The Old Liar Paradox

If the red house has blue shutters and the green house has red shutters, what's this section for?
User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5009
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

The Old Liar Paradox

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:47 pm

You all know the paradox, I'm sure. I just came across a nice literary version of it, which I will paraphrase, as follows:

"If Pinocchio were to say, 'My nose is growing,' would he be telling the truth?" (Apparently, there's a drawing in a 1901 Italian edition of the story in which he says exactly that.)
“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25995
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:48 pm

:hmm: That's obviously this one. :pardon:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by landrew » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:05 pm

That one doesn't keep me awake at night. It's such a simple paradox.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:34 pm

Its not a paradox, but rather a false premise.

Mind the gap.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:36 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:47 pm
You all know the paradox, I'm sure. I just came across a nice literary version of it, which I will paraphrase, as follows:

"If Pinocchio were to say, 'My nose is growing,' would he be telling the truth?" (Apparently, there's a drawing in a 1901 Italian edition of the story in which he says exactly that.)
Newton's First law asserts that inertial factors (constant states or states of non-accelerating change) remains constant unless an external force compels it to change. This law is (or can be) extendable to logic: For any variable assigned some constant, the variable remains with that assignment unless or until some 'external' factor changes that assignment.

The meaning assigned to a sentence can't assign its own meaning. So I may say something like, "This very sentence is not a sentence." Here, the variable may be thought of as the containing quotes that hold a variety of possible sentence I might want to put in it, such as

" "

Of the particular variety we can assign it the constant,

"This very sentence is not a sentence."

But the content has no meaning unless interpreted from without and so its meaning does not lie in the literal sentence being used to convey the message. Furthermore, you can't make this particular sentence act as the machine to cause another sentence to replace it let alone provide meaning to itself, such as,

"The last sentence here was incorrect."

You need an external factors to take the literal sentence that you interpret to have meaning outside of its context, interpret it and then replace it with another one you might treat as a conclusion in meaning by a different sentence. The sentence itself has no force nor power to alter anything. It needs to be interpreted from without.

Similarly, if someone asserts some claim that communicates some meaning, the one asserting it is not in power to verify the literal meaning of the words of the listener. They could have asserted what they claim in a foreign unknown language to the listener and so the act of speaking the claim has no power that compels the listener to draw a sincere judgement about the meaning the speaker intended.

A sentence has no power over its creation nor its alteration literally or in meaning and remains so unless something affects it from without.


Further digression on this:
We think of the liars paradox as a kind of 'feedback' mechanism such that it, in logical terms, "explodes". But to relate this to the real physical phenomena of feedback, if you set up a speaker with a mic and an amplifier in between, the actual feedback requires external energy to maintain the louder and louder feedback you hear once an initial 'seed' of sound is provided. Thus, the resulting affect (us hearing the feedback getting louder and louder that makes us respond to it) is a secondary factor external to the system. The overall energy of the system remains the same and the cause of it cannot go beyond what the supply of outside electricity permits. Usually, it will get to a point it will blow the speaker or reach a top limited volume then remain relatively constant. The sound as energy would match the input energy minus the heat of the circuit.

So even in real 'feedback' conditions, there is no paradox. Therefore, if one finds a discomfort to paradoxical sentences such as these, they have to realize that in reality, they are the ones providing the feedback to a larger cycle that is more than simply the sentence itself. It's an illusion that the sentence appears to have logical power to cause the confusion only. The feedback cycle is you reading the passive sentence, interpreting meaning from it, including the imposition of the sentence to have more power from some mystical place, re-reading or thinking about it, and re-interpreting it again. The cycle is fed not by the passive sentence you are interpreting as a 'seed' but to the energy you supply to attending to it. At some point it will either blow a mental circuit in you or reaches the limit to which you can handle it. The solution of the 'paradox' is to recognize THAT you are contributing to the force of its meaning by assigning it to your own dynamic input cyclically.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by landrew » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:12 pm

This gives me hope that Artificial Intelligence will never surpass the human mind. I think our ability to shrug or laugh at such paradoxes is a natural relief valve that would probably cause a machine intelligence to lock up.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by Scott Mayers » Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:07 am

landrew wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:12 pm
This gives me hope that Artificial Intelligence will never surpass the human mind. I think our ability to shrug or laugh at such paradoxes is a natural relief valve that would probably cause a machine intelligence to lock up.
The next evolution in A.I. that can actually productively work requires an architecture based on flexible components based similarly on biology. We've already succeeded the Genome project but the next and more important Protein project(s) [like those 'protein folding' projects as one part] will utilize microbiological logic if wanting to define technology that can be 'conscious'.

This would not require necessity for our purposes though. Consciousness is not an essential function for computing unless if we want it to have a 'motivation' function (...e-motion). On a neurological level, the neurons grow and shrink and/or die. This at present can only be mimicked by creating a network. But we HAVE this 'network' with the Internet. As such, our world IS becoming a large complex living being. We are but cells in this system. The Internet can and is evolving to act similarly to neural network logic and so this may still be a possible threat.

I hope I'm not busting any bubble. But I wouldn't fear change like this in a remote future for humanity as a whole. We evolved and it can be possible that some more advanced entity through our technology can foster the creation of a new species. Consciousness is only a function to motivate us to seek our environment for animals. If we evolved to be able to have a time when computers completely solve all our problems such that we can get anything we want or need, the human conscious state would no longer need to have a mechanism to motivate it to get things it can't get when it can for thinking it. We'd evolve to lack a need for consciousness and by then wouldn't be neither sad nor happy if our species was replaced.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by landrew » Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:19 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:07 am
landrew wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:12 pm
This gives me hope that Artificial Intelligence will never surpass the human mind. I think our ability to shrug or laugh at such paradoxes is a natural relief valve that would probably cause a machine intelligence to lock up.
The next evolution in A.I. that can actually productively work requires an architecture based on flexible components based similarly on biology. We've already succeeded the Genome project but the next and more important Protein project(s) [like those 'protein folding' projects as one part] will utilize microbiological logic if wanting to define technology that can be 'conscious'.

This would not require necessity for our purposes though. Consciousness is not an essential function for computing unless if we want it to have a 'motivation' function (...e-motion). On a neurological level, the neurons grow and shrink and/or die. This at present can only be mimicked by creating a network. But we HAVE this 'network' with the Internet. As such, our world IS becoming a large complex living being. We are but cells in this system. The Internet can and is evolving to act similarly to neural network logic and so this may still be a possible threat.

I hope I'm not busting any bubble. But I wouldn't fear change like this in a remote future for humanity as a whole. We evolved and it can be possible that some more advanced entity through our technology can foster the creation of a new species. Consciousness is only a function to motivate us to seek our environment for animals. If we evolved to be able to have a time when computers completely solve all our problems such that we can get anything we want or need, the human conscious state would no longer need to have a mechanism to motivate it to get things it can't get when it can for thinking it. We'd evolve to lack a need for consciousness and by then wouldn't be neither sad nor happy if our species was replaced.
Not to disagree, but a large part of the human experience is about "making things work when nothing's going right." I've yet to see any sort of machine which can cope with a large degree of chaos in its operations.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:43 am

landrew wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:19 am
Not to disagree, but a large part of the human experience is about "making things work when nothing's going right." I've yet to see any sort of machine which can cope with a large degree of chaos in its operations.
Every one I've ever seen reboots and asks for your password.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by landrew » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:07 am

I doubt we'll ever make an AI machine that we can't shut down, but it's conceivable that some form of self-serving sentience may eventually form within the internet.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17120
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:20 am

I agree...........caveat...........how to tell the difference between "self serving sentience" ((relatively harder to develop)) and preventing itself from being shut down ((relatively easy to develop???)).
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10453
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by Poodle » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:07 am

To be frank, I don't believe there is any paradox here. Pinocchio's nose is in one of two states ... either it is growing or it is not growing. A simple series of measurements establishes the fact. Absent the measurements, the truth of the original statement is not establishable. With the measurements, the truth or falsity of the statement is indisputable.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9613
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Old Liar Paradox

Post by landrew » Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:48 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:20 am
I agree...........caveat...........how to tell the difference between "self serving sentience" ((relatively harder to develop)) and preventing itself from being shut down ((relatively easy to develop???)).
Natural selection could conceivably create such a creature. It's "instinct" for survival would have been developed from the fact that it has survived, and if it didn't have that impulse, it wouldn't exist. An analog to biological evolution.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.