Philosophical debates and logic puzzles

[jhungary]

Lol
I'm not as smart as you guys.
Now explain it to me...pls.

the answer is in the set theory....too tired to type just check this out lol

Mathematical mysteries: The Barber's Paradox | plus.maths.org

 

[Armstrong]

the answer is in the set theory....too tired to type just check this out lol

Mathematical mysteries: The Barber's Paradox | plus.maths.org

Thats it....I'm never going to this Barber for a shave again !

 

[SvenSvensonov]

@Armstrong - I've got a question for you @levina @jhungary and @Jungibaaz

describe to me a color you've never seen before. After you do that describe to me the taste of salt without using the word or root salt. Remember, thirst inducing doesn't specifically pertain to salt and describing its chemical makeup or physical properties does assign a taste.

Good luck!!!

 

[Levina]

Have you tried both links?

Ah!
Now it says "loading".

Have you tried both links?

Awesome!!!!
Thanks for the link.

 

[Jungibaaz]

@SvenSvensonov what if the Universe, Reality and everything in between is all in my head ?

What if the thought of them being in my head is also in my head and has no real existence ?

It's not all in your head, it's all in my head, none of you exist. Only I exist according to Rene Descartes. I think, therefore I am.

I was pretty close to studying astronomy at one time, I had a choice back then and now I deeply regret it. I even went to Switzerland just to visit the CERN and the LHC.

Unfortunately, I went in November and it was running at the time. And at the risk of getting myself killed, they didn't let me or other tourists in to see the real thing. Instead we were given other tours and shown a smaller collider from the 80's.

let me give you guys another hair scratcher

Barber Paradox

In a town, there are only 1 male barber, and all the male in this town are well groomed and never leave this town.
For the town male, there are two choices, either they shave themselves or ask the barber to shave them. But the local barber have 1 rule only, he only shave those who are unwilling to shave himself.

The paradox is, Who shave the barber?

What if the barber sets his beard alight, or removes it in other ways? It's technically not shaving.

Is there a solution for this?

 

[jhungary]

Thats it....I'm never going to this Barber for a shave again !

lol,,,,,,,,,,usually when you trying to think of a problem too complicatedly, that's like 9 out of 10 times is your own fault...

It's not all in your head, it's all in my head, none of you exist. Only I exist according to Rene Descartes. I think, therefore I am.

I was pretty close to studying astronomy at one time, I had a choice back then and now I deeply regret it. I even went to Switzerland just to visit the CERN and the LHC.

Unfortunately, I went in November and it was running at the time. And at the risk of getting myself killed, they didn't let me or other tourists in to see the real thing. Instead we were given other tours and shown a smaller collider from the 80's.



What if the barber sets his beard alight, or removes it in other ways? It's technically not shaving.

Is there a solution for this?

actually there is, it's to interpretation of naïve set theory

Mathematical mysteries: The Barber's Paradox | plus.maths.org

Some sets are not members of themselves - for example, the set of all red motorcycles - and some sets are - for example, the set of all non-motorcycles. Now what about the set of all sets which are not members of themselves? Is it a member of itself or not? If it is, then it isn't, and if it isn't, then it is... Just like the barber who shaves himself, but mustn't, and therefore doesn't, and so must!

So now we realise that Russell's Barber's Paradox means that there is a contradiction at the heart of naïve set theory. That is, there is a statement S such that both itself and its negation (not S) are true. The particular statement here is "the set of all sets which are not members of themselves contains itself". But once you have a contradiction, you can prove anything you like, just using the rules of logical deduction! This is how it goes.

1. If S is true, and Q is any other statement, then "S or Q" is clearly true.
2. Since "not S" is also true, so is "S or Q and not S".
3. Therefore Q is true, no matter what it is.

too tired to explain this now, but if you still have trouble understand the answer, I will try to answer it....

 

[SvenSvensonov]

It's not all in your head, it's all in my head, none of you exist. Only I exist according to Rene Descartes. I think, therefore I am.

Then we've reached an impasse for I too think your thoughts in my head. I fear that since neither of us can accurately ascertain who's thoughts are the true origin, then we may actually be in @Armstrong s head. May the maker have mercy on our souls.

Finally, this question is a bit problematic. It implies a premise that has never been allocated. Additionally, when Rene Descartes assigned himself with existence, why him, perhaps as we have offered he is a construct of another intelligence? Why "I" and not "you"

I think therefore I you? You think therefore you I?

Can we imply without premise, can we assign to ourselves what can exist in others?

 

[Levina]

Hahahaha, you know I've taken so much time questioning and challenging others that I've not even though about what is human.

Human to me is this:

Human's are neither biological nor unique. We share chemical processing with animals and plants, our intelligence can be replicated too. Human is not a condition, it's a concept that exists in our minds. If I put my consciousness in a robotic body I'll be content with calling myself me, even if I leave my flesh behind. Perhaps, in short, human is an acceptance of one's self, not specifically our intelligence or consciousness or flesh, but an acceptance of our own existence.

It's a bit ethereal, but now that I think about this question, this is the answer I hold. No matter my shape or state, if I believe in myself, I am me.
.

Philosophy is for guys with brains but it whooshes over my head.
Logically robots can never be humans thats all I know.
I know my answer is not even close to being right but my tiny brain cant process beyond this. lol.

Well, you know that the blue house is next to the Norwegian's. I found that the Norwegian is the diplomat somehow with the fact that other houses were other colours, it was red and the house next to him was blue, I got this quite early, can't remember how now, but then it says that the horse is the house next to the diplomat.

I am guessing we have to begin by making atleast one assumption, I dont see anyother way this puzzle can be solved because there're too many missing links.. And your guess was right on spot. You 're smart Jungibhai !!!

 

[kbd-raaf]

I have recently developed a framework for the expansion of Clifford Algebraic methods to the third dimension.

The inspiration of which was a philosophical discussion with a friend. People underestimate philosophy and its applicability to higher order functions such as applied mathematics and other such blue-skies research.

Human's are neither biological nor unique. We share chemical processing with animals and plants, our intelligence can be replicated too.

I disagree. I believe there are inherent non-computational elements in consciousness and/or intelligence. I am actually a believer of determinism in emergent behaviour in human/otherwise intelligence. Something which I can expand on, if requested.

An example of my reasoning lies with Godel's incompleteness theorem. If a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency, can we truly call it a complete system?

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Philosophy is for guys with brains but it whooshes over my head.
Logically robots can never be humans thats all I know.
I know my answer is not even close to being right but my tiny brain cant process beyond this. lol.

That's no problem. You accept your answer yes? If so then does it not become you truth? I accept humanity, but not its exclusivity or uniqueness. Your perspective is just as valid.

 

[kbd-raaf]

Logically robots can never be humans thats all I know.

Cannot be human, yes, perhaps.

Would you consider a man with a human brain and a non-biological body, a human? If yes or no, where do you draw the line? And why is it so arbitary?

 

[SvenSvensonov]

I disagree. I believe there are inherent non-computational elements in consciousness and/or intelligence. I am actually a believer of determinism in emergent behaviour in human/otherwise intelligence. Something which I can expand on, if requested.

An example of my reasoning lies with Godel's incompleteness theorem. If a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency, can we truly call it a complete system?

Lets surmise that consistency is necessary for a complete system. First, let's define consistency. Second are there humans who do not exhibit consistent thought? Perhaps our chemical makeup is consistent, but those with broken consciousness, severe mental inhibitions or malformities, such as advanced Alzheimers, are they consistent in their thoughts, consciousness and processing? Are they complete?

Define to me consistency in your views.

Cannot be human, yes, perhaps.

Would you consider a man with a human brain and a non-biological body, a human? If yes or no, where do you draw the line? And why is it so arbitary?

The question I asked too, and a damn good one as we approach an age of androids and cybernetics!

 

[kbd-raaf]

Lets surmise that consistency is necessary for a complete system. First, let's define consistency. Second are there humans who do not exhibit consistent thought? Perhaps our chemical makeup is consistent, but those with broken consciousness, severe mental inhibitions or malformities, such as advanced Alzheimers, are they consistent in their thoughts, consciousness and processing? Are they complete?

Define to me consistency in your views.

Let's take physicality out of the discussion here. Can I first ask you if you believe a human mind can be replicated in a super computer? Or perhaps even super intelligence in the way that Bostrom defines it: How long before superintelligence?

In less verbose terms, do you think that a computer can display broad (or better, not narrow) intelligence?

Then we can discuss mental inhibitions, yes?

The question I asked too, and a damn good one as we approach an age of androids and cybernetics!

This will tie in what I would like to discuss here. Physicality should not be a part of the equation that defines true-intelligence. In that I agree with you.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Let's take physicality out of the discussion here. Can I first ask you if you believe a human mind can be replicated in a super computer? Or perhaps even super intelligence in the way that Bostrom defines it: How long before superintelligence?

In less verbose terms, do you think that a computer can display broad (or better, not narrow) intelligence?

I discount no possibility in discussion like this. While current supercomputers and AI system lack the necessary processing, learning or thinking capacity, progress is being made. Will we arrive at such a point. I can no more predict 5 years than I can 5 minutes into the future, but I respect and hope for the possibility, let's hold the assumption that such a point will be arrived at.

This conversation is premised around hypotheticals, lets not let the bounds of our modern life get in the way of a discussion.

 

[Levina]

@Armstrong - I've got a question for you @levina @jhungary and @Jungibaaz

describe to me a color you've never seen before.

If I have to describe a color then I have to imagine a color and by then most prolly my brain would pop up a picture or 2 some color.In short I cant describe a color unless I've seen it. Geee!!
Lolzzz
I am luving this thread.

After you do that describe to me the taste of salt without using the word or root salt. Remember, thirst inducing doesn't specifically pertain to salt and describing its chemical makeup or physical properties does assign a taste.

Good luck!!!

What if I say salt is something that tastes like sea water?? would that do???