Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3025 talk.philosophy.misc:1793
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ukma!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fun with the semantics of paradox
Message-ID: <1975@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>
Date: 8 Jan 89 15:15:39 GMT
References: <551@soleil.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 17

In article <551@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes:
>When you view the meaning of a paradox, your brain is on a razor's edge.
>Depending on what side you fall, the paradox is decidedly true or false.
>Example:  This statement is false.
>
On the contrary, when presented with a paradox, one's mind tends to first
call it true, then false, then true, then false as one considers it
over and over.  It is not resolvable.

A good analogy is an optical illusion.  When one looks at say, the classical
optical illusion that can look like a vase or a couple kissing, one usually
finds one's interpretation slowly oscillating between the two possibilities.
We don't know exactly what is going on at the micro level, but it is likely
that the intermediate level brain networks responsible for segmenting images
are passing up interpretations which then are conciously perceived and
accepted or rejected.  It is a very interesting question, but certainly
can be duplicated by artificial image processing systems.