i doubt that consciousness is a self-referential paradox. as far as i know consciousness always comes with a unconsciousness attached to it. if not we may actually have a problem.
some crazy remark: psychologial disorders may could be explain in the context of the occurence of self-referential problems and the brians mechanism to compensate and evade them.
(cont.) we then elevate it from a hypothesis to a scientific theory.
often people forget that even if a prove is true, if any of the premesises is false, then the conclusion is false, too. if you simply take a logical prove out of the logical framework and apply it to something which is incompatible with the logical framework the conclusion becomes false.
it should also be noted that we can only disprove the compatibility of a logical system with the world, but never prove it's true.
(cont.) the axioms of the logical system are all additional premises of the argument, normally we suppress their notion, since it's clear from the context that they are to be taken into account.
because we can only proves things in a logical system, we often use such in order to describe the world (e.g. science). we then desgin empirical tests attempting to find instances where the logical system fails. if we done a lot of test and fail to find fault in the system, (cont.)
i think you got it complety wrong when you say that goedels prove is weak. we can only prove or disprove anything within the framework of a logical system. goedel proved that we cannot the mathemathical systems isn't free of paradox and complete (meaning: there is no finite set of axioms which describe the system). that actually goes way beyond just mathematics and holds true for most logical systems (useful ones). (cont.)
I actually believe Godel's proof as far as I can understand it. But when you say it goes way beyond mathematics that gets into very fuzzy territory. How and why do you think it goes beyond math?
@zarkoff45: there is (probably) a infinite number of logical systems which could be constructed. some of them are useful. for most of those systems similar proves like goedels can be construct, that show that the system can not be free of paradoxes and complete. this weakness is not unique to mathematics.
the other reason why his proof is so important, is that it shows us the limits of any science based on our current mathematics.
I think "you will eat sam" is the only possible answer (that wouldn't be a fluke). Then again, it's irresolvable. Also, i don't think indirect proofs should really be doubted, or considered "weak proof". After all, showing that not-A is impossible shows that A is true, doesn't it ? I don't think the black and white analogy works, since the proof would be "non white". I can't seem to see paradoxes as anything else that unresolvable problems, so i don't think the mind is a self-referencing one.
@zarkoff45 I really can't think of any example in which it is not the case ? I understand that the aliens, for example, knowing only black and white, would make a "mistake". But these kind of proof are only made as an informed decision, once it is certain that all parameters are taken into account. (I agree we can't say "it's not a dog, so it's a cat"). What i mean is that the method itself isn't weak, even if our knowledge can limit it's use.
@TWITfromURANUS Well' then it's false, since it has a meaning. But is the following sentence true or false?: The meaning of this sentence is that it has no meaning.
@TWITfromURANUS So you just felt like making an outright fallacious statement then? Yeah, it happens to me too all the time. Still, I could have sworn that the whole point with bringing up such a sentence would be to provoke the question whether it really had no meaning... or otherwise, which would be the same as asking whether it's assertion were true or false. But, it's probably just me. Anyway, a paradox would have been: "This sentence has meaning". But who's discussing paradoxes, right?
@TWITfromURANUS Thank you. Apologies. Actually I've come to the conclusion that both sentences lie on the boundary between sense and nonsense, both having a "meaning" which is barely a meaning by merely referring to their being proper sentences - thus both being true-ish and false-ish, as they refer to a "meaning" that only just fits the description.
@Ramatganski Yes, much the same thing occurred to me just after I wrote the last comment & I thought, 'oh shit, we're going to be arguing about this for days'. So my thanks were quite genuine because, through your challenging of me (pushing me to examine further), my appreciation for the 'slippery nature' of paradoxes has been refreshed.
And I thought of yet ANOTHER succeful reply: "You will either eat or not eat Sam".
This works for the same reason that "You will either eat him with gravy or not eat him with gravy" would work. But Iv'e olready given you plenty of just as succeful replys before which are far more elegant then this one and you haven't reasponded. Can you please explain why?
I don't see recursion as inherently paradoxical, nor do I see consciousness as a paradox. Consciousness is certainly self-referential, and "Godel Escher Bach" pointed out that once a system is complex enough to be self-ref, that it achieves the ability to do anything that any other such system can do, i.e. that there is a "power of expressivity" equivalence in self-ref systems. Our consciousness is also able to express any possible statement, even self-ref, paradoxical ones.
The answer to the riddle is "You will return Sam alive and healthy." Can't explain precisely the logic of it, but I have a feeling this must be the right answer.
Will you answer me here if I was right and why, or will you make a video, explaining the riddle?
I was thinking of doing a video to explain, but haven't made up my mind. However, I will answer you now. Sorry, you got it wrong. The guy who is really warm in these comments is Ramatganski.
"You will do anything action that will not cause him harm" is the only response. It is the only response because without it being true, there is no possible future in which Sam remains unharmed, and the dragon has suggested that the future in which Sam remains unharmed is a possble future from which Frodo can choose.
Please don't let this riddle be a play on the word "friend".
@TKStoddart Excuse me, two things: 1. The reply that you gave would alow for the dragon to eat sam and prove frodo wrong. The fact that the dragon has suggested a different possible future reflects on it's reaction to a pridiction which it canot avoid. Such predictions are easy and plentiful ("you will look at him or not look at him", "you will do something with him" etc.). 2. On top of that you said that yours was the ONLY response. Perhaps we'd consider alowing our imagination more freedom? :)
@Ramatganski 1.No, it doesn't, because the dragon is always honest, and he said that if the answer is predicted correctly, then Sam will be returned unharmed. That does not allow "You will harm Sam" as an answer, because if that were the answer, there would be NO WAY Sam could be returned unharmed, which would make the dragon's statement that "If you predict correctly he'll be returned unharmed" impossible to be true, and would make him dishonest.. 2. Games are more fun when players aint smarmy.
@kennebacasiskyle If it eats Sam after "You will do any action that will not cause him harm" then it would be honest, because it can be shown to be a wrong prediction and there are other predictions which can only lead to Sam not being harmed, as I demonstrated before, but if you want I can give you more: "You will do anything with him which means keeping your word to me", "you will either brake his bones or not", "you will do as you wish" - because all of these are correct predictions.
@TKStoddart By, the way, I think a very elegant prediction with the desired effect would be: "You would do what an honest dragon such as yourself would do". Flattering and fail-proof.
@TKStoddart They also honestly set people free. Apparently, they are honest at everything they do and in the case of eating people or setting them free that which they do honestly depends on the predictions made by those people's friends. So: "You'd do what an honest dragon such as yourself would do" would force it to set Sam free. Now do you get it? Oh, wait - I get it! You were joking. Haha, funny. You DID get it then. Great.
I thought of yet another successful reply: "you will do what you will do" (a straightforward tautology), or - in another version - "you will do what you have to do" (which includes "...what you are logically bound to do" - which would appeal to it's sophistic nature). Also, to clarify my point about that which offers itself as a paradox: Consciousness is not more of a paradox then two mirrors facing each other or an Escher drawing, or rocks for that matter. It's about asking a wrong question.
I think I need to go on ebay and see if theres a better, more equipt brain I can buy to figure this stuff out. Excellent video...and I'm sure it will seem even more excellent once I've actually understood it all.
Every paradox that I know of is an illusion of no possible finite outcome. It's a conceptual effect that results from the limitations of the "tools for assessment" - the psychological conditioning to refer to particular terms which establish whether something is either this or that.
The only thing which is a paradox is that which offers itself as such. It's an artificial, conceptual trap. A device for a psychological effect.
Because outside of that trap everything is just THAT which it IS.
Well I'd still answer: You will eat Sam. I mean, yes, it seems paradoxical because I would have made a false prediction when the dragon is true to his word, but he cannot eat him at least, so alls well. :P
Of course there is a myriad of other bad things that the dragon can do to him. I assume we assume he will not for example tear Sams head of with no intention of eating either resulting part? :P
Frodo: "You will do as you wish with Sam" (Also - though not as elegant - "You will do with him so as to keep your word to me" works, but that's a "cheep" artificially formal, logical construct).
WOW! And again, WOW! The fact, that one can see a video like this one on you tube, is one of the reasons I came on you tube. I feel flattered that it came as a result of my tag. :)
I have all three books you show here. I must find time to read them entirely... I have a book about Turin too.
I'll make a list on my channel with videos with paradoxes. Yours will be at the top of it.
Jacques Monod says that the question of consciousness is one of the final frontiers. I'll come back here...
@zarkoff45 I will think about the riddle (I don't pronise anything, lol)
You must be aware that this video requires a lot of thinking even to leave a comment, so yes, I'll be back. I am making the playlist for my channel now.
Consciousness is one of my favorite subjects. Ya know cuz I have a huge ego. I think you can derive my answer to the title from that statement. Besides, the philosopher Wittgenstein gets me.
I'm busy but I will surely come back to this video and comment.
This has been flagged as spam show
Why can't Frodo just ask the dragon what he should do?
Animavore 2 days ago
i doubt that consciousness is a self-referential paradox. as far as i know consciousness always comes with a unconsciousness attached to it. if not we may actually have a problem.
some crazy remark: psychologial disorders may could be explain in the context of the occurence of self-referential problems and the brians mechanism to compensate and evade them.
beyondEV 2 weeks ago
(cont.) we then elevate it from a hypothesis to a scientific theory.
often people forget that even if a prove is true, if any of the premesises is false, then the conclusion is false, too. if you simply take a logical prove out of the logical framework and apply it to something which is incompatible with the logical framework the conclusion becomes false.
it should also be noted that we can only disprove the compatibility of a logical system with the world, but never prove it's true.
beyondEV 2 weeks ago
@beyondEV
That last part was well said.
zarkoff45 2 weeks ago
(cont.) the axioms of the logical system are all additional premises of the argument, normally we suppress their notion, since it's clear from the context that they are to be taken into account.
because we can only proves things in a logical system, we often use such in order to describe the world (e.g. science). we then desgin empirical tests attempting to find instances where the logical system fails. if we done a lot of test and fail to find fault in the system, (cont.)
beyondEV 2 weeks ago
i think you got it complety wrong when you say that goedels prove is weak. we can only prove or disprove anything within the framework of a logical system. goedel proved that we cannot the mathemathical systems isn't free of paradox and complete (meaning: there is no finite set of axioms which describe the system). that actually goes way beyond just mathematics and holds true for most logical systems (useful ones). (cont.)
beyondEV 2 weeks ago
@beyondEV
I actually believe Godel's proof as far as I can understand it. But when you say it goes way beyond mathematics that gets into very fuzzy territory. How and why do you think it goes beyond math?
zarkoff45 2 weeks ago
@zarkoff45: there is (probably) a infinite number of logical systems which could be constructed. some of them are useful. for most of those systems similar proves like goedels can be construct, that show that the system can not be free of paradoxes and complete. this weakness is not unique to mathematics.
the other reason why his proof is so important, is that it shows us the limits of any science based on our current mathematics.
beyondEV 2 weeks ago
@beyondEV
You've thrown out too many ideas for one night. Take a break. Then write an essay.
zarkoff45 2 weeks ago
You will eat Sam only if it doesn't hurt him
Artifactorfiction 2 weeks ago
I think "you will eat sam" is the only possible answer (that wouldn't be a fluke). Then again, it's irresolvable. Also, i don't think indirect proofs should really be doubted, or considered "weak proof". After all, showing that not-A is impossible shows that A is true, doesn't it ? I don't think the black and white analogy works, since the proof would be "non white". I can't seem to see paradoxes as anything else that unresolvable problems, so i don't think the mind is a self-referencing one.
ThinkerResearcher 2 weeks ago
@ThinkerResearcher "showing that not-A is impossible shows that A is true, doesn't it ?"
No. Not is all cases.
zarkoff45 2 weeks ago
@zarkoff45
Should be -> not in all cases.
zarkoff45 2 weeks ago
@zarkoff45 I really can't think of any example in which it is not the case ? I understand that the aliens, for example, knowing only black and white, would make a "mistake". But these kind of proof are only made as an informed decision, once it is certain that all parameters are taken into account. (I agree we can't say "it's not a dog, so it's a cat"). What i mean is that the method itself isn't weak, even if our knowledge can limit it's use.
ThinkerResearcher 2 weeks ago
This sentence has no meaning.
TWITfromURANUS 4 weeks ago
@TWITfromURANUS Well' then it's false, since it has a meaning. But is the following sentence true or false?: The meaning of this sentence is that it has no meaning.
Ramatganski 3 weeks ago
@Ramatganski I wasn't asking if it was false... or otherwise.
TWITfromURANUS 3 weeks ago
@TWITfromURANUS So you just felt like making an outright fallacious statement then? Yeah, it happens to me too all the time. Still, I could have sworn that the whole point with bringing up such a sentence would be to provoke the question whether it really had no meaning... or otherwise, which would be the same as asking whether it's assertion were true or false. But, it's probably just me. Anyway, a paradox would have been: "This sentence has meaning". But who's discussing paradoxes, right?
Ramatganski 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ramatganski
"This sentence has no meaning." --false
"This sentence has meaning." -- true
So neither are paradoxical because they can both be judged quite clearly.
(although there are differing meanings to 'paradoxical'; one of them being, "a self-contradictory and false proposition.")
That said, I thank you (sincerely) for engaging...
TWITfromURANUS 3 weeks ago
@TWITfromURANUS Thank you. Apologies. Actually I've come to the conclusion that both sentences lie on the boundary between sense and nonsense, both having a "meaning" which is barely a meaning by merely referring to their being proper sentences - thus both being true-ish and false-ish, as they refer to a "meaning" that only just fits the description.
Ramatganski 3 weeks ago
@Ramatganski Yes, much the same thing occurred to me just after I wrote the last comment & I thought, 'oh shit, we're going to be arguing about this for days'. So my thanks were quite genuine because, through your challenging of me (pushing me to examine further), my appreciation for the 'slippery nature' of paradoxes has been refreshed.
TWITfromURANUS 3 weeks ago
you will harm sam.
MensRifleAssociation 1 month ago
And I thought of yet ANOTHER succeful reply: "You will either eat or not eat Sam".
This works for the same reason that "You will either eat him with gravy or not eat him with gravy" would work. But Iv'e olready given you plenty of just as succeful replys before which are far more elegant then this one and you haven't reasponded. Can you please explain why?
Ramatganski 1 month ago
I don't see recursion as inherently paradoxical, nor do I see consciousness as a paradox. Consciousness is certainly self-referential, and "Godel Escher Bach" pointed out that once a system is complex enough to be self-ref, that it achieves the ability to do anything that any other such system can do, i.e. that there is a "power of expressivity" equivalence in self-ref systems. Our consciousness is also able to express any possible statement, even self-ref, paradoxical ones.
sachamm 1 month ago
"uhhh... I'll go with false... yeah false."
mrx00666 1 month ago
Oh wow, you mention it haha.
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
It's like "this sentence is false". It has to be true in order for it to be false...
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
The answer to the riddle is "You will return Sam alive and healthy." Can't explain precisely the logic of it, but I have a feeling this must be the right answer.
Will you answer me here if I was right and why, or will you make a video, explaining the riddle?
dewinthemorning 1 month ago
@dewinthemorning
I was thinking of doing a video to explain, but haven't made up my mind. However, I will answer you now. Sorry, you got it wrong. The guy who is really warm in these comments is Ramatganski.
zarkoff45 4 weeks ago
"You will do anything action that will not cause him harm" is the only response. It is the only response because without it being true, there is no possible future in which Sam remains unharmed, and the dragon has suggested that the future in which Sam remains unharmed is a possble future from which Frodo can choose.
Please don't let this riddle be a play on the word "friend".
TKStoddart 1 month ago
@TKStoddart "anything action". god, i need to proofread.
TKStoddart 1 month ago
@TKStoddart Excuse me, two things: 1. The reply that you gave would alow for the dragon to eat sam and prove frodo wrong. The fact that the dragon has suggested a different possible future reflects on it's reaction to a pridiction which it canot avoid. Such predictions are easy and plentiful ("you will look at him or not look at him", "you will do something with him" etc.). 2. On top of that you said that yours was the ONLY response. Perhaps we'd consider alowing our imagination more freedom? :)
Ramatganski 1 month ago
@Ramatganski 1.No, it doesn't, because the dragon is always honest, and he said that if the answer is predicted correctly, then Sam will be returned unharmed. That does not allow "You will harm Sam" as an answer, because if that were the answer, there would be NO WAY Sam could be returned unharmed, which would make the dragon's statement that "If you predict correctly he'll be returned unharmed" impossible to be true, and would make him dishonest.. 2. Games are more fun when players aint smarmy.
kennebacasiskyle 4 weeks ago
@kennebacasiskyle If it eats Sam after "You will do any action that will not cause him harm" then it would be honest, because it can be shown to be a wrong prediction and there are other predictions which can only lead to Sam not being harmed, as I demonstrated before, but if you want I can give you more: "You will do anything with him which means keeping your word to me", "you will either brake his bones or not", "you will do as you wish" - because all of these are correct predictions.
Ramatganski 4 weeks ago
@Ramatganski Yeah, like Cliff was correct about the three people who have never been in his kitchen.
TKStoddart 4 weeks ago
@TKStoddart By, the way, I think a very elegant prediction with the desired effect would be: "You would do what an honest dragon such as yourself would do". Flattering and fail-proof.
Ramatganski 4 weeks ago
@Ramatganski I don't get it. Dragons "honestly" eat people for fun and nourishment. :)
TKStoddart 4 weeks ago
@TKStoddart They also honestly set people free. Apparently, they are honest at everything they do and in the case of eating people or setting them free that which they do honestly depends on the predictions made by those people's friends. So: "You'd do what an honest dragon such as yourself would do" would force it to set Sam free. Now do you get it? Oh, wait - I get it! You were joking. Haha, funny. You DID get it then. Great.
Ramatganski 4 weeks ago
I thought of yet another successful reply: "you will do what you will do" (a straightforward tautology), or - in another version - "you will do what you have to do" (which includes "...what you are logically bound to do" - which would appeal to it's sophistic nature). Also, to clarify my point about that which offers itself as a paradox: Consciousness is not more of a paradox then two mirrors facing each other or an Escher drawing, or rocks for that matter. It's about asking a wrong question.
Ramatganski 1 month ago
All of these sentences are true. The third sentence written here is false. This video is awesome. The previous two sentences are false.
Thanks for posting. I will watch it again later, when I am high. :D
TKStoddart 1 month ago
@TKStoddart Dammit, I fucked up my attempt at a fucked-up paradox.
TKStoddart 1 month ago
I think I need to go on ebay and see if theres a better, more equipt brain I can buy to figure this stuff out. Excellent video...and I'm sure it will seem even more excellent once I've actually understood it all.
kalsolarUK 1 month ago
Every paradox that I know of is an illusion of no possible finite outcome. It's a conceptual effect that results from the limitations of the "tools for assessment" - the psychological conditioning to refer to particular terms which establish whether something is either this or that.
The only thing which is a paradox is that which offers itself as such. It's an artificial, conceptual trap. A device for a psychological effect.
Because outside of that trap everything is just THAT which it IS.
Ramatganski 1 month ago
Sam is safe around a campfire with Frodo?
xxxild 1 month ago
Well I'd still answer: You will eat Sam. I mean, yes, it seems paradoxical because I would have made a false prediction when the dragon is true to his word, but he cannot eat him at least, so alls well. :P
Of course there is a myriad of other bad things that the dragon can do to him. I assume we assume he will not for example tear Sams head of with no intention of eating either resulting part? :P
Hyardacil 1 month ago
@Hyardacil I guess I was taking this situation too literally, as in, my intentions were to save Sams life not to solve the puzzle... :D
Hyardacil 1 month ago
Frodo: "You will do as you wish with Sam" (Also - though not as elegant - "You will do with him so as to keep your word to me" works, but that's a "cheep" artificially formal, logical construct).
Ramatganski 1 month ago
Comment removed
Hyardacil 1 month ago
WOW! And again, WOW! The fact, that one can see a video like this one on you tube, is one of the reasons I came on you tube. I feel flattered that it came as a result of my tag. :)
I have all three books you show here. I must find time to read them entirely... I have a book about Turin too.
I'll make a list on my channel with videos with paradoxes. Yours will be at the top of it.
Jacques Monod says that the question of consciousness is one of the final frontiers. I'll come back here...
dewinthemorning 1 month ago
@dewinthemorning "I'll come back here..."
Are you going to think about the riddle? So far, no one has even tried to solve it.
zarkoff45 1 month ago
@zarkoff45 I will think about the riddle (I don't pronise anything, lol)
You must be aware that this video requires a lot of thinking even to leave a comment, so yes, I'll be back. I am making the playlist for my channel now.
dewinthemorning 1 month ago
It's nice to see epistemology on YouTube.
Xyrosis 1 month ago
42.
TheLaughingOut 1 month ago
@TheLaughingOut
agreed
RationalRoundtable 1 month ago
@TheLaughingOut
Sorry, but that answer will get Sam eaten.
zarkoff45 1 month ago
I saw the title and went "HELL YEAH!"
Consciousness is one of my favorite subjects. Ya know cuz I have a huge ego. I think you can derive my answer to the title from that statement. Besides, the philosopher Wittgenstein gets me.
I'm busy but I will surely come back to this video and comment.
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago
@alowlyapprentice
If you're interested in consciousness, then this video will probably disappoint. I would suggest these videos of mine:
watch?v=77XBZHJcoK4
watch?v=gcEV_HsIdBI
watch?v=NRkzdFG-lyE
zarkoff45 1 month ago
@zarkoff45 Will do. Thanks for the links. Right now I must get nap. =)
alowlyapprentice 1 month ago