Thank you for posting this!

Thanks for the video. Much appreciated. 2 cents: Language, like reality, occurs at multiple levels. The different individual word meanings and the whole sentence meaning are occurring at different levels. Although the paradoxical statement/proposition is both false and true, the individual words cannot be both meaningful and consistent/coherent. And some words, "indexicals," occur levels more abstract than object language. Please see Chapter 3 & 4 of the book Communication Uncovered.

@broquestwarsneeder7617

5 жыл бұрын

awesome to see you here on this video, even if you were here 5 years ago. Hope you and yours are doing well, Corey, I still return to re-watch your wonderful videos as I get older and (hopefully) wiser.

Hey Corey, I'd love for you to pick up Beyond the Limits of Thought or Doubt Truth to be A Liar and give it a review. Hope you're well.

If something is true, that means it is not false. These mean the something, so its nonsensical to say something can be fully true and false at the same time. If it is true it by definition cannot be false.

@MindForgedManacle

7 жыл бұрын

Boaz Awunde Dicks: The whole point of bringing up paradoxes like the Liar's Paradox or Russell’s Paradox is that it's not incontestable that a proposition can be both true and false at the same time.

@MrWaterlionmonkey

7 жыл бұрын

that doesn't make sense. If its false that means it isn't true. That is the definition of false. How on earth can anything be false and true at the same time? False means not true and true means not false, how can a statement be false and not false or true and not true? Its as absurd as saying I have shape, but I have no shape or I have eyes, but no eyes. This is what I don't think you're getting here. Either use other words or realise you are stating something that cannot even be comprehended.

@thejackanapes5866

7 жыл бұрын

Boaz Agreed. Dialetheism and paraconsistent logics are sophistry. Entertaning! But essentially pointless, and we cannot use them to survive our environment. One doesn't consider whether or not a bus moving toward one while crossing the street is both a bus and not a bus at the same time and in the same way. Liar's paradox is a syntax error, nothing more. If a proposition and its negation can both be true at the same time and in the same way then the only useful thing we can say is that first order logic is a filter on chaos.

I don't think a contradiction can possibly exist in nature. My reasoning is not explosion, although if a contradiction can exist then it could be the case that i am and am not a frog and I am and I am not on the moon and I wouldn't be able to that I am a contradiction. The reason I say a contradiction cannot be the case is by actually analysing what an object or concept is. If I make the statement that I exist, what does this mean? It means I exist, but it also means there is no absence of me. These mean the same thing. Or if I say a chair exists that is the same as saying there is no absence of a chair. For me to claim there is a chair and an absence of a chair doesn't make sense. It there is a chair there is no absence of a chair by definition and if there is an absence of a chair there is no chair by definition. My belief that there is and is not a chair cannot possibly be visualised and cannot possibly be the case.

This was pretty good, but Julia needs to do her homework before conducting this type of interview.

@disturbedfreak123

8 жыл бұрын

+ecosophy32 She did horribly. She just spreads confusion.

@ecosophy32

8 жыл бұрын

Indeed. But Massimo did a good job and Graham was great as well.

@Autodisciple

8 жыл бұрын

+ecosophy32 She was a bit emotionally skeptical (like we all are a litlle) but I think she choosed that role as it was needed for the debate. And I enjoyed hearing Graham answering these common arguments against his idea.

@avecus

7 жыл бұрын

I perceive they got a bit aggressive. Lacked conversational luck, but nevertheless it had good insights.

@fluxpistol3608

5 жыл бұрын

Every good narrative has a necessary idiot so someone has to unpack & explain the details so it’s fine

"Paradox is the passion of philosophy." -Gilles Deleuze

@MontyCantsin5

9 ай бұрын

‘’I believe that truth has only one face: that of a violent contradiction.’’ - G. Bataille.

I am a dialetheist.

@peteconcept6764

7 жыл бұрын

I'm neither.

@SilentAtheistt

7 жыл бұрын

I am a dialetheist and a non-dialetheist.

@thisismyname9569

7 жыл бұрын

SilentAtheistt - I'm neither a dialethist nor a non-dialethist.

(1) (2) is true (2) (1) is false This particular paradox comes about because of a misunderstanding of the nature of truth values. A propositions can only be true or false if there exists a correspondence relation between the subject term and the predicate term. For example, the proposition “John is a mailman.” can only be true or false if the subject “John” is or is not in fact “a mailman”. In other words, either the subject and predicate terms are identical (the verb “is/are” signifying the relation of identity) or they are not, there being no intermediate alternative. If the subject and predicate are identical, then the proposition is true, otherwise, it is false. Since each of the given sentences takes the truth value of the other sentence as its subject term, and given that neither sentence contains a subject and predicate between which a truth correspondence might possibly hold, both sentences are rendered unintelligible. However, if either sentence was altered so that it were true or false, the other sentence would also become intelligible.

@eventhorizon844

8 жыл бұрын

There is no such thing as truth. Truth is your opinion. Truth is your interpretation of what you believe to be true.

@Oners82

7 жыл бұрын

+Event Horizon Not only is your comment incredibly stupid due to the self contradiction that it contains (truth does not exist and yet does exist as opinion), but it is also rather stupid because if we take the second part of your statement to represent what you actually mean then all you are doing is equating truth with belief, which is utterly ridiculous. The result is that contradictory statements can both be true, which is an impossibility.

@russellgehue5084

7 жыл бұрын

If the truth value of a proposition is contingent upon whether or not that which is predicated (asserted or denied) of some state of affairs (the subject term) corresponds with some independently existing past, present or future state of affairs (the correspondent), then we cannot predicate a truth value to any proposition that lacks such a correspondent. Neither can we take the truth value of any proposition that's subject term lacks an independently existing correspondent to be the subject of another proposition, for the same reason. Since the subject term in each of the sentences in question is the truth value of the opposing sentence, and given that neither subject term has an independently existing correspondent, we cannot predicate a truth value of either one. In fact, if we define a 'proposition' as: 'an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false', then neither of the sentences in question, either on its own or in unison, qualifies as a proposition.

@russellgehue5084

7 жыл бұрын

By the term 'correspondent', I mean that independently existing past, present or future state of affairs which the subject term of the proposition is purported to denote, and with which the predicate term of the proposition may or may not correspond. In asserting or denying the truth of a proposition, it is implied that it is the 'truth value' of the proposition that the subject term denotes; just as it is implicit in the proposition 'x is too small' that it is the 'size of x' that is the subject to which the predicate 'too small' must correspond.

@MindForgedManacle

7 жыл бұрын

Russell Gehue: This is a dubious "solution" to that version of the paradox. You say to be true there has to be a correspondence between the subject and predicate. But then you admit that the Cyclical Liar Paradox has a subject & predicate. However, your critique just asserts that the 2 sentences don't have a subject & predicate by which they could have a truth-value. So you're either contradicting yourself in saying that the sentences don't have a subject and predicate (they do) or you're just asserting the Law of non-contradiction, which is the very principle under dispute. I mean, the following has the same structure as the Cyclical Liar, and yet there doesn't seem to be a defect in it: 1) #2 is true 2) #1 is true There is no paradox here, but it's not a pair that we can do much with since the truth-values referenced underdetermine the resulting truth-values. So if the pair of sentences I presented can be given a truth-value, then your analysis of the Cyclical Liar doesn't seem to hold.

Concerning the liar paradox, since it is implicit in every assertive statement that the statement itself is true, any statement that explicitly asserts itself to be false violates the law of noncontradiction and renders itself unintelligible. As contradictory statement communicates nothing at all and so true or falsity do not apply.

@MindForgedManacle

7 жыл бұрын

Russell Gehue: That's ridiculous and untrue. For one, all contradictions are false, so your claim that truth and falsity "do not apply" is simply false. Secondly, relying on Prior's solution isn't very compelling. Prior thought that the Liars were simply the assertion of a contradiction, but they aren't, so his purported solution fails. The Liar asserts the falsity of itself, which entails it is also true. That's not the assertion of a contradiction, that's a derivation of a contradiction by valid inference rules.

Logic +Honesty =Truth or am I talking Bolikes? Discuss

You can't agree on reality so you wanna agree on non reality absoluty

@sauronfupoc7484

5 жыл бұрын

?

Didn't Bertrand Russell address this when he was sealing with "the set of all sets"? You make paradoxes like these illegal, and instead force a higher level/view in order to escape these paradoxes. Instead, we have Graham Priest's idiocy. Good job, Philosophy, GOING BACKWARDS!

@Weewokk

7 жыл бұрын

Most of Russell's life's work in logic was destroyed by Gödel and, later on, Wittgenstein. I don't think it's fair to say Priest is "going backwards" purely in virtue of the the fact that his work is, on some level, inconsistent with a body of work which has itself been shown to be faulty.

@jamespower5165

Жыл бұрын

@@Weewokk Quite ridiculous. And Russell worked with Wittgenstein mostly. This idea that they were at cross purposes is a silly idea that has developed recently

@jamespower5165

Жыл бұрын

The trouble is that we don't have a way of prohibiting bad predicates grammatically. We only identify them one by one. Wittgenstein was very concerned with the lack of a type grammar that prohibited bad predicates automatically

@Weewokk

Жыл бұрын

@@jamespower5165 Just because two people work together, it doesn't mean they can't refute each other's work in the future. I also didn't mean to imply they were at cross-purposes - refuting each other is part of the project of philosophy. Perhaps my use of the word "destroyed" was a little hyperbolic but it was over 5 years ago when I wrote that comment.

@jamespower5165

Жыл бұрын

@@Weewokk Fair enough. But I don't think Russell particularly disagreed with Wittgenstein’s specific objections to some of his earlier work, especially Theory of Knowledge. In fact, that was, though disspiriting at the time, a stimulus to his later work. And Wittgenstein’s objections to the Principia was that it was incomplete(One objection that repeatedly came up was the lack of a type grammar that ruled out bad predicates formally) But Wittgenstein’s work is reflected in the development of Russell's later philosophical work, especially in Human Knowledge. And Wittgenstein always sent Russell a copy of whatever he was doing at a given moment. So the idea that has taken root in popular culture about a schism between them was of course false