The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

[FlashDangerpants]

What would a 'mistake' of that sort even look like? It can't be a mistake if it's backed by a measurement of 1 bit of information, such as an opinion.

That's what I am asking you.

As long as it coheres with my axioms it's not a "mistake". We are just using different measurement standards.

There is probably no internally consistent way to describe your position in this matter using human languages.

That's the part you keep failing to grok. If my position was "internally consistent" I wouldn't be able to communicate it to you!

You are failing to communicate it.

Neither I, you, nor anyone else can comprehend this talk of facts that contradict but don't disagree and are never wrong. You used the word mistake my position on the subject of fact, but within your own context where fact means nothing, mistake cannot have any meaning either. This absudly limited meaning of measurement you are throwing around doesn't match up to anyone else's use of the term, we don't call a quantity of 'yes' a measurement by and large.

The pretence you make of understanding your own claims is nothing but willful ignorance of obvious nonsense. But you aren't able to deploy your own argument in keeping with these concepts. You are obviously of the opinion that if you are right I must be wrong, even though that is not plausibly consistent with what you have been writing here.

[Skepdick]

You are failing to communicate it.

Retard.

Any system that is internally consistent is an information black hole.

It cannot BE communicated. Physically impossible.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are failing to communicate it.

Retard.

Any system that is internally consistent is an information black hole.

It cannot BE communicated.

You have failed to communicate consistently within a system of language.
Nobodt was asking you to send us a new "language-proper" to replace language.
Now you are willing to abandon consistency itself rather than acheive consistency.
Therefore you don't agree with yourself.
Therefore nobody can agree with you.

[Skepdick]

You have failed to communicate consistently within a system of language.

You have failed to communicate the system of language to me within which you expect me to communicate.

[FlashDangerpants]

You have failed to communicate consistently within a system of language.

You have failed to communicate the system of language to me within which you expect me to communicate.

That would appear to be an issue with you, I am just using the common language that all competent non-robotic humans seem able to partake in.

You obviously can partake too, you give yourself away when you absent-mindedly use words like mistake correctly even though you have been pretending they don't have any correct application.

[Skepdick]

That would appear to be an issue with you, I am just using the common language that all competent non-robotic humans seem able to partake in.

The common language that all competent non-robotic humans seem able to partake is internally inconsistent.

That is WHY it's communicable.

You obviously can partake too, you give yourself away when you absent-mindedly use words like mistake correctly even though you have been pretending they don't have any correct application.

I totally can. Is just that you need to tell me what "consistency" means within an inherently inconsistent system.

Ahh, shit! You can't communicate anything that is internally consistent.

[FlashDangerpants]

That would appear to be an issue with you, I am just using the common language that all competent non-robotic humans seem able to partake in.

The common language that all competent non-robotic humans seem able to partake is internally inconsistent.

You obviously can partake too, you give yourself away when you absent-mindedly use words like mistake correctly even though you have been pretending they don't have any correct application.

I totally can. Is just that you need to tell me what "consistency" means within an inherently inconsistent system.

This language we are using right now is consistent enough to determine that any claim to the effect that knowledge and opinion are undifferentiated is inconsistent with any claim that somebody else is mistaken.

Pretending you don't get it is just a lie that you are telling because you are desperate for the attention.

[Skepdick]

This language we are using right now is consistent enough

Consistent enough sounds like sufficiency, not necessity.

What sort of goal is the language"consistent enough" for and how would you detect "insufficiency"?

to determine that any claim to the effect that knowledge and opinion are undifferentiated is inconsistent with any claim that somebody else is mistaken.

It's not a determination. It's an observation. A fact.

I observe that when asked the question "Does particle X have left-spin?" machine A answers "yes" and machine B answers "no".

YOU are the one claiming that A or B is mistaken. Great! Tell me which machine needs recalibration.

To assert "mistakenness" you need a source of "correctness". So go ahead and declare which machine is "correct". Just the same.

Pretending you don't get it is just a lie that you are telling because you are desperate for the attention.

That's not a claim you can make charitably. Given that you can't actually tell me which machine is "correct" and which machine is "incorrect".


To claim that "one of them is" without telling me which is just begging the question. Presumably the correct one holds knowledge and the incorrect one holds an opinion.

[Peter Holmes]

That would appear to be an issue with you, I am just using the common language that all competent non-robotic humans seem able to partake in.

The common language that all competent non-robotic humans seem able to partake is internally inconsistent.

You obviously can partake too, you give yourself away when you absent-mindedly use words like mistake correctly even though you have been pretending they don't have any correct application.

I totally can. Is just that you need to tell me what "consistency" means within an inherently inconsistent system.

This language we are using right now is consistent enough to determine that any claim to the effect that knowledge and opinion are undifferentiated is inconsistent with any claim that somebody else is mistaken.

Pretending you don't get it is just a lie that you are telling because you are desperate for the attention.

Yep. It's the lure of sparkly contradictions that detonate themselves:

There's alway a choice, and there's no choice.
A factual assertion is both true and false.
There are no facts, and there are moral facts.

[Skepdick]

Yep. It's the lure of sparkly contradictions that detonate themselves:

There's alway a choice, and there's no choice.
A factual assertion is both true and false.
There are no facts, and there are moral facts.

Then you should have absolutely no problem telling me which human needs recalibration.

Is there a rosebush in Skepdick's garden?

Human A says "yes"
Human B says "no".

I await eagerly await for you to tell me which human is "wrong".

[FlashDangerpants]

This language we are using right now is consistent enough

Consistent enough sounds like sufficiency, not necessity.

What sort of goal is the language"consistent enough" for and how would you detect "insufficiency"?

I don't need a special theory to confirm a tautology like claims of factual mistakes entail that there must be facts to be claimed.

to determine that any claim to the effect that knowledge and opinion are undifferentiated is inconsistent with any claim that somebody else is mistaken.

It's not a determination. It's an observation. A fact.

I observe that when asked the question "Does particle X have left-spin?" machine A answers "yes" and machine B answers "no".

YOU are the one claiming that A or B is mistaken. Great! Tell me which machine needs recalibration.

To assert "mistakenness" you need a source of "correctness". So go ahead and declare which machine is "correct". Just the same.

Your thought experiment is incomplete. If the actual atom has the property of spinning right then the machine that interprets it as spinning left is wrong. This is also a tautology that deserves no particular investigation.

Pretending you don't get it is just a lie that you are telling because you are desperate for the attention.

That's not a claim you can make charitably. Given that you can't actually tell me which machine is "correct" and which machine is "incorrect".


To claim that "one of them is" without telling me which is just begging the question. Presumably the correct one holds knowledge and the incorrect one holds an opinion.

You beg for charity a lot, but you offer none, so I don't care for your special pleading. Vegetable Ambulance believes everything he writes even when it is palpable nonsense because he is fairly stupid. You aren't, so the argument to best explanation suggests you do it with knowledge.

Whether your constant attention seeking behaviour is actually the result of a direct desire for the attention itself, or an indirect result of some other force doesn't arouse all that much interest. I can live with being wrong on the minutiae of exactly what psychiatric deficiency propels you to spend so many hours over so many years telling a philosophy forum that you are too good for philosophy. The broad picture seems clear enough though.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yep. It's the lure of sparkly contradictions that detonate themselves:

There's alway a choice, and there's no choice.
A factual assertion is both true and false.
There are no facts, and there are moral facts.

And it always our fault for noticing these problems, because we made the dreadful error not to being a giant imaginary computer that he could explain it all to.

[Skepdick]

I don't need a special theory to confirm a tautology like claims of factual mistakes entail that there must be facts to be claimed.

That's just begging the question.

If there are facts to be claimed about the left-spin of a particle and apparatus A and B disagree, then there must also be a way to determine which apparatus requires re-calibration.

So why can't you tell me?

Your thought experiment is incomplete. If the actual atom has the property of spinning right then the machine that interprets it as spinning left is wrong. This is also a tautology that deserves no particular investigation.

It's way more complete than you give it credit for.

The actual particle has a property of spin. It is precisely the machine's job to determine whether it is a left or a right one.

Since the machines disagree, an investigation is required to determine machine requires recalibration.

You beg for charity a lot, but you offer none, so I don't care for your special pleading.

I have told you my criterion! Determine which machine requires re-calibration. The determination is entirely in your hands.

How much more charity do you want?

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't need a special theory to confirm a tautology like claims of factual mistakes entail that there must be facts to be claimed.

That's just begging the question.

If there are facts to be claimed about the left-spin of a particle and apparatus A and B disagree, then there must also be a way to determine which apparatus requires re-calibration.

So why can't you tell me?

Your thought experiment is incomplete. If the actual atom has the property of spinning right then the machine that interprets it as spinning left is wrong. This is also a tautology that deserves no particular investigation.

It's way more complete than you give it credit for.

The actual particle has a property of spin. It is precisely the machine's job to determine whether it is a left or a right one.

Since the machines disagree, an investigation is required to determine machine requires recalibration.

You beg for charity a lot, but you offer none, so I don't care for your special pleading.

I have told you my criterion! Determine which machine requires re-calibration. The determination is entirely in your hands.

How much more charity do you want?

You left the decisive piece of information out of the example, and you know you did it, and you know that you aren't fooling anyone.
Which spin property does the actual particle have? If you leave that information out, you are further ruining an already quite pointless excercise.

[Skepdick]

You left the decisive piece of information out of the example, and you know you did it, and you know that you aren't fooling anyone.
Which spin property does the actual particle have?

How the fuck should I know except via taking a measurement myself ?!?! But I need an apparatus, and the only two machines in the world disagree!

If you leave that information out, you are further ruining an already quite pointless excercise.

I didn't "leave that information out" I left it up to you to obtain the information YOU require.

And since one of your machines MAY be "faulty" I imagine you have a problem.