...

::checks feet::


AAUGH!

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: Rev ThwackPeople that misunderstood my previous statement = 1

Persons that cared about what you were talking about = 0.
Persons that simply wanted to miao = 1.
Persons that were persons and not people = subject to debate.

If/not nor, bleep, bleep...

43 posts and counting...

Quote from: Rev Thwack

Quote
the only way you can broadcast false information seems to rely on 'IS'


there IS a god and he IS watching
vs
there might be a god and he might be watching

How about:
god exists and watches all.

Also:

The "is" appears to be hidden, but still there.

In E-prime:

The concept commonly referred to as "God" seems to exist for me in my current belief system, and it is my opinion that he watches all, as improbable as that may sound.

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreWe are in a sea of information that is now proven to be indestructible.

For us to feel as if we understand, we label, assign limits, delineate rules and place it into our constructed system.

when can a person say that this turns out to be a bad approach?


we cant destroy information
but
we cant categorize it all or we explode

so
a "maybe" approach could be the only chance a person has


when you convert something to maybe
all information seems to retain validity (truth)

at that point
the 'truth' might become less mysterious and more blatantly obvious

[/quote]

there IS a god and he IS watching
vs
there might be a god and he might be watching

how else can you send someone down the wrong path than by selling them a definitive reality?[/quote]

Do you mean something (idea of a god) may or may not be?  What is to be?

It means whatever we want it to mean and that's the problem because we take everything for granted, even existence/reality.

In the end, everything is pointless and glorious, even your nana.

Quote from: erotic

Quote from: Rev Thwack

Quote
the only way you can broadcast false information seems to rely on 'IS'


there IS a god and he IS watching
vs
there might be a god and he might be watching

How about:
god exists and watches all.

Also:

The "is" appears to be hidden, but still there.

In E-prime:

The concept commonly referred to as "God" seems to exist for me in my current belief system, and it is my opinion that he watches all, as improbable as that may sound.

either that
or
the statement might be absolutely meaningless and not even worth the breath

agreed

why should there be explosions if we categorize?

Everything seems to be everything and the meaning therefore is lost.

We are god and we live in the world of our own making with semantics not making a lick of diffference.

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Do you mean something (idea of a god) may or may not be?  What is to be?

It means whatever we want it to mean and that's the problem because we take everything for granted, even existence/reality.

In the end, everything is pointless and glorious, even your nana.

yes

we passed this understanding a few decades ago

everything is pointless and glorious until there is a gun in your mouth or no food in sight



what triggers off that defense mechanism in people?

'what is to be?'
'my reality tunnel' blah blah fuck

save that shit for a philosophy prof


its like a dry wind blowing when it is already cold outside

[playing nice]

Farts, you seem to be missing the point of maybe logic and e-prime.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

http://www.maybelogic.org/academy2.htm

[/playing nice]

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartrewhy should there be explosions if we categorize?

Cf: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence.  The protagonist went insane via catagorization.

QuoteEverything seems to be everything and the meaning therefore is lost.

Barstool experiment.

QuoteWe are god and we live in the world of our own making with semantics not making a lick of diffference.

Prove it.

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartrewhy should there be explosions if we categorize?

Everything seems to be everything and the meaning therefore is lost.

We are god and we live in the world of our own making with semantics not making a lick of diffference.

and yet we still endure an environment what consists of folks who still operate as tho the words are really real

and that they do make a very significant difference



personally
the reason why i bring it up

is these people have the ability to make it uncomfortable for everybody else

plus
the joke has become pretty lame
for me
personally

Agreed.

Quote from: LHX

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre
Do you mean something (idea of a god) may or may not be?  What is to be?
It means whatever we want it to mean and that's the problem because we take everything for granted, even existence/reality.
In the end, everything is pointless and glorious, even your nana.

yes
we passed this understanding a few decades ago
everything is pointless and glorious until there is a gun in your mouth or no food in sight
what triggers off that defense mechanism in people?
'what is to be?'
'my reality tunnel' blah blah fuck
save that shit for a philosophy prof
its like a dry wind blowing when it is already cold outside

So... Conan Doyle is the only one who got it right?  Maybe? Nonetheless, I think you could take Conan Doyle because maybe he had an addiction and no: I wasn't talking of you fighting him now that he's dead as it would be unfair.

Thanks to maybe something, we can apply maybe to everything, maybe.  Fun (maybe)!  A(maybe) distraction, for sure!

I do like your idea of the explosion from that ultimate categorization thing.  Perhaps a cult is in order?  I'll let you name it, maybe.

JPF

p.s.  I NOW COMPLTETLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID (except for the explosion thing because I just have no idea where you got that from).  
I however am absolutely convinced that PERHAPS should replace MAYBE in all future conversations as maybe is perhaps incorrect.

Maybe.

Quote from: LHX

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartrewhy should there be explosions if we categorize?

Everything seems to be everything and the meaning therefore is lost.

We are god and we live in the world of our own making with semantics not making a lick of diffference.

and yet we still endure an environment what consists of folks who still operate as tho the words are really real and that they do make a very significant difference personally the reason why i bring it up is these people have the ability to make it uncomfortable for everybody else plus the joke has become pretty lame for me personally

It's a matter of taste, sadly.  All sorts of preferences out there and not all of them corresponded with yours, no?

Boo hoo so much it hurts.  You got it very bad, yes?

Hardly anybody understands.... whaa.

Quote from: Baron von HooplaMaybe.

Perhaps?

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: Baron von HooplaMaybe.

Perhaps?

Could be.

Quote from: erotic[playing nice]

Farts, you seem to be missing the point of maybe logic and e-prime.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

http://www.maybelogic.org/academy2.htm

[/playing nice]

Oh, I know about.  I think it's a hoot and much better than the language that we've grown for ourselves to this point.  I just don't think it makes much difference either way.

Will we have E-prime versions of Finnegans Wake?  That's what I need to know.

Forcing poetry through E-Prime is missing the point, IMO.

Quote from: Baron von HooplaForcing poetry through E-Prime is missing the point, IMO.

I appear to never have said it appeared as what I consider the point most likely was to me.

Uh . . . right.  Yes.

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreI just don't think it makes much difference either way.

Why not?

Quote from: erotic

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreI just don't think it makes much difference either way.

Why not?

What were we talking about?
or
What was the subject of the apparent previous conversation that we seemed to particpate in?

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: erotic

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreI just don't think it makes much difference either way.

Why not?

What were we talking about?
or
What was the subject of the apparent previous conversation that we seemed to particpate in?

You were just about to explain why e-prime and maybe logic didn't seem ultimately that important, in your opinion.

Quote from: erotic

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: erotic

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreI just don't think it makes much difference either way.

Why not?

What were we talking about?
or
What was the subject of the apparent previous conversation that we seemed to particpate in?

You were just about to explain why e-prime and maybe logic didn't seem ultimately that important, in your opinion.

I mean, ultimately, I'm gonna die either way.

That really sucks, man.

::holds tongue for 33 posts::

Quote from: erotic::holds tongue for 33 posts::

Brilliant!

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: erotic::holds tongue for 33 posts::

Brilliant!

That means 'prepare yourself.'

Z¬? - knows whats coming.

Quote from: Z¬?

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: erotic::holds tongue for 33 posts::

Brilliant!

That means 'prepare yourself.'

Z¬? - knows whats coming.

You mean get some breakfast?

And an umbrella.

BVH
-also knows what's coming.

It's the human condition, isn't it?

30 posts left.

*grabs a bucket of popcorn*

You guys make it sound like I'm some sort of ogre...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's one of THOSE games.

Can't you just count this as 30 posts to satiate your number fixation?

Perhaps I will throw in other numbers to mess up your counting.

23

5

6

144

143

29

1

29...


And I'm doing this out of respect for Hoshiko.

Quote from: eroticYou guys make it sound like I'm some sort of ogre...

... or that I should really care.




Should: the opposite of Green Grass.

Quote from: erotic29...


And I'm doing this out of respect for Hoshiko.

Still just 29?

Come on.  Count this one as double.



JPF

Are you going to send me a turd in the mail because it's Xmas time and it probably won't get here soon.  I think I'll have forgotten about all of this by then.


.

Here appears to exist another post.

Am I at 27 yet?

25 by my count.

I couldn't help myself.  I open presents before Xmas, this seems as truth to me.

Has anyone seen the WKRP where Les is playing baseball with the radio team and having a flashback to violin lessons?





JPF

That violin.... eek, eeeek, weeeeek-weeeerk....

that's how it feels to me having to write 20-someodd messings to get to the centre/center of a tootsie pop that is LaMeNO's countdown to supposed vindication.

Perhaps 20-someodd messages before a poop is necessary?


There you go.  You have evoked scat!

I shall haiku myself to perdition:

Counting syllables
Which is the worst thing to do
When one does Haiku.

Never should one
Miscount syllables
whilst Haiku writing.

NEVER.

Ever.

Red Sails!
Thunder, Ocean!

Young Americans
They seem young Americans
Young Americans.

Hey look!


My last post was #33.
Ironic, perhaps?

blah blah blah

Perhaps there are those heading home at this time.

It's just another question in the enormous inquiry of/into life, dontcha think?



That's pretty deep, huh?

Where, I said, where have all the good times gone?

I ask you, really.

More mysteries.... weird!




JPF

Quote from: LHXafter reading about maybe logic and e-prime
it seems that there is suggestion that perhaps not only is the verb 'to be' not good to use but it may in fact be a fallacy altogether as in - it may be inherently contradictory to say this IS that

has anybody here read into any of this e-prime or maybe logic business?
if the language we use to communicate really does reveal itself as faulty as it seems then perhaps maybe logic goes a long way in determining how the mess developed on this planet adherance to maybe logic immediately puts to rest nearly all causes of conflict that are known
there does not seem to be any room for opinions in maybe logic
and as such no room for differences of opinion
the biggest drawback that i can see regarding maybe logic would be that it could prove difficult to come to an agreement to get certain things done
(basically anything political) but that may not be such a bad thing
maybe logic also lends itself to all the new age folks hellbent on crowley - aquarius - the mayans - 2012 - ufos - etc etc etc
as all of these can be summed up with a resounding maybe
does anybody have any insights on e-prime or maybe logic?
the shit is looking pretty damn good from where i am sitting right now

I agree that the shit is good but that maybe is a pisser.

To return to the original topic of conversation, EP/ML seems to gives us the best possible platform to move forward logically, but does that result in knowledge becoming a probability?  Only a possibility?... and if that's so, then wouldn't the original assumption seem a possibility?  Doesn't it erode any ultimate basis for subscribing to EP/ML since probability encompasses all probabilities?  The benefit of EP/ML is only a possibility.  Why do we have greater confidence in EP/ML?  To what degree is our confidence greater in it than our confidence in other possibilities.  Using ML, what convinces us that ML is true(r)?

In short can EP/ML convince us of any truth, itself included?

Phew!

Maybe. (Ha ha)
But the advantage of e-prime is that it exposes the collection of compromises that is the human language. Language is a human construct and therefore imperfect.

Because at one point we were smaller than the things trying to eat us, we had to develop a complex system of symbols so we could cooperate to survive. We would point to a rock and go "rock," "tiger," "fire." Yada yada. But as humanity becomes more interested in complex ideas and constructs, the language system starts to crack at the sides--it becomes unable to adequately describe things like "nothing," or "empathy."

Using e-prime just points out that the language we are using may not necessarily be 100 % accurate, therefore our assumptions about the world and our reality, based as they are in part in language, may also not be 100% accurate either.

IMO anyway.

IMO shrugging is the only universal language.

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre
I mean, ultimately, I'm gonna die either way.

if only it could be that easy

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: LHXafter reading about maybe logic and e-prime
it seems that there is suggestion that perhaps not only is the verb 'to be' not good to use but it may in fact be a fallacy altogether as in - it may be inherently contradictory to say this IS that

has anybody here read into any of this e-prime or maybe logic business?
if the language we use to communicate really does reveal itself as faulty as it seems then perhaps maybe logic goes a long way in determining how the mess developed on this planet adherance to maybe logic immediately puts to rest nearly all causes of conflict that are known
there does not seem to be any room for opinions in maybe logic
and as such no room for differences of opinion
the biggest drawback that i can see regarding maybe logic would be that it could prove difficult to come to an agreement to get certain things done
(basically anything political) but that may not be such a bad thing
maybe logic also lends itself to all the new age folks hellbent on crowley - aquarius - the mayans - 2012 - ufos - etc etc etc
as all of these can be summed up with a resounding maybe
does anybody have any insights on e-prime or maybe logic?
the shit is looking pretty damn good from where i am sitting right now

I agree that the shit is good but that maybe is a pisser.

To return to the original topic of conversation, EP/ML seems to gives us the best possible platform to move forward logically, but does that result in knowledge becoming a probability?  Only a possibility?... and if that's so, then wouldn't the original assumption seem a possibility?  Doesn't it erode any ultimate basis for subscribing to EP/ML since probability encompasses all probabilities?  The benefit of EP/ML is only a possibility.  Why do we have greater confidence in EP/ML?  To what degree is our confidence greater in it than our confidence in other possibilities.  Using ML, what convinces us that ML is true(r)?

In short can EP/ML convince us of any truth, itself included?

Phew!

of course maybe logic presents itself as a maybe

to what degree can a person find more confidence in maybe logic?

well
for starters

it puts an abrupt end to disagreements between two people

lets see where that takes us




it would also put an end to property


lemme think on this for a little while longer

Quote from: LHX
it would also put an end to property

This is why I think e-prime is not going to be the dominant way of communicating as long as society functions the way that it does now. You and I are only useful to the overall machine as consumers, you can not have consumerism without property. Therefore e-prime, and other endeavours at telling the truth cannot be tolerated.

Think about the sheer absurdity of modern monetary systems. At best we're now exchanging pieces of paper, all pretending that they are worth something. Strange.

I don't know enough about maybe-logic, I'm going to read up on this.

Shrugging indeed is the only true universal language. That and scratching your butt.

"it puts an abrupt end to disagreements between two people"

Doesn't the agreement become a possibility though?  How can one be sure of an agreement if the agreement is a maybe?  The act of agreeing with an agreement is also a maybe. Is this taking it too far and why/how?

Is there any way to avoid epistemology with Maybe Logic?  If not, doesn't Maybe Logic negate itself?  If so, how?

Quote from: Toots

Quote from: LHX
it would also put an end to property

This is why I think e-prime is not going to be the dominant way of communicating as long as society functions the way that it does now. You and I are only useful to the overall machine as consumers, you can not have consumerism without property. Therefore e-prime, and other endeavours at telling the truth cannot be tolerated.

Think about the sheer absurdity of modern monetary systems. At best we're now exchanging pieces of paper, all pretending that they are worth something. Strange.

I don't know enough about maybe-logic, I'm going to read up on this.

Shrugging indeed is the only true universal language. That and scratching your butt.

If not money, what should represent value?  Isn't that the point of money, agreeing upon a monetary belief for convenience's sake?

Quote from: Toots

Quote from: LHX
it would also put an end to property

This is why I think e-prime is not going to be the dominant way of communicating as long as society functions the way that it does now. You and I are only useful to the overall machine as consumers, you can not have consumerism without property. Therefore e-prime, and other endeavours at telling the truth cannot be tolerated.

Think about the sheer absurdity of modern monetary systems. At best we're now exchanging pieces of paper, all pretending that they are worth something. Strange.

I don't know enough about maybe-logic, I'm going to read up on this.

Shrugging indeed is the only true universal language. That and scratching your butt.

it looks like e-prime cant develop in this society

i agree

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreHow can one be sure of an agreement if the agreement is a maybe?  

exactly

what can 2 people agree upon in the first place?

Quote
Is there any way to avoid epistemology with Maybe Logic?  If not, doesn't Maybe Logic negate itself?  If so, how?

why avoid epistemology?

how can anything be negated with 'maybe'


if anything - maybe enforces the validity of everything

the same way the phoenix requires ashes in order to be seen



once everything becomes valid
the truth becomes plain as day
(call it a hunch)


the universe does not seem to fit in a jar
maybe logic acknowledges this

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: Toots

Quote from: LHX
it would also put an end to property

This is why I think e-prime is not going to be the dominant way of communicating as long as society functions the way that it does now. You and I are only useful to the overall machine as consumers, you can not have consumerism without property. Therefore e-prime, and other endeavours at telling the truth cannot be tolerated.

Think about the sheer absurdity of modern monetary systems. At best we're now exchanging pieces of paper, all pretending that they are worth something. Strange.

I don't know enough about maybe-logic, I'm going to read up on this.

Shrugging indeed is the only true universal language. That and scratching your butt.

If not money, what should represent value?  Isn't that the point of money, agreeing upon a monetary belief for convenience's sake?

people also use bullets and antibiotics 'for convenience sake'

I think people missed the point I was trying to make.

Philosophy is only useful if it gets you laid.

either use it to fuck
or
get fucked by it



its all hood

I think it's amazing anyone is able to communicate with anyone else at all, considering we all come from different mind spaces.

Say your father beat you every day and night with a full can of Coke, you would have a completely different idea of "Coke" than I would, and really we would never both understand the other's point of view.

I think it's amazing that even more people aren't murdered every day.

Quote from: Baron von HooplaI think it's amazing anyone is able to communicate with anyone else at all, considering we all come from different mind spaces.

Say your father beat you every day and night with a full can of Coke, you would have a completely different idea of "Coke" than I would, and really we would never both understand the other's point of view.

I think it's amazing that even more people aren't murdered every day.

give it time hoopla

cosmetics and ointments can only hold a pimple back for so long...

True dat.

Given up LMNO?

Quote from: Baron von HooplaTrue dat.

Given up LMNO?

ooooooooooh

you callin him out?



fight fight fight fight fight fight

No, I'm working.

And waiting for 7 more posts.

damn rules

Quote from: LHX

Quote from: Baron von HooplaTrue dat.

Given up LMNO?

ooooooooooh

you callin him out?



fight fight fight fight fight fight

No, I'm with LMNO on this.

yeah

i know


me too



just looking for some drama

Ditto.

Oh please.  Spare me the melodrama.

Back to what I was asking AGAIN: doesn't Maybe Logic end up negating itself when it constructs reality out of possibilities?

Everything is possible, nothing is true, etc?  When it applies to ML itself, what are the consequences?

Who said E-Prime had anything to do with probabilities?

It's simply a method of changing semantics to change the way we view things.  Probabilities only stem from your perceptions, not from E-Prime.

threads like this are why nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class.

just saying.

Quote from: East Coast Hustlethreads like this are why nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class.

just saying.

Nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class because some people can't stand the fact that other people are more clever.

Just saying.

Quote from: Baron von Hoopla

Quote from: East Coast Hustlethreads like this are why nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class.

just saying.

Nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class because some people can't stand the fact that other people are more clever.

Too true.  It's insecurity and misunderstanding, the true evils of this civilization.

JPF

Does anyone have any interesting anecdotes of times that they've used E-Prime with other, non-enlightened persons in the area?  Have they noticed?  Did they appreciate it?

What's the deal with Maybe Logic then?  How is it supposed to help understanding?


There: that's 50...  or whatever.

Oogah boogah!

Courses are grounded in the philosophy and perspective of maybe logic, an approach which emphasizes the fallibility and relativity of perception and tends to approach information and observations with questions, probabilities and multiple perspectives rather than absolute truths.


- Doesn't this apply to Maybe Logic itself and what are the ramifications?  Can ML be used to justify confidence in ML?


Just asking.


JPF

I consider Maybe Logic and E-Prime to be the same.

And anyone with any smarts also applies E-Prime to E-Prime.  Does this negate it?  Not in my opinion.

IMO it honestly depicts the way we view things, and that includes E-Prime.  It's up to you to decide whether it makes things more clear for you.

Quote from: erisThink for YOURSELF, schmuck!

Quote from: Baron von HooplaI consider Maybe Logic and E-Prime to be the same.

And anyone with any smarts also applies E-Prime to E-Prime.  Does this negate it?  Not in my opinion.

IMO it honestly depicts the way we view things, and that includes E-Prime.  It's up to you to decide whether it makes things more clear for you.

Quote from: erisThink for YOURSELF, schmuck!

That's not what I was talking about at all.  
ML says: information and observations should evoke questions, probabilities and multiple perspectives rather than absolute truths.

Isn't ML under that umbrella as well?  Can ML be used to justify using ML?

Can't anyone answer this?


JPF

And I said YES.

Quote from: Baron von HooplaAnd I said YES.

OK, great.  How?



JPF

If you had read my post you would have seen that I said that ML does apply to ML.  It's up to YOU to decide if it works for YOU.

It works for me.

Quote from: Baron von HooplaIf you had read my post you would have seen that I said that ML does apply to ML.  It's up to YOU to decide if it works for YOU.

It works for me.

Isn't ML just a possibility then, the same as any other logic system?


JPF

Quote from: Baron von Hooplaanyone with any smarts also applies E-Prime to E-Prime.  Does this negate it?  Not in my opinion.

IMO it honestly depicts the way we view things, and that includes E-Prime.  It's up to you to decide whether it makes things more clear for you.

Quote from: erisThink for YOURSELF, schmuck!

Isn't E-Prime the language of ML?


JPF

I suppose you could put it that way.

I consider them the same.

Times have changed, And we've often rewound the clock, Since the Puritans got a shock, When they landed on Plymouth Rock. If today, Any shock they should try to stem, 'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock would land on them. In olden days a glimpse of stocking Was looked on as something shocking, But now, God knows, Anything Goes. Good authors too who once knew better words, Now only use four letter words Writing prose, Anything Goes. The world has gone mad today And good's bad today, And black's white today, And day's night today, When most guys today That women prize today Are just silly gigolos And though I'm not a great romancer I know that I'm bound to answer When you propose, Anything goes When grandmama whose age is eighty In night clubs is getting matey with gigolo's, Anything Goes.
When mothers pack and leave poor father Because they decide they'd rather be tennis pros, Anything Goes. If driving fast cars you like, If low bars you like, If old hymns you like, If bare limbs you like, If Mae West you like Or me undressed you like, Why, nobody will oppose! When every night, The set that's smart Is intruding in nudist parties in studios, Anything Goes.

*tiptoes backwards out of thread*

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreTimes have changed, And we've often rewound the clock,
Since the Puritans got a shock, When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today, Any shock they should try to stem,
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock would land on them.

In olden days a glimpse of stocking Was looked on as something shocking, But now, God knows, Anything Goes.

Good authors too who once knew better words, Now only use four letter words Writing prose, Anything Goes.

The world has gone mad today And good's bad today,
And black's white today, And day's night today,
When most guys today That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos And though I'm not a great romancer
I know that I'm bound to answer When you propose,
Anything goes

When grandmama whose age is eighty In night clubs is getting matey with gigolo's, Anything Goes.

When mothers pack and leave poor father Because they decide they'd rather be tennis pros, Anything Goes.

If driving fast cars you like, If low bars you like, If old hymns you like,
If bare limbs you like, If Mae West you like Or me undressed you like,
Why, nobody will oppose! When every night, The set that's smart
Is intruding in nudist parties in studios, Anything Goes.

i said it before:

this simply does not work



if it did work
we would prolly not be communicating on the intranet right now


i would prolly be fucking you or your sister or the other way around


there seems to be a responsibility that we cant shake
its prolly the only reason nobody here has pulled the trigger


because even tho we can be 99.99999% sure that going berserk is OK

there still seem to be that hesitation


"i die anyway"
like i said - it aint that easy



maybe logic does not NEGATE itself

it makes ALL STATEMENTS VALID





at which point
the truth comes out



any statement not expressed using maybe logic seems worthless

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreTo return to the original topic of conversation, EP/ML seems to gives us the best possible platform to move forward logically, but does that result in knowledge becoming a probability?

Yes.  Knowledge appears to be an evolving thing, and can often be hinged upon a frame of reference of a window of time.  While I ,Äúknow,Äù that my pen will fall ,Äúdown,Äù if I drop it, there is a very small chance it won,Äôt, for various reasons.  While the percentage of that happening is infinitesimal, it still precludes my knowledge from being 100% sure.  But for me, it,Äôs close enough that I don,Äôt worry about it.  I feel that nothing can be known 100%, and that,Äôs a good thing to me.

QuoteOnly a possibility?... and if that's so, then wouldn't the original assumption seem a possibility?  

Yes.  EP/ML are simply game rules that we have arbitrarily assumed. (Side note: even the phrase ,Äúoriginal assumption,Äù implies a less-than-100% level of assuredness to begin with).  Those that find it useful, use it.  Some have decided that, for now, it,Äôs the best set of game rules to use.  If a better one comes along, the chances are good that ML/EP will be abandoned in favor of the new rules.  ML/EP shouldn,Äôt be thought o as ,Äúthe,Äù answer, just a set of beneficial rules.

QuoteDoesn't it erode any ultimate basis for subscribing to EP/ML since probability encompasses all probabilities?  

Are you trying to do a George Bernard Shaw-style paradox?  Because it,Äôs not working.

QuoteThe benefit of EP/ML is only a possibility.  Why do we have greater confidence in EP/ML?  

Because when using ML/EP, the level of opinion and prejudice is made more apparent.  ML/EP shows the degree of bias in the system.  This leads to greater clarity, though (of course), not 100%.

QuoteTo what degree is our confidence greater in it than our confidence in other possibilities.  Using ML, what convinces us that ML is true(r)?

There is no ,Äútruth,Äù in ML/EP.  As said before, they are merely game rules.

QuoteIn short can EP/ML convince us of any truth, itself included?

No, because that is not its intended purpose.

Essentially, you seem to be trying to fold ML in on itself and make it implode, but ML easily encompasses itself in a very clear manner.

Quote from: Baron von Hoopla

Quote from: East Coast Hustlethreads like this are why nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class.

just saying.

Nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class because some people can't stand the fact that other people are more clever.

Just saying.

pretentious intellectual grandstanding != being clever

just saying.

I wasn't intending to grandstand.

Just saying.

And thank you LMNO, you wrote all that much better than I could have.

In addition, you seem to be saying that if we can,Äôt get to 100% truth, then its Hassan I Sabbah time: ,ÄúNothing is true, everything is permitted.,Äù

But that,Äôs not what ML does.  You seem to be using polar thinking on ML, ,Äútrue/false,Äù, where ML behaves more like, ,Äúnot true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true,Äù.

Just because probably nothing can be 100% true doesn,Äôt mean that everything is false (unless you ask a Buddhist).

Quote from: East Coast Hustle

Quote from: Baron von Hoopla

Quote from: East Coast Hustlethreads like this are why nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class.

just saying.

Nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class because some people can't stand the fact that other people are more clever.

Just saying.

pretentious intellectual grandstanding != being clever

just saying.

trying to figure something out != pretentious intellectual grandstanding

LHX = unsure where ECH was pointing that gun

Quote from: Baron von HooplaI wasn't intending to grandstand.

Just saying.

And thank you LMNO, you wrote all that much better than I could have.

No prob.

Quote from: erotic
Yes.  Knowledge appears to be an evolving thing, and can often be hinged upon a frame of reference of a window of time.  While I ,Äúknow,Äù that my pen will fall ,Äúdown,Äù if I drop it, there is a very small chance it won,Äôt, for various reasons.  While the percentage of that happening is infinitesimal, it still precludes my knowledge from being 100% sure.  But for me, it,Äôs close enough that I don,Äôt worry about it.  I feel that nothing can be known 100%, and that,Äôs a good thing to me.

This is the beauty of maybe logic to me, at least JPF. We cannot take for granted that our knowledge, although substantially large for a idiotic species like ours is in the frame of the size/age/complexity of the universe quite laughably limited. We do not know anything for 100%...or 169% sure therefore everything is a big MAYBE.

Facts are only facts until they are proven to be wrong.

Just saying.

Quote from: eroticIn addition, you seem to be saying that if we can,Äôt get to 100% truth, then its Hassan I Sabbah time: ,ÄúNothing is true, everything is permitted.,Äù

But that,Äôs not what ML does.  You seem to be using polar thinking on ML, ,Äútrue/false,Äù, where ML behaves more like, ,Äúnot true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true,Äù.

Just because probably nothing can be 100% true doesn,Äôt mean that everything is false (unless you ask a Buddhist).

its a possibility that certain things cant be known


its also a possibility that certain things CAN be known
but
CANNOT be communicated

Quote from: LHX

Quote from: eroticIn addition, you seem to be saying that if we can,Äôt get to 100% truth, then its Hassan I Sabbah time: ,ÄúNothing is true, everything is permitted.,Äù

But that,Äôs not what ML does.  You seem to be using polar thinking on ML, ,Äútrue/false,Äù, where ML behaves more like, ,Äúnot true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true,Äù.

Just because probably nothing can be 100% true doesn,Äôt mean that everything is false (unless you ask a Buddhist).

its a possibility that certain things cant be known


its also a possibility that certain things CAN be known
but
CANNOT be communicated

-- or both --

Quote from: LHX

Quote from: East Coast Hustle

Quote from: Baron von Hoopla

Quote from: East Coast Hustlethreads like this are why nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class.

just saying.

Nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class because some people can't stand the fact that other people are more clever.

Just saying.

pretentious intellectual grandstanding != being clever

just saying.

trying to figure something out != pretentious intellectual grandstanding

LHX = unsure where ECH was pointing that gun

Hell if I know. It's a blunderbuss.

Quote from: LHX

Quote from: eroticIn addition, you seem to be saying that if we can,Äôt get to 100% truth, then its Hassan I Sabbah time: ,ÄúNothing is true, everything is permitted.,Äù

But that,Äôs not what ML does.  You seem to be using polar thinking on ML, ,Äútrue/false,Äù, where ML behaves more like, ,Äúnot true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true,Äù.

Just because probably nothing can be 100% true doesn,Äôt mean that everything is false (unless you ask a Buddhist).

its a possibility that certain things cant be known


its also a possibility that certain things CAN be known
but
CANNOT be communicated

By "known", do you mean 100% true?

Because that sounds a lot like "faith" to me.

Quote from: erotic

Quote from: LHX

Quote from: eroticIn addition, you seem to be saying that if we can,Äôt get to 100% truth, then its Hassan I Sabbah time: ,ÄúNothing is true, everything is permitted.,Äù

But that,Äôs not what ML does.  You seem to be using polar thinking on ML, ,Äútrue/false,Äù, where ML behaves more like, ,Äúnot true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true,Äù.

Just because probably nothing can be 100% true doesn,Äôt mean that everything is false (unless you ask a Buddhist).

its a possibility that certain things cant be known


its also a possibility that certain things CAN be known
but
CANNOT be communicated

By "known", do you mean 100% true?

Because that sounds a lot like "faith" to me.

subtle difference

by known
i mean
unspeakable



as in - cannot be defined in words

pre-faith

...aaaand we're back to the Tao.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle

Quote from: LHX

Quote from: East Coast Hustle

Quote from: Baron von Hoopla

Quote from: East Coast Hustlethreads like this are why nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class.

just saying.

Nerds get the crap kicked out of them in gym class because some people can't stand the fact that other people are more clever.

Just saying.

pretentious intellectual grandstanding != being clever

just saying.

trying to figure something out != pretentious intellectual grandstanding

LHX = unsure where ECH was pointing that gun

Hell if I know. It's a blunderbuss.

i say let the shots go then


and the rockets red glare

i gotta find my m.o.p. albums

Quote from: erotic
Essentially, you seem to be trying to fold ML in on itself and make it implode, but ML easily encompasses itself in a very clear manner.

As far as posssibilities are concerned, do you think that there are ways to deduce what degree of probability can be associated with any idea?  Does everything end up having an equal possibility of occuring or is there still a difference in possibilities?

What I mean is: your pen is dropping.  There's an infinitesimal chance of it becoming a brown dwarf and a more likely chance it it hitting the ground.  Can you measure that still?  Can you say that hitting the ground has a greater chance of happening than brown dwarf-morph?  If so, how do you measure that with ML?

Does that make sense?

,Äúnot true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true,Äù
-- Can we provide percentages or is thaat impossible?

I guess what I want to know is: if every possible scenario is still a possibility, does that mean that 100% chance (of something happening and something not happening) is divided infinitely?


JPF

Quote from: erotic...aaaand we're back to the Tao.

who keeps letting that fucker in here?!

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: erotic
Essentially, you seem to be trying to fold ML in on itself and make it implode, but ML easily encompasses itself in a very clear manner.

As far as posssibilities are concerned, do you think that there are ways to deduce what degree of probability can be associated with any idea?  Does everything end up having an equal possibility of occuring or is there still a difference in possibilities?

What I mean is: your pen is dropping.  There's an infinitesimal chance of it becoming a brown dwarf and a more likely chance it it hitting the ground.  Can you measure that still?  Can you say that hitting the ground has a greater chance of happening than brown dwarf-morph?  If so, how do you measure that with ML?

Does that make sense?

,Äúnot true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true,Äù
-- Can we provide percentages or is thaat impossible?

I guess what I want to know is: if every possible scenario is still a possibility, does that mean that 100% chance (of something happening and something not happening) is divided infinitely?


JPF

for me - e-prime demonstrates that this kind of situation might be ridiculous to even consider


e-prime has that seondary implication - one of the only areas where it becomes questionable to use seems to be regarding situations that have no bearing on anything



perhaps you could say e-prime also suggests that there are things not worth talking about

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: erotic
Essentially, you seem to be trying to fold ML in on itself and make it implode, but ML easily encompasses itself in a very clear manner.

As far as posssibilities are concerned, do you think that there are ways to deduce what degree of probability can be associated with any idea?  Does everything end up having an equal possibility of occuring or is there still a difference in possibilities?

What I mean is: your pen is dropping.  There's an infinitesimal chance of it becoming a brown dwarf and a more likely chance it it hitting the ground.  Can you measure that still?  Can you say that hitting the ground has a greater chance of happening than brown dwarf-morph?  If so, how do you measure that with ML?

Does that make sense?

,Äúnot true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true,Äù
-- Can we provide percentages or is thaat impossible?

I guess what I want to know is: if every possible scenario is still a possibility, does that mean that 100% chance (of something happening and something not happening) is divided infinitely?


JPF

Hold on dude. You're missing the bigger point. Yes the chance of the pen turning into a dwarf is small. But the chance that someone may come into the room last second and grab it before it hits the ground is much bigger.
So is the pen going to fall down?

Maybe.

Is the world going to be around 100 years from now?

Maybe.

Is what we consider good actually good? Or could it be that our warped perception makes it appear good while actually being evil?

MAYBE.

Also, JPF. A MAYBE is not a YES or a NO, it's a MAYBE.

I think this is what everyone is trying to make you see. ( I think anyway, I could be off base if so feel free to jump in and correct.)

You aren't catching my drift.

Possibilities seem to be maybes?
Does ML mean that inifity may not be infinity?


JPF

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: erotic
Essentially, you seem to be trying to fold ML in on itself and make it implode, but ML easily encompasses itself in a very clear manner.

As far as posssibilities are concerned, do you think that there are ways to deduce what degree of probability can be associated with any idea?  

So, you,Äôre looking for a mathematical equation that will give you an exact percentage?  I,Äôm not sure there,Äôs a catch-all formula, but if you really wanted to look, I,Äôd suggest quantum physics as a start.

QuoteDoes everything end up having an equal possibility of occuring or is there still a difference in possibilities?

You,Äôre kidding, right?  I thought you said you knew how ML worked.

QuoteWhat I mean is: your pen is dropping.  There's an infinitesimal chance of it becoming a brown dwarf and a more likely chance it it hitting the ground.  Can you measure that still?  Can you say that hitting the ground has a greater chance of happening than brown dwarf-morph?  If so, how do you measure that with ML?

Remember, these are game rules, and therefore, arbitrary.  Yes, you probably can measure the probability of pen-to-brown dwarf, but I don,Äôt get that picky.  I just say, ,Äúnot fucking likely,Äù, and carry on with my day.  Not to mention, if that did happen, knowing how improbable it was will be the least of my worries.

Quote,Äúnot true/kinda true/more true than that/pretty awfully convinced that this is most likely true,Äù
-- Can we provide percentages or is that impossible?

You can, if you,Äôd like.  I,Äôm more subjective.  The point is that it,Äôs not a ,Äúyes/no,Äù dichotomy, it,Äôs a ,Äúmore than/less than,Äù evaluation.

QuoteI guess what I want to know is: if every possible scenario is still a possibility, does that mean that 100% chance (of something happening and something not happening) is divided infinitely?

I don,Äôt see why not.  But much like in physics, you,Äôll get a large chunk of the 100% divided among a handful of things, and an extremely small fraction of a percent taken up by everything else.

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreYou aren't catching my drift.

Possibilities seem to be maybes?
Does ML mean that inifity may not be infinity?


JPF

Infinity is a concept, dummy.  A definition.

We may think a thing is infinite, and be wrong, however.

Quote from: erotic

You can, if you,Äôd like.  I,Äôm more subjective.  The point is that it,Äôs not a ,Äúyes/no,Äù dichotomy, it,Äôs a ,Äúmore than/less than,Äù evaluation.

QuoteI guess what I want to know is: if every possible scenario is still a possibility, does that mean that 100% chance (of something happening and something not happening) is divided infinitely?

I don,Äôt see why not.  But much like in physics, you,Äôll get a large chunk of the 100% divided among a handful of things, and an extremely small fraction of a percent taken up by everything else.

I was asking specifically ABOUT the more/less thing and your last paragraph answered my question.

FINALLY

Now we can get on with our day(s).  That took a bit didn't it?

JPF

Wait, your whole point was whether or not a system of game rules that subjectively applies percentages of truth can be divided infinitely?






Wow, that was really stupid.

Quote from: erotic

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreYou aren't catching my drift.

Possibilities seem to be maybes?
Does ML mean that inifity may not be infinity?


JPF

Infinity is a concept, dummy.  A definition.

We may think a thing is infinite, and be wrong, however.

Does it seem possible for an infinite number of possibilities to exist?

JPF

Quote from: eroticWait, your whole point was whether or not a system of game rules that subjectively applies percentages of truth can be divided infinitely?






Wow, that was really stupid.

Prove it.

JPF

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: eroticWait, your whole point was whether or not a system of game rules that subjectively applies percentages of truth can be divided infinitely?






Wow, that seems really stupid in the opinion of most people on this board.

Prove it.

JPF

Fixed in E-Prime.

Quote from: Jean-Paul Fartre

Quote from: erotic

Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreYou aren't catching my drift.

Possibilities seem to be maybes?
Does ML mean that inifity may not be infinity?


JPF

Infinity is a concept, dummy.  A definition.

We may think a thing is infinite, and be wrong, however.

Does it seem possible for an infinite number of possibilities to exist?

JPF

Cf:  "Meaningless statement".

How?

Did you Cf?

You didn't, did you.

And now you expect me to spoon-feed you knowledge.

Do you go to a public school, or something?

i cant believe this thread got jacked by a n00b



i feel so
cheap



"does it seem possible for an infinite number of possibilities to exist"?


what the fuck?
who is gonna say 'no' at this point in the thread?

Hey, it's possible...

infinity might end after 23
or 5
or 23 to the power of 5

CONSULT YOUR PINEAL GLAND!

"our lines are currently busy
one of our operators will respond as soon as........."

okay

who the fuck is using my pineal gland?

I like Trollaxe better as the seer.

just saying.

alts R fun

JPF--What say you to the words of one RAW on the topic of maybe logic?
"I begin to feel that Maybe Logic will soon replace the Aristotelian either/or, not because of my books or Korzybski's or von Neumann's. but because virtual reality and artificial intelligence have destroyed certitude and left us with only degrees of probability."

Read more about it here: http://www.rawilson.com/prethought.shtml

I'm just guessing, but:

Quote from: FartresAre they infinite degrees of probability?

The problem is that many people just don't make the leap, and shut down their minds.  It's people like them who think M. Night Shamalamadingdong's The Villiage was "a real freaky movie, man", and who make shows like "Dancing with the Stars" actually popular.

RAW keeps forgetting that the Curse of Greyface is incredibly alluring and powerful.

The allure of not thinking is very powerful indeed.  Its so much easier to watch X-Factor or American Idol on TV than...something.  Perhaps I shouldnt use easier, but "more convienient" as I hate to make it look like I was a hard working individual compared to the "slobs", because the opposite is true.

Perhaps it's comparable to inertia... if you're on the couch, you'll tend to stay on the couch.  But if you're out and about, doing fun shit that blows your mind, you'll tend to keep doing that.



LMNO
-Tries not to be on the couch.

Yeah, thats plausible.  I have that problem with the internet, as opposed to TV, but at least its what I find interesting, not what a TV exec thinks I should find interesting.  Hell, I've spent this morning going over nuclear strategy and the history of the Assassin sect.  Thats a mix you'd only get on the best of days on the History Channel.

I agree.  It might be semi-passive, but at least it's somewhat intellectually agressive/active.

How's them Hashashim doin, anyway?  any more quotes from my man, Hassan i Sabbah?

I prefer Sinan myself...he scared the hell out of Saladin, not an easy thing to do.  Here is the site http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/alamut/secDoctrines.html

Very interesting place, I'm not too certain about all the sources, but its definitly worth a look or too.

Ok, I'll give you Sinan, but still, Sabbah was one of us:


"He had a fine mind, an excellent knowledge of theology, and evidently possessed the phenomenal strength of will necessary to pursue his ideal for so many years... We can imagine him converting the people of Daylam just as he had himself been converted, by patiently digging away at a potential proselyte's religious doubts until they were strong enough to admit the possibility of an alternative."

Oh yeah, I just like the idea of living in the mountains and threating powerful people, like Bin Laden does.  

If you find it, there is a section on there about the nine degrees of the Assassin order, explaining in a convuluted, though probably quite successful way how to "think for yourself, schmuck".  I think that was probably an invention of Hassan.

Yeah, I'm reading it now.

You can be sure Crowly knew about this.


That old faker.


BTW, some of the quotes are from books that have been found to be dubious, at best, such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail.  So don't forget the Pentabarf (not that you would).

Oh yeah.  I think I can go one better than that book though The Necronomicon and Ancient Arab Magick.  Now there is a book I wouldnt trust unless I found it in the fiction section.  In fact, I may start a new thread on this, if I can think of an original point.  Its an interesting topic.

Btw, I think I'm gonna start using the word "Khadhulu" to describe myself and my actions.  I like it.


"Khadhulu is the Arabic word meaning 'abandoner' or 'forsaker'... Khadhulu is a type of spiritual force that powers the practices of Tafrid and Tajrid. These are exercises that are used to transcend (abandon) normal cultural programming. The idea is that by transcending (abandoning) Dogma and fixed beliefs a person can see reality as it is. Khadhulu is stimulated by the Nafs (breath or soul). The stimulated 'abandoner' then causes the Hal or spiritual state."

I just want to run around with golden daggers in the desert and call myself Sheikh.  And take drugs, can't forget the drugs...

Quote from: CainI just want to run around with golden daggers in the desert and call myself Sheikh.  And take drugs, can't forget the drugs...

Well, yeah...

this thread went from being a piece of shit to being interesting

nice

Actually I think it went from interesting to a piece of shit and back to interesting again.

I guess Vico was right after all.

We are artistes, after all. 8)

Quote from: CainWe are stoned and running around the desert with golden daggers, after all. 8)

Edited for clarity.

But we do it with style, and thats all that truly matters.

Indeed.

Quote from: CainBut we do it with style, and thats all that truly matters.

and we witness the birth of a new slogan