tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post7017787709561880177..comments2017-03-01T01:45:37.485+00:00Comments on Philosophical Thoughts: Can consciousness be causally inefficacious?Ian Wardellnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-81790751233657207362016-06-22T08:48:00.243+01:002016-06-22T08:48:00.243+01:00(Part 2/2)
A paradoxical statement is one with the...(Part 2/2)<br />A paradoxical statement is one with the property that the assumption that it is true will lead to the conclusion it is not true; and the assumption it is false will lead to the conclusion it is not false. In a way, a paradoxical statement is neither true nor false.<br />--<br />A doubtful statement is one with the property that either assumption, whether it is true or false, does not lead to a contradiction. In a way, a doubtful statement is both true and false. (It feels like we have not enough evidence to decide the matter.)<br />--<br />As a result, consider that there are more than two truth-values (besides 0 for false and 1 for true; -1 for paradoxical and 2 for doubtful). Regardless of the interpretation of the different truth value, 0 can be interpreted as totally uncertain, and 1 can be interpreted as totally certain. Now, in fact, we are not always totally uncertain or totally certain about our conclusions. The reason is that during our thought process, we sometimes make (unconscious) assumptions about the reality we are trying to interpret, that haven't been verified, or aren't unchangeable. I contend that it is wise to doubt whether you are certain about your conclusion. In that case you include the option of learning about (hidden) assumptions, (lacking) definitions, (faulty) logic, etc.<br />--<br />"This statement is false," is paradoxical.<br /><br />"This statement is true," is doubtful.<br /><br />"This statement is paradoxical," is false. It certainly can't be true, because then, being paradoxical, it would lead to a contradiction, precluding it to be true. But the assumption that it is false means that it is not paradoxical, which is indeed the case when it is false. Hence, if false, it is not paradoxical and will not lead to a contradiction. Since this assumption, that it is false, does not lead to a contradiction, it is indeed false.<br /><br />"This statement is doubtful," is false. It can't be true, since doubtful is a different truth value than true, so the assumption that it is true will lead to the conclusion it isn't. The assumption that it is false tells us that it is in fact not doubtful; indeed, if it is false it isn't doubtful (since assuming that it is false doesn't lead to a contradiction, but the assumption that it is true does lead to a contradiction, it shows that it isn't doubtful). <br /><br />"This sentence has two truth-values: x and y," (where x, y in {-1, 0, 1, 2}) is false whenever x <> y.<br /><br />"This sentence is false or paradoxical," is ??? I believe it is neither true, nor false, nor doubtful, nor paradoxical. What now?<br />Of course, the assumption that there are only 4 truth values must also be flawed! If the assumption/conclusion that a statement is paradoxical leads to a contradiction, then it the statement is called hyperparadoxical! There seems to be no end to the number of truthvalues we need in order to cover all possible statements. So, there are hyper--hyper-paradoxical statements for any positive integer n! I haven't investigated the hyper-doubtful ones . . . <br />--<br />Enjoy your day,<br />Cuccuchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16261087995269274220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-51613625001306055442016-06-22T08:46:54.354+01:002016-06-22T08:46:54.354+01:00(Part 1/2)
I like your article; I read it because ...(Part 1/2)<br />I like your article; I read it because I am interested in arguments for or against free will.<br />--<br />The concept of causal (in)efficacy. I respond here, because I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion in the last paragraph. It seems to me that even if we may have some basis to trust our conclusions are true, it is not true that we can be totally certain that our conclusions are right, for the simple reason that we don't know that our premises are true, or that our reasoning has no flaws. We can practice, perhaps, to avoid reasoning errors (fallacies), and gain more and more trust in the truth of our premises, but how certain can we be, if it is our own mind that ultimately decides upon the truth of the statements it uses? If our mind operates (partly) unconsciously, it may slip in some mistakes here and there, in the same way that a chess master may make a mistake and lose a won position!<br />--<br />In this context, the term "true conclusion" or "false conclusion" is not well-defined. Truth and falsehood are wobbly concepts, as I have found during my research. In fact, I believe that the scientific paradigm commits the fallacy of the False Dilemma by assuming that any (scientific) statement must either be true or false. In the course of time, I have found some evidence that there do exist scientific statements that are neither true nor false. I tend to call them paradoxical or doubtful.cuchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16261087995269274220noreply@blogger.com