Resolving Paradoxes

[Age]

"So, how exactly is that "one" known as "henry quirk" particularly different than every "other" so called "one"?"[/quote]

The most obvious evidence is, for example, I'm sitting here tapping away on an Ipad, while my thirteen year old (who refers to himself as 'I', who views himself as 'one') is three feet away playing 'Death Stranding' on his Playstation. He and me: two distinct beings, similar in many ways, radically different in many other ways; two separate minds.[/quote]

HOW EXACTLY are 'you' "two" radically different, in many ways? Would you like to give some examples? All that has been given is a telling of how two different human bodies are sitting apart from each other, and doing different things. Also, what is the 'mind' EXACTLY, of which there is supposedly two separate ones of them?

In case you have forgotten, I asked, HOW EXACTLY is that "one" known as "henry quirk" particularly different than every "other" so called "one"?

What is "henry quirk" made up of, which is different?
Who is "henry quirk", which is different?
How did "henry quirk" come about, which is different?
Why did "henry quirk" come about, which is different?

Another evidence is you and me: you call yourself 'I', I call myself 'I', two distinct beings, two separate minds with some radically different viewpoints.

That is NOT evidence that the "one" known as "henry quirk" is a different distinct being. That just explains how each individual one uses the word 'I', from an individual perspective.

Again, what are these 'mind' things EXACTLY?

The three of us -- me, my thirteen year old, you -- have common features (cuz we're all of the same species), but those commonalities are overshadowed by all the idiosyncratic elements, both biological and psychological, that comprise our personalities.

So, explain HOW "henry quirk" is particularly different.

Simply: we three are each distinct, discrete, persons and there's almost no interchangeability among us except on the most base level (organ systems and the like).

But you just got through telling us that I just a generic 'person'.

Just saying 'we' three are distinct, discrete persons does NOT explain how "henry quirk" is supposedly particularly different than any "other" person.

By the way, you were so close to explaining EXACTLY HOW each person is different. You hinted at it but then went off track.

Also, I actually SHOWED what makes each person different previously. But I must of NOT made it that clear.

[henry quirk]

"HOW EXACTLY"

Look, I'm not gonna write a dissertation on the subject. I'm not gonna list out every gross and subtle difference. And I'm not gonna correct every misinterpretation. This conversation just isn't worth the investment of that much time and energy.

[Age]

"HOW EXACTLY"

Look, I'm not gonna write a dissertation on the subject.

Could this be because you have NO idea where to start and/or do NOT know how to even begin to?

I'm not gonna list out every gross and subtle difference.

Also noted is you did NOT even list just one thing.

And I'm not gonna correct every misinterpretation.

Why NOT?

Why NOT correct just one misinterpretation.

This conversation just isn't worth the investment of that much time and energy.

And this is just ANOTHER EXAMPLE of what I just POINTED OUT in the other discussion 'I' am having with 'you', "henry quirk", and that is; 'you', human beings, quite often say things but NEVER Truly know what 'you' actually mean.

This is WHY 'you', human beings, are STILL LOOKING FOR the meaning of things, like, for example; The meaning of Life, Itself.

'you', human beings, say and claim a lot, but a lot of that is NEVER actually supported nor proven true.

See, unlike 'you', human beings, I can SUPPORT and PROVE true what I say and claim.

[henry quirk]

"Could this be because you have NO idea where to start and/or do NOT know how to even begin to?"

It's cuz you're too much work. Conversations with you never get out of the starting gate. Runnin' hard just to stand still ain't fun.

I'm out.

[Age]

"Could this be because you have NO idea where to start and/or do NOT know how to even begin to?"

It's cuz you're too much work.

Fair enough. If you are not going to write a dissertation because 'I' am supposedly "too much work", then so be it.

But write a dissertation to back up and support your own writings and claims, do not do because of 'me'.

Conversations with you never get out of the starting gate.

If you provide some actual examples of where and how this is supposedly the case, then besides me then being able to actual SEE what actually took place, so could "others" SEE what Truly happened.

As far as I have observed if and when 'you' make a claim, and I ask you to back up and support that claim with writings, then your excuse for not writing anything is very weak, especially when I am the one being blamed for you not doing any thing.

If you at least provided some examples, then we could at least SEE whose actual fault it is why conversations never supposedly start.

For now I will just reiterate; At least have some thing to support a claim before you begin to express a claim.

Runnin' hard just to stand still ain't fun.

I'm out.

Remember you are the one with a very specific definition for the word 'paradox', you claim paradoxes have no foundation in the "real world", and you were the one claiming that you can dismantle paradoxes. You also made other claims here. If you are not going to explain and/or support those claims, then so be it.

[henry quirk]

"Remember you are the one with a very specific definition for the word 'paradox',"

only what the dictionary offers

#

"you claim paradoxes have no foundation in the "real world"

and not you, or anyone else, offered an example of a paradox that's anything other than semantic trick or thought experiment

#

"you were the one claiming that you can dismantle paradoxes."

and I did that

if you, or anyone, have other paradoxes for me to take apart, please: offer 'em up

[Nick_A]

You must remember that a paradox is not defined as two doctors. It has far greater value for the human psych.

[Age]

"Remember you are the one with a very specific definition for the word 'paradox',"

only what the dictionary offers

#

lol, I thought you may have been this CLOSED off to the actual Truth of things, which I have been subtlety pointing out.

"you claim paradoxes have no foundation in the "real world"

and not you, or anyone else, offered an example of a paradox that's anything other than semantic trick or thought experiment

#

What do you mean not offered anything?

Obviously no one could offer anything, this is due to your very specific definition, which is, by the way, not what you assume and believe it actually is.

By the way I offered you a paradox of the "real world".

I also, by the way, see ALL paradoxes as having foundation in the real world. To me the very definition of the word paradox relates directly to the real world.

"you were the one claiming that you can dismantle paradoxes."

and I did that

and anyone can dismantle what is called a "paradox".

if you, or anyone, have other paradoxes for me to take apart, please: offer 'em up

you have obviously once again missed the whole point here. What you call a paradox is not what is always called a paradox

[henry quirk]

"What you call a paradox is not what is always called a paradox"

Paradox

1: a tenet contrary to received opinion

2a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
2b: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
2c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises

3: one (such as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

As I say: I'm goin' by what the dictionary offers (in the thread's context).

[henry quirk]

You must remember that a paradox is not defined as two doctors. It has far greater value for the human psych.

As lil puzzles, paradoxes are A-OK.

[Age]

"What you call a paradox is not what is always called a paradox"

Paradox

1: a tenet contrary to received opinion

2a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
2b: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
2c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises

3: one (such as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

As I say: I'm goin' by what the dictionary offers (in the thread's context).

What is the thread's context, Resolving Paradoxes, correct?

What you are going of is but just one dictionary alone, and exactly how many dictionaries are there?

You have said not one paradox is real. Yet one of a dictionaries definition of a paradox is; a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. Therefore, a paradox, according to your own given definition, is perhaps real, which contradicts your statement that not one paradox is real.

You have also stated: Every paradox is either a semantic trick or just a thought experiment with no foundation in the real world.

I have provided a paradox, to you, which is based on the 'real world'.

See the issue with claiming that a word actually means some thing, and then basing your statements of that one meaning, is; that one word can some times have two completely opposing definitions, which in a sense is REALLY a 'paradox', especially if we are going to go off of your 2a, and 2b definitions above here.

Now it is not logical to say that not one paradox is real, and/or say, every paradox has no foundation in the real world, especially when even one of the definitions for 'paradox' is; a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement but on further investigation may well prove to be true.

This definition would mean that there could be a paradox that is real, and so there could be a paradox that has foundation in the real world.

Also, what I have found is the usual semantic tricks or just thought experiments with no foundation in the real world are the actually ones that are well known as paradoxes, but really are not paradoxes at all. What those things are, to me, exactly like you say, just semantic tricks or just thought experiments with no foundation in the real world, like, for example; zeno's "paradoxes", the twin "paradoxes, and the other ones.

So, although I was agreeing with you all along on that exact same point, I was also subtlety getting to the main point, which is there are many words, with more than one definition, and with some words having completely opposite definitions and meanings, like the word 'paradox', so to claim that, especially, one of those opposite meaning words actually means one thing only, like that it has no foundation in the real world, actually has, in its own right, no foundation in the real world.

2a and 2b above, more or less, without changing the actual definition could be described as;
2a A true statement that at first seems self-contradictory.
2b A self-contradictory statement that at first seems true.


The exact same word meaning the exact opposite things.

Just some thing to think about, or just maybe another 'paradox' to dismantle, and/or resolve?

[henry quirk]

"What you call a paradox is not what is always called a paradox"

Paradox

1: a tenet contrary to received opinion

2a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
2b: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
2c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises

3: one (such as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

As I say: I'm goin' by what the dictionary offers (in the thread's context).

What is the thread's context, Resolving Paradoxes, correct?

What you are going of is but just one dictionary alone, and exactly how many dictionaries are there?

You have said not one paradox is real. Yet one of a dictionaries definition of a paradox is; a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. Therefore, a paradox, according to your own given definition, is perhaps real, which contradicts your statement that not one paradox is real.

You have also stated: Every paradox is either a semantic trick or just a thought experiment with no foundation in the real world.

I have provided a paradox, to you, which is based on the 'real world'.

See the issue with claiming that a word actually means some thing, and then basing your statements of that one meaning, is; that one word can some times have two completely opposing definitions, which in a sense is REALLY a 'paradox', especially if we are going to go off of your 2a, and 2b definitions above here.

Now it is not logical to say that not one paradox is real, and/or say, every paradox has no foundation in the real world, especially when even one of the definitions for 'paradox' is; a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement but on further investigation may well prove to be true.

This definition would mean that there could be a paradox that is real, and so there could be a paradox that has foundation in the real world.

Also, what I have found is the usual semantic tricks or just thought experiments with no foundation in the real world are the actually ones that are well known as paradoxes, but really are not paradoxes at all. What those things are, to me, exactly like you say, just semantic tricks or just thought experiments with no foundation in the real world, like, for example; zeno's "paradoxes", the twin "paradoxes, and the other ones.

So, although I was agreeing with you all along on that exact same point, I was also subtlety getting to the main point, which is there are many words, with more than one definition, and with some words having completely opposite definitions and meanings, like the word 'paradox', so to claim that, especially, one of those opposite meaning words actually means one thing only, like that it has no foundation in the real world, actually has, in its own right, no foundation in the real world.

2a and 2b above, more or less, without changing the actual definition could be described as;
2a A true statement that at first seems self-contradictory.
2b A self-contradictory statement that at first seems true.


The exact same word meaning the exact opposite things.

Just some thing to think about, or just maybe another 'paradox' to dismantle, and/or resolve?

*sigh*

[mickthinks]

Er ... that isn't the Liar's paradox.

You are a human, so that's probably a lie.

It isn't even a paradox.

That's what a liar would say.

It's almost certainly true

Why should I believe a liar?

, but in the highly unlikely event that some human turns out to have lived without once telling a lie, it will be false.

How would I know if such a human existed?

Is absence of evidence (of a lie) evidence of an absence (of lying)?

My deductive and inductive reasoning are at odds with each other...

Skepdick, there are certainly gaps in your knowledge as in mine, but gaps aren't paradoxes. It seems that one of the gaps in your knowledge is what "paradox" means.

[Skepdick]

False. This is because young human can not lie.

Children are the biggest liars/manipulators of all humans.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, there are certainly gaps in your knowledge as in mine, but gaps aren't paradoxes. It seems that one of the gaps in your knowledge is what "paradox" means.

Ooooh! We are going to play that stupid language-game. OK.

Let me go right for intellectual rock-bottom.

You don't know what meaning is. So how could you possibly know what anything means?

Deskartes said "I think therefore I am". Every time you use the word 'I', 'me', 'mine' or in any other way use language to refer to yourself - you are doing self-reference. Here is a list of self-referential paradoxes for your convenience.

My favourite one (because the irony of you accusing me of having knowledge-gaps) is the Socratic paradox: all I know is that I know nothing.

So while I have absolutely no idea what knowledge is, I sure know how to use the word. This much I know: self-reference is a form of recursion and "recursion theory" is colloquially known as computability theory. I know a thing or two about computation.

For as long as you keep computing e.g using self-reference in the form of words like "I", "me", "mine" etc. I am going to assume that every word coming out of your mouth is a lie. Why? Because I can and I choose to - for deeply Philosophical bullshit reasons.

What chance do you stand convincing me that you aren't a liar? None! Do you still want to play?