I saw this in another forum. You should post your answer. The one which you gave first. Be honest. Don't peek. It's sort of a paradox. The discussion in the other forum wasn't very interesting. And I'm not a member there either.

1) Will you answer the next question the same as this one?




2)Are you stupid?

Thats like

The sentence below is true
The sentence above is false

Cesspool time.

1) Will you answer the next question the same as this one?

Yes.

2)Are you stupid?

No.

(Ok, so I lied in my first answer!)

Cesspool time.

Actually, I'm kinda surprised to hear you say that. This is actually a somewhat interesting subject. Although I'm unsure how far the topic can progress unless it should diverge into the subject of contradiction and the attributes of formal systems vs. unformal systems (as per Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem and etc...)

What we have here is an Epimenides Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox). But one with a twist.

This is one that is not explicitly contradictory. One can easily answer yes to both questions. But to do so, one would have to be calling oneself stupid. A negative statement which few feel comfortable with.

Or. One could answer the first question no. And the second question yes. With the same outcome. The speaker would be calling himself stupid which most would not wish to do.

The only two consistent answers would end with the speaker declaring his own stupidity. For the speaker to deny stupidity ends in paradox.

What is interesting about this particular form of paradox (the classical form) is that a machine (formal system) is unable to contradict itself in a manner which would be acceptable in an informal system (such as a human).

A machine can't lie. Not in this way, anyway.

But. A human, as demonstrated by James, can.

The instant that we create a machine which is capable of operating on an informal system, then we better start worrying about competition from said machine. Until then, they're our bitch because we can always catch them in an epimenides paradox and make their robotic brains explode.


Anyway. This example is cute because it can point to human nature twice.
See?


Cesspool material?
Hardly.

I read the entire thing before answering, and thus could avoid answering yes to being stupid. so ha! who is stupid now?

Which, of course, brings up a third instance of human behavior. I failed to take into consideration the rule about not looking ahead.

Humans can not only lie.
They can cheat.
Ha!

Another alternative:

1) Will you answer the next question the same as this one?

No.

2)Are you stupid?

No, I am not stupid.

Count on James R to ruin the fun!

Until then, they're our bitch because we can always catch them in an epimenides paradox and make their robotic brains explode.

Our brains don't explode because our understanding of language is lame

This statement is false

It's akin to reading a novel. You read and read and soon your eyes begin to glaze over material so that even though you are 'reading', the words do not impact the consciousness. That is our primary help.

The secondary is that the words independently have no specific meaning. 'False' is such a nebulous word, especially in such empty context that it can be difficult for a cursory reading to appreciate the paradox. For example, if we read it once and ask ourselves, 'What does false mean in this context?', we respond that 'It means the statement is not true'.

But what does 'the statement is not true' tell us about the statement?

Nothing at all.

So we don't fret.

I think.

Humans can not only lie.
They can cheat.
Ha!

And more: They are able to sacrifice something so that later, they can have greater gain.

Like in a chess game, the human player can deliberately make some moves to his own bad, and the other party, computer or human, will be confused by this.


Other common irrational activities:

- pretending/feigning
- suspending both belief and disbelief
- waiting



Them humans!

I saw this in another forum. You should post your answer. The one which you gave first. Be honest. Don't peek. It's sort of a paradox. The discussion in the other forum wasn't very interesting. And I'm not a member there either.

1) Will you answer the next question the same as this one?

So the answer is the square root of two, everybody knows that, now, a question for you Mr. Rosnet. We seek the truth in this forum, in this thread sir, so, do you believe a woman should be hung like a man?



2)Are you stupid?
Actually, I'm the smartest one in the room. But it is such a relief to see that my replacement finally showed up. Now I can begin to live!!

What took you so long, ding dong? And Im outta here.
Geistkiesel :cool:

I read the entire thing before answering, and thus could avoid answering yes to being stupid. so ha! who is stupid now?

That would mean that you didn't answer at all. If not, please tell us how you did it, and what answer you gave.

what if we assume that when we say will will answer the next question the same, we do not mean with the same word, but in the same way: honestly. then we could give NO, YES and not only answer both Qs the same, but also refrain from saying we are stupid

ah loopholes, is there anything they cant do?...

Suppose I edit it to make it mean the same word thing?

do you believe a woman should be hung like a man?

Huh?