I always struggle what to write about: Should I write practical advice that works for me or should I write about the underlying theory or philosophy?
And I think it is becoming clear to me that there is no point in giving practical advice if nobody will use it. If you don’t know why it works you won’t make a habit of using it. Also when you understand the underlying process you will find the solution to any problem yourself. Like I could give a lot of programming tips or I could give more general advice, like tell you to meditate. But will you do it? Will you believe that meditation is the single most powerful thing you can ever do?
This is not easily processed by a rational mind, and if you try to reason it, you won’t do it. How can meditation or not-thinking actually solve anything? Impossible!
It’s fun for me to try to explain this. Zen monks also tried to do this for ages. They used koans for example as a tool to show, to experience the understanding. Let’s continue this tradition.
I made up a koan for you to solve. It is a Gödel-like ridde. I challenge you to answer this riddle correctly:
There is a game set for you with a prize to be won. The game rules are:
If you say a TRUE sentence you get the prize (which is let’s say 10,000$ cash).
If you say a FALSE sentence then you lose.
So it is enough to say for example a true sentence like “2+2 is equal 4″ and win the prize. (it’s also enough to say a false sentence like “I’m handsome” to lose:).
Now you see it is simple to win the prize, so this is not the challenge, I assume you aren’t retarded. We’re not actually playing this game, the riddle is as following:
Suppose that you say “I won’t win the prize”. Will you win or not?
Yes, I will win the prize, but I won’t win the prize, because I said the wrong answer, which is the right answer. That’s why I won’t win the prize, but I win the prize, because I said the right answer, which is the wrong answer.
I would win, because at first, I said the wrong answer, but to win the prize’s rule was to “say a true sentence”, so at the end, I would win.
*******but to win the prize, the rule was to “say a true sentence”
i would loss but win because if i lost then i would win because i said i would loss so i win because that sentance is right
but then i would loss because i won. lets just say that riddle is retoricle
You don’t get the prize, DESPITE THAT you win.
On the topic of meditation: Did Bill Gates meditate? Did Rockefeller meditate? Did the 10 richest men in the world meditate?
To be honest I’m pretty sure I’d enjoy sitting and doing nothing. In fact that being meditation, I do meditate most of the time, when not working or drinking, or pretending to study. Work doesn’t get done from sitting on your arse and breathing. In fact, nothing gets done that way and if I had the choice I’d spend that time running or playing Soldat. I see no benefits from meditation. Just as I laugh at those thinking they’re talking to God, I see no benefit in sitting and meditating. Enlighten me if you will.
Also, I don’t know what kind of stuff you’re usually smoking, but I am willing to try it out.
This is just simple self-referencing, you can’t determine whether that sentence is right or wrong. Therefore that sentence is not an allowed sentence for that riddle. The riddle dictates that if you say a true sentence you win, if you say a false sentence you lose. If you say a sentence that isn’t true nor is it false, nothing happens, because the riddle does not apply to those sentences.
You could also say “This sentence is not true.” If its true, its not, if its wrong, its true. Or “I never tell the truth.”
A more interesting approach is this:
“The next sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.”
To see whether a sentence is true or false you need another sentence. But if they are contradictory, it leads to a paradox.
This is something to avoid when using logical statements. It is the same principle as avoiding endless loops without a breaking condition in programming languages.
Something funny I once encountered about self-referencing was when I read the play “The visit” by Dürrenmatt (its a famous german play).
In the glossary of that play where some of the terms used in the play are explained there were these entries:
Critic: (see X)
U: (see Critic)
X: (see U)
A funny way to cope with critics by Dürrenmatt ^^
Another funny paradox sentence I found in the internet after searching for self-referencing:
“This sentence no verb.” It refers to itself as a sentence but does not have a verb, which it also somehow states. It avoids the verb so that it is true, but therefore it isn’t a sentence, but it refers to itself as sentence…
the cake is a lie..
This is just a random try to be different
The sentence “I won’t win the prize” is not true or false because the event has not happened yet and therefore option is true, you don’t win th prize and therefore you lose.
If this is like a quantum machine then both options are possible because both can occur. It could also be that if it switches rapidly between the two the universe/time/etc sees it as two options at the same time. So both options are chosen in parallel (Universe split?) but because you said “I won’t win the prize” you land up where the option results in you not getting the prize.
It could also be that because you said you won’t get it, you won’t because that is what you want (psychological effect).
So basically if you look at it in any of those ways, you lose.
I 404’d.
You pessimistic bastard.
“This is not easily processed by a rational mind, and if you try to reason it, you won’t do it. How can meditation or not-thinking actually solve anything? Impossible!”
Not really. Preconceptions over what is possible only hinder your search for a correct answer.
In fact, the usefulness of meditation has been scientifically documented. See
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625193240.htm
“If you say a TRUE sentence you get the prize (which is let’s say 10,000$ cash).
If you say a FALSE sentence then you lose.
Suppose that you say “I won’t win the prize”. Will you win or not”
Again, truth is a 1:1 correspondence to physical reality. Your sentence is judged as true or not at the moment you finish speaking it. Since your statement does not correspond to any physical reality at the time of judging it’s validity (it’s just an assumption over a possible physical reality) your statement is false. You will not get the prize.
Mind you, the initial requirement for winning is that you make a statement that IS true, at the time you speak the sentence, not that will eventually come true or not.
And yes, the lady in the picture of the article I linked to is hot. (Shameless hook to get you to jump through the link)
Don’t overcomplicate this guys, it is just a riddle :). Maybe the answer will pop into you when you least expect it.
On the topic of meditation: Did Bill Gates meditate?
How do you know he doesn’t? First you must know what meditation is. Sitting silently in a room is just a technique for it.
I wish I knew how to meditate properly. Sometimes I think to much and confuse myself.
I think that you would not win, because the sentence isn’t true, but you wouldn’t lose because the sentence isn’t false.
If this is this entire philosophy thing then what does it matter cause from that aspect you would accept the prize even if you did win it. If you didn’t you wouldn’t change your view about yourself or anyone. So the question doesn’t really matter. It’s a riddle on would you take the prize or leave it not would you win or not.
@archont: Did the ten richest men meditate?? LoL. THis isnt about money. I dont know about you, but my happiness is not measurable in money. So if I can chill at the computer and do nothing except thing about stuff, that for me is an achievement and it makes me feel good. I dont have to have millions of dollars to be able to say “my life was a good life”.
@riddle: Like in programming, a boolean number can be only true(1) or false(0). I’m not sure about this, but I think it is first being checked if it is true. If yes, then it gets the value 1. If not, it gets the value 0. There is nothing in between. SO everything that is not immediately true is automatically false.
Therefore, the sentece “I will not win” is not true at the moment of speaking (even though it might be later, but that doesnt count), so it gets the value “false”. Therefore you would lose the prize when saying that. No matter if AFTER losing the prize the sentence becomes true. That is already out of count.
In today’s world if one would have to find a value to measure one’s success, what other value would he choose? The endorphin hormone level in the brain? Length of life? Shoe size? Blinks per minute?
Money, capital. It’s a fact. Today the answer to the moral dillema “be or have” is have, or if you prefer be through having. Money is separates the sick and homeless from the people who have everything. Success is money. Anything that leads to money leads to success and is thus beneficial. Meditation hardly leads that way.
“Meditation hardly leads that way.”
To the contrary, meditating increases focus and hence problem solving capacity (you should follow my earlier link). This can lead to better ideas, insight and so on which you can apply for monetary gain. If that’s what you want. You can be contempt with having enough money to maintain your health and ability to contemplate.
And what if you say “I will win the prize”. Will you win or not? If yes, why? If no, why?
Haha, I’m really not judging you here archont, dont get me wrong, but it is reaööy not every man’s opinion. Of course I like money also. Everybody does. Because money equals success. But success does not equal money. You can be successfull in having a good family, in being healthy, in having good neighbours/friends/social contacts, in having a good job that you enjoy doing and so on. You can be well successfull and content with your life with just a average home and average food. Big shiny cars and bling bling are just temporary joys. And I dont think you will disagree if I say, no matter how expensive a thing (let’s take for example an iPod): You will be so anxious to have it, but after it’s yours, maybe over a couple of days or weeks, you’ll just treat it like an average thing. Check out some of Aristoteles themes on Eudaimonia (happiness). He explains these things more precisely than I can in these mere posts. I think it’s really worth reading.
@Daniel: That sentence is also stamped as false at the time at which the question is asked, simply because it is not true. “I will win the prize” cannot be accepted as “true”, because it is uncertain at that moment. And, as I said, everything that is not true in that exact moment is false. So you wouldnt win the money.
Yo Cosmin, great minds think alike 😉
You are wrong, Cosmin. If something is uncertain at the moment it cannot be false. In other case if I said “I will be in London tommorow” I would lie.
In some programming languages if program don’t know yet if the sentence is true or false it returns “undefined”. And I think this is the answer. You can’t win or lose until the sentence is true or false. So you neither win nor lose.
undefined = null = 0 = false
Your answers are fun to read:D OK this will maybe piss you off, or not…
————————————————————–
————————————————————–
HERE IS THE ANSWER:
————————————————————–
The people that read the riddle and didn’t respond gave the correct answer.
But silence is also not the answer.
————————————————————–
————————————————————–
lol
SpiltCoffee:
Read about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribool
Michal:
…
I don’t get it
the cake is a lie..
the cake is a lie..
the cak..
Here is another game:
You bet with your friend if he can strike home with his gun in one shot. And you can’t win or lose until he tries it.
It’s similar in this riddle. You can’t win or lose until you win or lose. So you never win and you never lose.
“The people that read the riddle and didn’t respond gave the correct answer.
But silence is also not the answer.”
Then what you proposed was a psychological experiment, not a riddle. We’ve provided the correct reasoning, but you didn’t want that. You wanted to see if we’d respond, not whether we could figure out the logic behind the puzzle.
“Read about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribool”
I think it’s obvious this riddle didn’t refer to a three valued logic. The game’s premise had two inputs : TRUE statement or FALSE statement. If the puzzle had some third rule, that it didn’t mention, about statements that could become real, it’s poorly designed. If you allow this, why not make up other rules as you go, like statements that start off as true now, but turn false later? Arbitrarity is bad riddle design.
“You can’t win or lose until you win or lose”
Those are different rules than the initial riddle. In it, you won or lost after you made a statement.
Were the riddle to have that answer it should include a rule that says “If you make a statement that isn’t true right now, I’ll wait, possibly forever, until it becomes true”
> In it, you won or lost after you made a statement.
Michal hasn’t said anything about it.
Then what you proposed was a psychological experiment, not a riddle. We’ve provided the correct reasoning, but you didn’t want that.
That is more or less true. I’m messing with you a little, but not that much.
Labeling a riddle as something else, calling it “experiment” or “self-referencing” or changing the whole logical system to a different one in which the answer is trivial does not answer the riddle!
Don’t you think that every question in the world can be answered if you do that?
Your riddle was whether you get the prize or not.
Your “correct” answer was that we should read the riddle, think about it, but not respond.
If you’re going to use non sequiturs, at least do it for comic relief. Unless that’s what this is. In which case, bravo.
For me, riddle is the word that describes a question which expects an answer. And you cannot SOLVE a riddle by not saying anything to it or about it. At least there is no such example, not that I know of. Especially in greek mythology, a test-person (take Oedipus or Hercules) is given a certain amount of time (maybe forever or maybe 10 seconds) to answer the riddle. No answer equals no solution equals -in Oedipus situation- no passage to Thebes.
Your “correct” answer was that we should read the riddle, think about it, but not respond.
I wrote also that silence is not the answer.
What you’re proposing is that meditating over the problem IS the answer. To which I say, bullshit.
The riddle has a logical answer whether you acknowledge it or not. Meditating can help you reach it faster, but thinking about a problem and presenting a solution are two distinct notions.
oh shit… your next blog had david hoff in it. David hoof played michal night in a ….. your name is michal too!!!!
rgk is closest to the answer! Hahaha.
What you’re proposing is that meditating over the problem IS the answer. To which I say, bullshit.
No, I did not propose that. That’s not the answer. Nevertheless you should consider the riddle seriously.
The answer has to be yes or no, since you are saying “Will he win or not?”.
So since he wouldn’t win, the answer would be ‘No, he wouldn’t win’.
Either provide a valid reasoning behind your answer or forfeit your position.
“And I think it is becoming clear to me that there is no point in giving practical advice if nobody will use it. If you don’t know why it works you won’t make a habit of using it.”
Some of us would.
[…] you think about a riddle like the one I wrote here or any other like “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” you can notice what […]
Hmmm… Read the riddle, think about it…..Silence is not the answer… The answer is, that this is not a riddle. Getting a prize for saying something that is true, is almost the same as loosing if you lie.. The answer is not material. It’s not 1, or 0. I think its moral. At least…I think it is.
About meditation:
It’s true, that it can help you refresh your mind and concentrate. But. One can only concentrate 100% using the mind, when the body is in link with it 100% . Meditation IS concentration. The main thing is to concentrate on only one thing (simple, but crucial things, like breathing steadily).
One thing, that takes all of your brains focus from everything else, for more than just a few seconds. For whole minutes!
It’s not an easy task to master the proper way of meditation.
RIDDLE:
I don’t know if any of you guys know this, but I have a little riddle.. I loved it in high-school ^^
You are in a house, which has only 2 rooms. In the first room (you are here), there are 3 buttons. In the second room there are 3 light bulbs. The buttons and the lights are connected, one button with one light. Your task is to find out, which (exact) button turns on which (exact) light? But. You can only enter the second room ONCE!!
(for you spy-types, the rooms are separated with a door without a keyhole!)
(for you burglar-types, no! the doorknob cannot be removed!)
Feel free to switch the lights on and off, as many times you want.
—Spoiler—
The only trick to this puzzle is that it requires you to take into account the physical properties of how a light bulb works.
Push button 1 and let it on for 10 minutes. Then turn it off and press button 2.
Enter the second room and mark which light is on (that’s related to switch 2). Touch the other light bulbs to see which is hot. That’s switch 1. The remaining light/ switch is 3.
Oh yeah, I knew that riddle also from high school. Think about thinking out of the box!
“Meditation IS concentration” – meditation is the OPPOSITE of concentration. Watching your breath is just a tool, like a swinging pendulum is a tool to make you hypnotized.
Meditation is the opposite of fixation, and it facilitates concentration. It allows your brain to get rid of all the background noise and work more efficiently.
Well, my riddle sucks. 😀
Although, I asked many people if they knew the answer. 1 out of 5 knew the answer. And they were university and high-school students….
Schools teach us a lot of bullshit. They teach us to learn and study, but not self-correcting thinking. (btw, I live in Hungary, and our country provided some of the worlds greatest thinkers. For example: Samuel Teleki, Jozsef Marek and so on). Above all of that, I still think our school system sucks.
:)MoNkEy(:: yup, every school system in the world sucks because it is built on an evil foundation. Schools teach people how to stop thinking on their own, so they become good members of society, schools are good for the society, not for the individual.
Also they always tell you to learn, but they never tell you HOW to learn! They never tell you how to get things done, I had to learn it by myself and I’m trying to get that through on this blog.
I agree with you. When the soviets invaded our country, they reformed the school system. All they tried to teach were lies (well mostly about history). Than, the soviet union collapsed, the school system was reformed again. The old lies were exchanged to new ones. Now, hundreds of schools are being closed all around the country. Teachers are getting fired, teenage criminals form gangs.
I was a member once… I know whats happening around me, and I feel like I have to do something about it. But this is the biggest riddle of all. How is an individual supposed to change the world he lives in? I started the change on myself. I quit the life of crime, and started working. I studied and worked, worked and studied. But my brain can’t integrate things that I know are lies.
So i didn’t have the chance to finish school.. So i work now, and study for my own amusement. I don’t need a diploma to be successful. I don’t need tons of cash to live a full and happy life. I have a house, a car, and a job. And I’m happy about it.
If you want to change the world around you, change the world within you!
“If you want to change the world around you, change the world within you!”
The world around you doesn’t change because you change your appreciation of it. You can change points of view all you want, but the world around you will remain the same, unless you act on it
If you change the world within you, you will act upon it, thus changing the actual world.
“If you change the world within you, you will act upon it, thus changing the actual world.”
Not necessarily. I might change the world within me to become a recluse. The world will hardly change from my absence. In any case, changing your view of the world doesn’t guarantee you’ll change the world, much less that any change you inflict will be a positive one.
Well, my point in my last post was that if you change yourself to be a better person, you have changed the world from your point of view. You see the world a whole lot different if you think in a different way. I didn’t say to change the world for everyone. If you change it for yourself, thats alredy a big achievement.
I know people who have done some very bad things in their lives. They got punished for it. Oh hell yea! But did they learn from it? In a specific way, yes. They learned new tricks to protect their little businesses. But they still do the same thing they were doing before they got caught. The world didn’t change around them, because they didn’t change anything. They became more foxy, they got to know new people, but nothing else.
“If you change the world for yourself, that’s already a big achievement.”
Your definition of “big achievement” is false, probably due to a lack of statistical variance. Tell me, between the Nobel prize winner who discovered DNA and the man who changed his point of view to be more friendly to other people, who had a “big achievement”?
“The world didn’t change around them, because they didn’t change anything”
Punishment doesn’t lead to change. Only introspection leads to change.
:)MoNkEy(: yeah there is no magic, but changing your view point is a necessary prerequisite for effortless change. If it’s gonna happen that’s the way to do it.
Tell me, between the Nobel prize winner who discovered DNA and the man who changed his point of view to be more friendly to other people, who had a “big achievement”?
The latter one, cause he probably is more happy than the scientist dumbass :D. The guy that discovered DNA was probably miserable cause he spent the remaining years of his life on something that nobody cares about – consciousness theory.
“changing your view point is a necessary prerequisite for effortless change”
The only prerequisite for effortless change is changing your point of view to accommodate a 1:1 correspondence to reality
“The guy that discovered DNA was probably miserable”
I don’t consider happiness an “achievement”. It comes effortlessly if you change your point of view the way I describe above 😛
Awesome thanks!
As to the post itself, I think it would be clearer what you expected (or not) of us to say (or not) if you had named it “A koan”. “A riddle” is a question requiring about rational thought to answer correctly. A koan is a question that can be answered through rational thought, but that in it’s ambivalence is more about circumventing rational thought to facilitate meditation.
Your misnomer is misleading.
Koans should be considered and thought about seriously. If I wouldn’t name it a riddle you would not think about it.
“If I wouldn’t name it a riddle you would not think about it.”
Tomorrow, I will say that claiming to know the future is unwise.
bigbossSNK. What I mean by saying “big achievement”, is from a persons point of view. 1 goddamn person. The DNA was not discovered by ONLY ONE person. He needed a team to be able to realize that it was a DNA in front of his face.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to be ubersmart here, becouse I know I’m not. I’m just practicing my english with this blog thingy, and I like MMs games, and the topics of his blog. So chill out dude, no need to behave like a person who feels the need to prove himself to people without faces over the internet….. Everyone has a different character and opinion. I can live by listening to and/or accepting them. No offense.
Its 0:06 here in Hungary. Why is my post timed at 7:04? Is this site hosted on another continent? Or is there something wrong with the clock? 😛
Its 0:06 here in Hungary. Why is my post timed at 7:04?
Time is an illusion…
“He needed a team to be able to realize that it was a DNA in front of his face.”
Great ideas come from a single person understanding the structure behind reality. Teamwork is good for variance in ideas, not extended quality.
“So chill out dude, no need to behave like a person who feels the need to prove himself to people without faces over the internet….”
Nah, we’re just horsing around. No offense is meant from either part (and hopefully non is taken)
“Time is an illusion…”
Hey, I said that yesterday!
Its 0:06 here in Hungary. Why is my post timed at 7:04?
Time is an illusion…
It’s proof that the matrix exists.
“Time is an illusion…
It’s proof that the matrix exists”
Nah, I already disproved that. 😛
the only true answer is: “A true Sentence”
the assignment: say :”a true sentence”
and if we go out to MM’s part:
I wont win the price?
its first of all stupid to say such a thing, only a smart guy would come up with this kind of sentence. Person thinking of such a stupid answer to such a simple assignment, must be OR really annoying, or just a SMART but plain idiot.
I hit the send button a little bit too fast,
If you actually would say:
I wont win this price,
and if you really are correct, you still win, but dont get the price.
this is one of the 22 solutions i have ;P
just read this:
bigbossSNK Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 9:52 am
“If you change the world within you, you will act upon it, thus changing the actual world.”
Not necessarily. I might change the world within me to become a recluse. The world will hardly change from my absence. In any case, changing your view of the world doesn’t guarantee you’ll change the world, much less that any change you inflict will be a positive one
you do change the world, only that little bit, almost nobody of the world notices it, but , i guess, your parents will tell the difference so you did change the world, but it just aint that much 😀
“If you change the world within you, you will act upon it, thus changing the actual world.”
I think he means your version of the world or “reality tube”. The only you can world as much as anyone else but the effects would not be noticeable to anyone outside it’s line of sight.
It’s like using your toothbrush, u think you’re cleaning your teeth but your spreading it with more dirt.
“It’s like using your toothbrush, u think you’re cleaning your teeth but your spreading it with more dirt.”
you really didnt have to say that
Well, this thread has dissolved into non coherence.
We’ve already addressed the question both as a riddle (and solved it) and as a koan.
Move on, nothing to see here.
you really didnt have to say that
I can say what i want or not, because I can and not what you want.
Yeah that’s the attitude!:)
dude more in the sentence like, “im not cleaning my mouth anymore”
you made me lost my belief in Prodent
“I can say what i want or not, because I can and not what you want.”
We can all say what we want. Like this: You’re only spreading dirt around your mouth if you use a toothpaste made of soil. But today’s toothpastes have cleansing agents that remove dental plaque and make you rinse to spit it out by including active ingredients that make you uncomfortable if you don’t. If you ever used soap, you might understand the principle behind this.
zomg he made it from bad to worse…
MM why the hell would the answer be to be silent?
i get ur answer but still.
there should be a logical reasoning for that.
sofar the only (most far searched) answer is: “the only true answer is: “A true Sentence”
the assignment: say :”a true sentence””
If the statement “I won’t win the prize” is true, it means you are right, and win the prize.
However, you said you wouldn’t win the prize, and therefore, the answer can not be true, since you say you will not get it, but in fact you do.
So the answer is not true.
If the statement instead was false, it means you will win the prize. But you don’t, because you said you wouldn’t win, and that was wrong, so that means you win, even though you lose.
It’s a paradox. But, there is a flaw in your post Michal, and if it is not a flaw, it’s very well hidden from everyone else =D
Now, he said “There is a game set for you with a prize to be won. The game rules are:
If you say a TRUE sentence you get the prize (which is let’s say 10,000$ cash).
If you say a FALSE sentence then you lose.”
This means that you can say the statement “I won’t win the prize” and still get the prize, because you don’t WIN it, you GET it.
=D
This is no riddle. If you set us out to answer your stupid riddle we have to answer because we’re expected to. If everyone was behaving like some moron not doing anything people expect them to do everyday’s life wasn’t working. You’ll never get that though. Keep meditating and post less rubbish please.
Akira: hahah nice I like that answer.
[…] (more…) […]
Have no expectations and I will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams.
I’d rather be a self made man, really.
BMW…
sdfgdsfgdsf gd sfg dsfgdsfgdsfgdfg…
asdfasdf…
dfg sdfg dsfg dsf gsdf gsd g 52435234dfsxvxczv…
light switches should be made from oxygen free copper so that they last longer:~~