logistical logistics :confused:
 

For my English class (AP) we've had the first week of school not english but "Philosophy 101" Basically he would lecture us and talk about philosophies and other such good stuff.

but tell me? what does the following mean?
____________________________________

All sentences below this sentence are true.
The sentence above is false.
____________________________________

He said also that basically there is no common truth? what might be yes to one could be no to the other. :confused:

Couldn't help you with the first one, but the second: sounds along the lines of "there is no fixed morality".

Shorter version:

"I'm lying."

Look at it as an exercise in math:

Assign the statement "All sentences below this sentence are true" a value of 1
Assign "The sentence above is false" a value of -1. 1 + -1 = 0.

They cancel each other out like so:
"If the sentence above is false", that means the original statement is false, thus invalidating the second statement "The sentence above is false" This makes the original statement true again, as well the second statement. One goes around in an endless loop where the sum is always zero.

Tell your teacher that he would make an excellent speech writer for a politician. While there may be no common truth, his little exercise is not proof of this. It is merely fun with semantics.

I've been reading George Carlin's book Napalm and Silly Putty, and several times throughout the book there are a couple of pages between chapters with little "hmmm..." type things, and that lying one is in there.

The concept is called perspective. For example if both sentences have equal weight, then they are direct contradictions. However if both sentences are analyzed serially and repeatedly (ie. like a conventional computer program), then we have an endless loop. If sentences are taken in presidence - each one studied only once (last sentence taking priority), well then, the first sentence was a lie.

This is what politicians do: spin. Propaganda is very dependent on a psychological perspective where humans take the first sentence as fact - no futher proof required. Then we doubt every following sentence that contradicts the first. We take the first sentence without demanding proof and then hold every contradictory and following sentence to excessive demands for proof. George Jr had people believing Weapons of Mass Destruction existed - even when massive and following evidence lead to contradictory conclusions. Some of us simply blindly believed that those alumunim tubes were for making nuclear weaspons and outrightly denied three separate analyses later presented by advanced physics weapons labs. All three labs said those tubes were not appropriate for weapons development. But many only blindly believed the first sentence from the administration. Perspective can be used to create distort truth.

Perspective is why conflicts are so easily created in nieghborhoods or among countries - each side taking a different perspective on the same facts. So much of what is concluded depends on the background and experience of the 'receiver' - the person who must analyze a conclusion. Given bad intelligence (and all intelligence is bad), previous American leaders were able to see the reality. Experience makes one learn that many perspectives exist before blindly coming to an ideological conclusion.

Now we take the original example one step farther. The sentence -
> The sentence above is false.
Using binary logic, then this is also true -
> The sentence above is not true.
However the world is not binary. The world is ternary. That means using the "... not true." sentence, then logic of both sentences is correct and compatible. Together they define the third logic state - undefined. Both sentence are now true because they both define a logic state common to both. This is how spin doctors confuse simply using blunt logic.

George Jr's State of the Union address where he all but blamed Iraqi for causing 11 September attacks is another classic example where the blunt logic is instead distorted by the presentation. Geroge Jr never stated that expressly but he spun his paragraphs together so that one would make erroneous conclusions. Emotion makes it easy to change people's perspective into blood thirsty mongrels. Hitler did same to turn a nation into war mongers. First thing he had to do is attack and destroy the intellectuals would would see the many different prespectives and therefore see Hitler's lies. Indeed, I was absolutely surprised how many Americans bought that 'Saddam attacked the WTC' lie complete with 'hook and sinker'. Presentation is important to manipulate the perspective.

It is a complete myth that Saddam had anything to do with the WTC and Pentagon attacks. But many still are not convinced. Again, how to spin perspective so that even when presented with numerous facts to the contraray, still many believe only the first sentence. It is the psychology of propaganda. Get them to believe something before real facts can be analyzed and presented. That first sentence will be believed even when five following sentences says the first sentence is wrong . Humans so easily distort logic by failing to see all facts in equal perspective.

Perspective can create different conclusions from same facts using two classic techniques. First have the "receiver" conclude based upon the politically correct perspective. The second is to spin two different points together so the the "receiver" assumes both are same. Perspective is often used to make the less rigourous among us 'feel' an incorrect conclusion.

Those two sentence demonstrate how perspective - the background and experience of the "receiver" - is so important to a final conclusion. It is, for example, why Kennedy constantly said to his 'dream team' advisors, "But what does he think? How does he interprete view these same facts?" It is why great leaders must constanly ask questions - to discover the many other perspectives.

Chocolate is the best ice cream flavor. For me that's a true statement. For you it may or may not be true. ;)

False! Non-diet, non-lowfat French Vanilla, hands DOWN.

Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia. For experimental proof: it never lasts more than 24 hours in the house.

Your English class sounds an interesting way to spend some school time

Good stuff, but just about anything from Edy's is good too!
:D

*and soooo bad for me too!*

The maginificence of Moose Tracks is superceded only by Chocolate Moose Tracks.

Edy's vanilla ice cream
Milk
Chocolate Syrup
Amaretto
Blender

Combine the above in amounts to be determined after much, much more experimentation on my part in order to sip heaven.

I rest my case. :D

I assumed the last statement to be correct. Does that make my logic blunt?

Look at the man wrongly accused of rape. That accusation - although he is later found innocent - will tarnish his reputation for life. People are wantonly gullible and then wildly suspicious of any contradiction. The Salem witch trials spring to mind. And this is particularly relevant to my industry: advertising. If you tell people a product is desirable, they will continue to believe it even after world-scale conflicts (Nestle, Nike), the threat of poor health (McDonalds, Coca Cola), even death (Marlboro - 1 in 2 smokers contract or die of lung cancer). One way to override 1st statement dominance is to gradually dissemble belief. For example:

An irresolvable argument:
Person A: Peas are blue. I am not lying.
Person B: Peas are green. Person A is lying.

A more effective argument:
Person A: Peas are blue. I am not lying.
Person B: Person A cheated on his wife last year. He was imprisoned for deception four years ago. He has just been released from a secure house treating him for clinical insanity. Peas contain chlorofil. A report shows peas to have the DNA coding responsible for green pigmentation. If you hold a pea up to an Oak leaf, it is the same colour. 5.9 billion people believe peas to be green. Peas are green.

But this doesn't always work. People will still hold onto the first statement, even as a glimmer of doubt in their memory. By far the best way to counteract the 1st statement rule is to emphasise it to the point of ridicule. For example, Bush/Blair's insistence that there were WMD right until the last minute made a parody of their argument. Things have a way of correcting themselves, and if you leave a liar to it, they will often end up despite all manner of tricks to be the one who reveals themselves.