In other words some paradoxes are unsolvable through logic. — TheMadFool

See my option #2--unsolvable through logic and that just means you're wrong and the paradox is wrong somehow.

Give up logic, its laws, and paradoxes vanish. — TheMadFool

Giving up logic is illogical. And that's simply a rabbit hole down which I am not willing to follow you.

But perhaps all this abstract talk would be more fruitful if you gave a specific example of a paradox you think has some merit despite it's apparent logical incongruity.

Also, I'd like to point out that per the definition of a paradox what I said above holds true: either it is only an apparent contradiction, or it is simply not true.

But perhaps all this abstract talk would be more fruitful if you gave a specific example of a paradox you think has some merit despite it's apparent logical incongruity. — NKBJ

I mentioned the liar paradox a modified version of which is used by mathematician Kurt Godel for his incompleteness theorems in math.

Plus there a different kinds of logic out there. I hear that paraconsistent logic accepts contradictions unlike the predicate logic.

So, if you can't question the "status quo" even in principle, how are you questioning the status quo? — Πετροκότσυφας

sld

We can question. Healthy skepticism is part of wisdom and wisdom tells us to question our most cherished beliefs.

What's sld? — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't remember typing that.

How? What's the question? Can the heart, liver, whatever think? No, it can't. — Πετροκότσυφας

How are you so sure? I know ''current'' scientific knowledge has no room for my theory but science is a work in progress right?

I don't mean "merit" as in "it helps us think about x," but as in your claim that "paradoxes can make "sense" even if they are illogical." You don't seem to actually have found a way to make the liar's paradox sensible, just useful--and really it's only usefulness is to show that you can say stupid stuff with language. ;)

So can you tell me a paradox you believe is sensible, or that you think the "heart" can "understand," despite being illogical?

Paraconsistent logic is, simply put, humbug. It tries to make A=~A work, which is just wrong.

I know ''current'' scientific knowledge has no room for my theory but science is a work in progress right? — TheMadFool

Mayhaps, but you should base your arguments on what you can most reasonably assume to be true. Your best bet is to go with what established science does say and not what you wish it might say someday in the distant future.

What's the theory? What's something that points to it and against our current understanding? — Πετροκότσυφας

Just a hunch. Nothing experimentally suggested or proven. Sorry if that puts you off.

I'm tinkering around with the establishment (science and philosophy specifically). Testing the forum knowledge base for anything that may either encourage me or close down my shop.

I'm very skeptical of the system, especially when it becomes dogma and science is approaching that threshold where I begin to question it.

That's all.

Well, if nonsense can be useful I don't know what else can ''prove'' there's something interesting about the illogical.

There must be some value in nonsense. It shocks the brain into exploring different dimensions.

No, neurons don't think. Here's a thought experiment to establish that.

Brain A in Human A. Brain A is in state S in 2018. Human A is wondering where his phone charger is.

Brain B in Human B. Brain B is in exact same state S in 1967 - every neuron, every chemical reaction identical. Human B is not wondering where his phone charger is.

BBC

Nice ''proof'' but they are thinking, just of different things.

Yes, that's right. Same neuron-state, different thoughts. Therefore neuron-state does not equal thought.

Yes, that's right. Same neuron-state, different thoughts. Therefore neuron-state does not equal thought. — Cuthbert

Isn't that like saying two cars of the same make aren't identical just because they're going in different directions?

Some differences are relevant, others not so.

I'm not so sure that the "establishment" shares my anti-mereological stance and not the mereological one you seem to espouse. It's pretty common to read about the brain (or other parts of you) doing all kinds of stuff. Something relevant (if you need help to read the paper, pm me). — Πετροκότσυφας

Thanks.

No. It's saying that it cannot be the case that A equals B and that A equals C and that B does not equal C. 'A' is a brain state and 'B' and 'C' are thoughts.

There must be some value in nonsense. It shocks the brain into exploring different dimensions. — TheMadFool

Yes, well, I've already agreed to that. But that's very different from making sense out of nonsense, or understanding nonsense.

You seem to be avoiding defending your original claim: that the heart, or non-logical part of the mind, could "understand" something about paradoxes. You haven't yet explained an example of that.

Making use of the lessons from dealing with paradoxes is something the rational mind does. But that doesn't involve making sense out of the paradox per se.

You seem to be avoiding defending your original claim: that the heart, or non-logical part of the mind, could "understand" something about paradoxes. You haven't yet explained an example of that. — NKBJ

I wish I could explain it. Let me show you a different side of logic.

Paradoxes are places where logic breaks down. I've seen two types of logical paradoxes:

1. Physical world itself e.g wave-particle nature of light. This type of paradox must be accepted. It can't be otherwise.

2. Part of the system itself e.g. the liar paradox. These can be set aside by modifying definition and the rules

So, you see, even iur rational side must accept some paradoxes let alone our nonlogical side.

So, you see, even iur rational side must accept some paradoxes let alone our nonlogical side. — TheMadFool

Must I though? Must I? Clearly not, because mine hasn't as of yet :lol: In part, I'm just not finding your arguments or your examples very convincing.

Re: #1: Wave-particle duality is a phenomenon that has not yet been fully researched. Sure it challenges our current concepts of waves and particles, but that doesn't mean it's an actual paradox. It just seems paradoxical, because we have more to learn about how things work.

Re: #2: I'll reiterate--it's NOT a real paradox either. It's just word play. You can say all sorts of gibberish with language, but that doesn't make it an actual paradox.

Follow up from the previous BBC post I mentioned regarding the heart's role in how we relate to the world:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180423-how-a-s

Brain B in Human B. Brain B is in exact same state S in 1967 - every neuron, every chemical reaction identical Brain B in Human B. Brain B is in exact same state S in 1967 - every neuron, every chemical reaction identical. Human B is not wondering where his phone charger is. — Cuthbert

why not though? You can imagine both these brains and humans being in 2160. Why wouldn't they both still be thinking of phone chargers?

In Aristotelian metaphysics, The heart was originally the ultimate thinking organ. When you hear: "I know if off by heart." They are referring to cognitive faculties in the heart. Sociologically, these ascriptions never entirely went away. Aristotle's ultimate organ where sensory perception is binded together might be considered the original binding problem.

Can the heart think? — TheMadFool

Probably not, but some heart transplant recipients have claimed gaining new memories. I'm not sure if that is given any credence at all though. There are 40,000 neurons in the heart but I'm not sure if they have any relation to thinking, like at all. (Searle didn't think so in one of his lectures).