It looks like we're on the same page. Great!

Why shoulldn't the Biblia Sacra be considered a(n) (unsually long) Zen koan? If I were a Zen master ( :smile: ), I would tell my pupils/disciples/students to go read the Bible and get back to me once they've understood it ( :naughty: ). There's probably a Koan on every page of the Good book - some crude, others subtle, nevertheless paradoxes, paradoxes, and paradoxes.

I was looking for paradoxes that logical people hold as true — Philosophim

The Wikipedia link I provided is a list of paradoxes (which logical people hold as true).

There is a clear direction of time in a box full of moving steel balls. Perhaps you can hide it by continuing to add energy to the box, but the minute you stop the balls will all fall to the bottom. — T Clark

Why don't gas molecules behave like steel balls, settle at the bottom of their containers? I believe $CO_2$ does that (vide Grotta del Cane).

If the products of the mind (rockets, spaceships, the James Webb Space Telescope) are so marvelous, imagine how amazing the mind must be!
— Agent Smith

Humans alone can peer into the realm of the possible and brings things back from it. — Wayfarer

How true.

List of paradoxes

Knock yourself out.

Paradoxes, real ones (p & ~p), are a problem iff disjunction introduction/addition is allowed (ex falso quodlibet). That is to say, classical logic has been superseded by paraconsistent logic, happened a long time ago (since Zeno of Elea revealed his eponymous paradoxes).

We're using, we have to, paraconsistent logic if we're not to end up as confused masses of protoplasm (Zen koans, aporia, mushin no shin). In other words, any philosophical argument that depends on disjunction elimination/addition has to be taken as invalid. Know any?

:smile: Good day. I just learned that word, about 2 hours ago (technical term in medicine it is). You got it right! Kudos.

I managed to make some progress into the matter. Ball bearings are symmetrical (reflection + rotational). If we were all symmetrical spheres, it would be impossible to tell whether time is running forwards/backwards i.e. time would lack a direction. :chin:

Who are we kidding? We're monkeys I mean apes! Tutankhamen, Megan Fox, Vladimir Putin, Joe Biden, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, Xi Jinping, you, me, all monkeys...er...apes. Loose language, pardon me.

Jokes aside, friendship is one of the perks of living in a community. It's like The Arabian Nights or the Panchatantra - a story within another story (nesting). I don't think these subplots are critical to the main narrative, but they do make for interesting reading.

Encopresis!

Why isn't there a REWIND button? We can do it with TV remotes for movies, but it sorta looks funny if you know what I mean. That is to say, we can quite easily figure out time is running backwards.

That's at the macroscopic scale.

At the atomic/microscopic scale, there really is no way of knowing whether time's going forwards/backwards. Try this experiment: put a bunch of steel ball bearings (representing particles) in a box, shake the box and record a video of the balls moving randomly in all directions. Now, call two friends to your house. Play the video you recorded normally (forwards) to one friend and play the video in reverse (backwards) to the other friend. Ask both of them this question: Was the video played forwards/backwards? They won't be able to answer this question. Hmmmmm. :chin:

How do we explain this? Anyone...

It's complicated, huh? I'm particularly intrigued by you bringing up idealism and naïvety into the discussion. Says a lot. Speaking for myself, I really can't tell the difference between having my rouble savings of $800,000 devalue to $100,000 and being imprisoned in a labor camp for 20 years in which period I could have made $700,000. Economic sanctions on Russia, the effect it's having on the economy, is like taking the entire Russian nation and incarcerating them in an American jail for 10 - 15 years, during which period they don't get paid for the work they do. Just saying. Trying to put things into perspective, that's all. Maybe someone on the forum can do the math with genuine data and give us a true picture of the impact of US & EU sanctions on the Russian people. Signing off...

A fantastic question! See how, my dear OP, consequentialism requires the ability to prognosticate and prognosticate accurately the effects of our actions in the now and here. We have to be soothsayers to be consequentialists. Is it a coincidence that consequentialism involves math (the felcific calculus), mathematician being synonymous with astrologer just 4/5 centuries ago?

I like math, I should be a consequentialist, oui?

You noticed the point! — ssu

Yaay! :smile:

I want to pick your brains on something. Why did you bring up negative self-reference? Do you have a specific reason for doing so? Are you, if I may ask, trying to say that all paradoxes can be reduced to a negative self-referential paradox?

I'd like to see you do that with Zeno's paradoxes if you don't mind that is. Can you?

Above my pay grade, mate!

Self reference + Denial/Negation = Paradox.

I don't speak English! Oh, I just did! The only possibility, post elimination of the impossible, this (all I've written) is not English. :chin:

none of which might have any bearing on philosophy of mind, as such. The major applications of neuroscience are medical and therapeutic. (Well, leaving aside Neuralink.) — Wayfarer

Sad but true. If the products of the mind (rockets, spaceships, the James Webb Space Telescope) are so marvelous, imagine how amazing the mind must be! We're distracted. The creations can't be more beautiful/grander than the creator, oui?

Not sure how you got this. Smaller countries are often under much stricter sanctions, or a full embargo by the US and EU. Think Libya under Qaddafi, Syrian under Assad, Iran for decades, North Korea, Iraq under Saddam, Chile under Pinochet, Sudan for long periods, Cuba, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're right. Again a part of (recent) history that I failed to take into account. Nevertheless, sanctions on smaller countries are usually imposed when they're a direct threat to the US or its allies, and not really because of any moral/ethical reasons. Plus, even in these cases, the damage to the economy harms the civilian population more than the armed forces; an oil embargo hurts the people, not the soldiers as the economy gets hit.

"Only" 10 billion? For such a small volume it's relative an infinite amount! — EugeneW

I might've forgotten my math lessons there. I was looking at it from a relative standpoint. As an absolute amount, $10 billion is a lot! :smile:

targeted sanctions — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up: Escaped my notice. Thanks! I recall reading about how the assets of Russian oligarchs and government officials were (allegedly) frozen. That's the current status, but what about how US and Europe did the same thing to Afghanistan after it reverted to Taliban control? Headlines, if memory serves, were all about starvation and disease for the Afghans as a whole, not just the Taliban.

Defining terrorism is a recurring problem in terrorism studies — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep, missed that too. Thanks for sending me a memo!

Sanctions make the most sense when you're trying to erode a state's ability to wage war against another state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If economic sanctions can prevent a(n) (erstwhile) superpower (Russia) from aggressive behavior, surely it's gotta work for smaller, less powerful countries, but the catch is it's never used on smaller countries - they're free to do as they please, wage war, commit atrocities, go ahead seems to be the message the US and Europe seems to be sending to them.

As Putin says sanctions are (acts of) "economic war". — 180 Proof

:up:

They [terrorists] specifically prioritize civilian targets over military ones. — DingoJones

Good point (if true)!

However...words fail me.

I prefer to live fully engaged in the world than (trying) to escape from the world into some safely cloistered straitjacket — 180 Proof

:fire: Ideas, philosophies, outlooks, etc. are pretty prisons - gilded cages. Why would anyone want to be incarcerated? I'm myself in jail, we all are. Who has the key to our freedom?

This is exhausting. — L'éléphant

:sad:

Just letting you know that. — L'éléphant

Gracias.

Good day!

Okay, what's the connection of this clip again? — L'éléphant

Well, your question was a Zen moment for me ( :chin: ). I can't guarantee that what I say next will make sense. :smile:

I went back and reread your posts. I don't think there is any misunderstanding between us about the issue on the table. We just disagree on the implications. I have four answers to the question "What difference does it make that language paradoxes seem to undermine the value of logic?" Those answers are, in no particular order, none, zero, zilch, and nada. — T Clark

:ok: Great!

Thanks for reminding me of Zen and its rather (unconventional) methods: the aim is to attain the so-called mushin no shin (mind without mind) state. The idea of Zen koans is to trigger a computer mind crash or Does not compute state.

On first hearing of this, I wondered if we were meant to experience what is it like to be a bat stone? but then no mushin no shin isn't no mind, it's mind without mind. Centrism/madhyamaka/the middle path.

↪Agent SmithWhat doesn't compute? Spit it out! — L'éléphant

Never mind!

Mr. Snooty. Agent Snooty — T Clark

:lol: I consider your actions an act of war!!

Read my last post, the post before you lost your mind. :smile:

higher happiness — Troyster

Vague! Imprecise! How does one measure/define happiness in a way we could differentiate greater/higher happiness from lesser/lower happiness?

inner peace — Troyster

...outer chaos. :up:

attain happiness — Troyster

Is the effort you put in to attain happiness worth it? Is the game worth the candle?

What is it? — L'éléphant

:chin: Does not compute!

:smile:

Update

Paradoxes break (classical) logic.

Question: I'm told that any system of logic in which every sentence can be proven true is trivial. I know what "trivial" means, but in this case, it probably has a deeper meaning. Anyone knows what that is? Any help will be deeply appreciated. Thanks

I didn't say that the idea of paradoxes goes over my head, I said the excitement about them does. I just don't see why it's a big deal. They're not that hard to recognize. It's not like they can sneak up on you — T Clark

Oh! Sorry, my bad. You didn't read my post thoroughly. I explain why paradoxes are a big deal.

I like the notion of pragmatic truth. In my book, it's synonomous, loosely, with what's called a working hypothesis - making do with what's available instead of trying to get it perfect. A provisional truth rather than no truth at all (something is better than nothing). Looks like I'm not the only who's a perfectionist, we all are. Of course the severity of the affliction differs from person to person.

Aporia seems to be designed for those who desire perfection; for those who can manage with the messy world as it is (fuzzy logic or some other means), aporia isn't a part of their lives. Lower the bar and everything is hunky-dory! I'm somewhat happy now! We were supposed to read between the lines! :smile:

Finishing each other's sentences:




Also, there's this scene in The Matrix film in which 3 agents finish each other's sentences in a coherent way, as if they were one mind or were capable of telepathy.

Negative self reference.

Just ask yourself, how many paradoxes involve this. Starting from Russell's paradox. — ssu

I've seen at least two negative self-referential paradoxes: the liar sentence and Curry's paradox.

Your point?

Perhaps I am not a (real) thinker, but all the excitement about paradoxes goes over my head. I just can't see how they have any practical meaning. — T Clark

It's not that complicated. Given the natural deduction rules (there are 18 of 'em) of predicate logic, the existence of a true paradox means predicate logic is what logicians call trivial - it proves every statement conceivable is true via ex falso quodlibet (explosion).

The only way out is to adopt paraconsistent logic which accepts the existence of true contradictions, but prevents explosion by tweaking the rules of natural deduction e.g. it does away with the disjunction introduction/addition rule.

The yellow lemons, unicorn example argument of an ex falso quodlibet uses the disjunction introduction/addition rule in line [3].

Paradoxes seem to contradict expectation. On solving them, they're not paradoxal anymore. — EugeneW

Yes, that's the received wisdom on paradoxes.

Oh yes. Inconsistency in logic is a common glitch in human reasoning. That's why the first rule of philosophy is "don't fool yourself". One way to check you own assumptions & arguments is to be aware of common fallacies. They may masquerade as commonsense, but often others will see through your facade before you do. So exchanging views on a forum like this will expose your personal "paraconsistencies" to the skeptical eye of other truth-seekers. In most cases, they will be gentle with you, because they are aware of their own shortcomings. But those who hold their own beliefs with unconditional faith, may pounce on your apparent or real errors with pitiless fervor. So, you'll need to develop a thick skin. :smile: — Gnomon

Good advice. If I were to add anything then either develop a thick skin, like you said AND/OR improve your logic. No solace there for most of us I fear, both are hard! :smile:

Good point! What kind of telescope is needed to observe dark mind matter or energy? — EugeneW

It appears we're taking the mind for granted. The emphasis is on using it instead of studying it (NASA budget for 2020 was $20 billion while only $10 billion was spent on neuroscience). I haven't checked the the expenditure on AI (artificial minds) or how much money is involved in religions that have advanced meditative practices, for instance Buddhism and possibly Hinduism (Raja Yoga).