'It's raining but I believe that it is not raining'.
This is the paradox that my teacher presented me and it basically deals with assertion and belief. If you know it is raining, then how can you believe it isn't. What do you think of it? Can it be possible to know P but not believe in it?
That stills proves that it is a paradox. The prisoner example is a paradox. It was a surprise to the prisoner because he expected it not to occur but because it wouldn't be a surprise if it was on Friday, Thursday, or Wednesday, then the prisoner deduced it wouldn't occur. Since the prisoner didn't expect it to occur, it was a surprise. It was a surprise because he believe that it wouldn't occur because it wouldn't be a surprise if it happened that week at all. But since he was executed when he was did not believe it would occur, it was a surprise.
THEREFORE, it is a paradox. It goes in circles. Just like any paradox. Of course there are different types of paradoxes.
You could argue semantics on this, or what 'reality' is, or Universal Law.
Semantics:
-Bacisally, argue what 'rain' is, and that your definition of 'rain' differs from what is the commonly accepted definition of 'rain'. For example, flip the definitions of 'sunny' and 'rain', so that it is NOT raining, but it IS sunny.
Reality:
-Reality is how you percieve what is going on around you. Reality is differenct for everybody, has everybody percieves the world in differen't ways. Under the argument:
'What I percieve is based on what I believe, And if I believe that It is not raining, than it is my perception that it is not raining, and therefore, in my reality, it is not raining.'
Universal Law:
-Either it IS raining, or it IS NOT raining. One of these actions is occuring at any given time. Under the argument that 'My reality is my perception', and I believe that it is not raining, than it is obviously NOT raining. As one of these actions must be occuring, and they cannot contradict eachother, and I believe that it is not raining, then it MUST NOT be raining.
-Bacisally, argue what 'rain' is, and that your definition of 'rain' differs from what is the commonly accepted definition of 'rain'. For example, flip the definitions of 'sunny' and 'rain', so that it is NOT raining, but it IS sunny.
Reality:
-Reality is how you percieve what is going on around you. Reality is differenct for everybody, has everybody percieves the world in differen't ways. Under the argument:
'What I percieve is based on what I believe, And if I believe that It is not raining, than it is my perception that it is not raining, and therefore, in my reality, it is not raining.'
Universal Law:
-Either it IS raining, or it IS NOT raining. One of these actions is occuring at any given time. Under the argument that 'My reality is my perception', and I believe that it is not raining, than it is obviously NOT raining. As one of these actions must be occuring, and they cannot contradict eachother, and I believe that it is not raining, then it MUST NOT be raining.
There is no semantics to it. It is not how you define rain.
I want you people to prove that it is possible to know that 4 is x but believe that x isn't 4.
First, belief is independent of knowledge and it is independent of truth. You can believe there is a God even if you know in your heart that there isn't. I am sure that there are people out there who are like this...
Well, I have been thinking of functions. f(x) = 4 but notwhen x is not 4 is not f(x). Same sentence, but if you think of it as a function is makes more sense.
If 4 = f(x) but not when 4 is not a function of x, then it means it is raining only when it is not raining. It makes sense.
It is a solution, but it doesn't cover it entirely, as it creates another paradox. How can it rain when it doesn't rain?
Bah. It seems fine in my head, but when I write it down, it just goes to point C not B.
This isn't quite the paradox. We aren't talking about knowledge, but merely belief. The paradox is the apparent absurdity of asserting something and not believing it even though these two things are (supposedly) logically compatible. The problem with discussing the paradox is that since Moore's time, there have been many advancements in our notion of belief. The Assertion View, for example, would generate an outright contradiction in Moore's scenario. The logic Wittgenstein develop in the Tractatus, I think, offers a very reasonable escape from the problem. Without getting too deep, Witt's basic idea was that these two statements can't be captured by the same logical system. The assertion is simply a statement about the world, but belief is an attitude toward that proposition. You can't analyze a picture of the world and the statement using the same logical operators.
In the book 1984, there is this principle of doublethink that is pretty much the same thing (read it for English). I think you have to be pretty ignorant to actually have this happen or, in some cases, so paranoid or emotional that you sub consciously convince yourself that something is not happening.
I think you have to be pretty ignorant to actually have this happen or, in some cases, so paranoid or emotional that you sub consciously convince yourself that something is not happening.
[quote]I think you have to be pretty ignorant to actually have this happen or, in some cases, so paranoid or emotional that you sub consciously convince yourself that something is not happening.
Since we're talking 1984, ignorance is strength.[/quote]
Pwn'd.
Its an interesting idea though. If I could change my perception of what was actually happening, then who knows what the ramifications of this could be?
And people convince themselves that something doesn't happen quite often. It most commonly occurs in high-stress situations, and is how the body deals with it buy forcing the brain to believe something else. It also happens when someone believes something so vervently, there mind plays tricks inorder to make it appear that it actually happens. (EX: I believe that my clock is hanging upside down, so my mind leads me to believe that it is, even when it isn't)
