It is a healthy, temporary and rational position when analyzing illusions, imaginary concepts and experiences, and the "dualistic filter" between our cognitive center and all sensory and memory input. As such, it serves as a "sanity subroutine"- and is essentially the same as the internal dialogue of "I need no beliefs." The central problem with "beliefs" is that of infinite regress... Beliefs lead to further beliefs... rather than to knowledge.
There's a big difference between believing your senses and believing your thoughts, I suppose. What if you believe yourself some of the time? Goedel's incompleteness theorem is still better.
You'll have to define what 'believe' means i this statement. The word has so many different definitions based on context.
nono... what you are doing is incoherency: you think you are smart , but you are making a simple mistake... A paradox appeares within a logical system, if a statement (A) and it`s opposite (non A) are both valid, or if they imply one another. So: if the sentence is true, then it`s false as it says, so it`s true, beeing false that it`s false, etc... and if the sentence is false, it is false that it`s false , so it`s true, but that means it is false... etc. This is a paradox.
I understand what is being communicated. Conceptually it is being viewed as an assertion of truth that is claiming itself to be false. I simply disagree with the example. Let's take a look at some common interpretations of that statement: ASSERTION: "This sentence is false" MEANING: The content of this sentence is not true. RESULT: There is no content that applies to a statement of truth. Without that realtionship the meaning is incoherent. ASSERTION: "This sentence is false" MEANING: The sentence itself is not true. RESULT: A raw sentence is a structure and not applicable to being declared a truth or falsity. Without that relationship the meaning is incoherent. Hope that makes more sense.
Let me clarify. "I don't believe myself" mean what I believe is not right to me, if "I don't believe myself" then I don't believe this sentence is right to me too. if I believe this is wrong, then I believe my myself which is contradict to this sentence. maybe atleast it is a paradox to me at least? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ok: let`s put it this way: the content of the sentence is that the sentence itself is not true. that means that the content of the sentece is not true. so it is not true that the sentence is false, this being the content of the sentence. so the sentence is true, meaning that it`s content is true. and back to square 1... this is how i see it. and this is also how many philosophers interpreting the works of the sophists saw it. i think this is true... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but then again, the guy that came up with it had the intention of creating disputes with it. one can say: " the content of this sentence is not true" and the content of this sentence is that it`s content is not true...
I still don't understand what is meant here. Try setting up a context of some sort and then we can apply the statement to it to determine the meaning.
Sophism and various other philosophies are working off a set of rules and assumptions. They can only be as good as how well the align to reality. If we are asserting that "the content of the sentence is that the sentence itself is not true" then under the rules and assumptions of Sophism this might yield a paradox. In reality, the content of the statement violates the rules of logic as the sentence structure nor its content contain a subject with a valid truth relationship. It's no different than saying the content or the structure of this hamburger is true (or not true). It's just not applicable.
"I don't believe myself" Definition: I don't think what I think is right is right. when I think "I don't believe myself" is right, =>I don't think what I think is right is right =>I think "I don't believe myself" is wrong =>I believe myself, at the same time I don't believe myself. when I think "I don't believe myself" is wrong, =>I think what I think is right is right =>I think "I don't believe myself" is right =>I don't think what I think is right is right am I right now?
I think I understand where you're going with this. The expanded assertion: "I don't think what I think is right is right." can be reduced to the following assertion of truth: "What I accept as truth is false" and can ultimately be reduced to: "What is true is false" or mathematically 1 = 0 By definition a paradox is a true statement that appears to be contradictory (an illusion). 1 = 0 is not a true statement and doesn't qualify. An example of a paradox would be: "Standing is more tiring than walking"
so, "I don't believe myself" is a false statement itself, then it is impossible to not believe yourself? when I think about "this sentence is wrong." this sentence is wrong =>"this sentence is wrong" is wrong =>what is true is this sentence is wrong => 1=0 ??? so "this sentence is wrong" is false statement too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't think these two are equal. "What I accept as truth is false" "What is true is false"
Huuuummm... I've talked about this before in my "I'm a liar" thread. My personal opinion on paradoxes is that they are absolute truths. Nothing can be more true then a paradox.
"Standing is more tiring than walking" is not a paradox. it`s simply a false statement. And a hamburger is not a statement. an object cannot be true or false, but a statement must be. even the sentence : "The wall is talking pink" can be true or false. the wall cannot talk and one cannot talk pink. so the statement is false. when one says: "this sentence is false" the sentence is the subject , nommater what logical rules one applies. one cannot judge a paradox by studying the whole picture because a paradox`s truth value appeares valid only in specific parts of the paradox. if you calculate the truth value of a paradox by considering statement A =1 and statement non A = -1, these implying one another, it equals an infinite series with the value indetermenable. a paradox is not a sentence. a sentence must have a value of truth. and a sentence expresses something about it`s subject. in this case the subject of the sentence is the sentece. and the sentence expresses something about the sentence. please , crunchy cat, explain how you understand the problem, because i can`t find any rules and assumptions that cause the sentence to not have a valid truth relationship.
Would you care to elaborate on that? IMHO, I see that paradoxes reveal the mechanics behind logic and relationships within the universe. So I personally always compare the paradox to the whole picture in order to understand the whole picture.
a normal sentence has a specific value of truth. let`s consider the values 1 for truth and -1 for false. the sentence "my dog is brown." has value 1 the sentence "stalin and hitler were friends." has the value -1. but a paradox is not only a statement. a paradox "works" by starting a logical implication chain without end. that`s the point of a paradox. a paradox starts as a sentence , but by trying to determine the value of truth of that sentence the 1 value implies the -1 value and viceversa. in the case here: this sentence is false - let`s consider it true.. so it has the value 1 this implies that it`s false .. so it has the value -1 it works both ways. so in the process to determinate the value of truth of the paradox at one step one finds the value 1 at the next -1. so the whole picture cannot have a value.only certain steps of the logical chain cann have such values, but the propriety of the sentence in case to be a paradox, makes the whole value indeterminable . it`s like trying to finde out the value of lim sin (n) = ? (n->infinite) that `s how i see it... feel free to contradict.
