Re: Mixtapes (or We Always End Where We Began) by philn	9-Apr-05/7:24 AM
Mix tapes are pathetic. When you make a mix tape, you think, "How eclectic she'll think my tastes are!" You think juxtaposing a "beautiful acoustic guitar song" with a "hard rock" song is deeply meaningful.
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	7-Apr-05/7:38 AM
But what if God's plan is "to provide a strong leader if, and only if, X number of people pray for a strong leader"? In praying for a strong leader, you can influence the outcome of God's actions, but have you really changed his will? His will was always to provide the leader provided enough people prayed for it.
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	6-Apr-05/3:28 AM
Look you started this discussion saying that both me and zodiac were wrong. I can't vouch for zodiac, but when I pointed out to you that your notion of asking and only receiving if God wanted you to receive is different from "Ask and ye shall receive." This was my point all along, and you completely ignored it. And I disagree with you about Jesus's prayer in Gethsemane. Jesus didn't pray such a stupid, illogical prayer in Gethsemane because prayer is "supposed to be inconsistent." He prayed a stupid, illogical prayer because the Bible is not divinely inspired, so either the prayer didn't happen, or it was prayed by an ordinary (though extremely deluded) beard-man.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	6-Apr-05/3:10 AM
His original mental description is THE description of why he actually wore a hat. Each question you ask him refers to that very description. If he is to ANSWER THE QUESTION he must refer back to that description each time. If he does not, then at some point he will be answering "YES" where he should be answering "NO" (or vice versa). That would mean he was not telling a lie (thereby violating a rule).
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	5-Apr-05/2:26 PM
I'd be very surprised if sliver (or tadpole) would agree with you that prayer is supposed to be illogical.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	5-Apr-05/1:59 PM
What do you mean by 'original answer'?
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	5-Apr-05/7:32 AM
But don't you see how that's different from "Ask and ye shall receive"? Incidentally, I have always though Jesus's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane was one of the stupidest prayers ever uttered by a divine being. I mean, Jesus asked God to spare Him the horrors of the cross, but only if it was possible. The implication of such a prayer is that if God could have spared Jesus from the cross, he would not have done so unless specifically asked to. Surely Jesus trusts God? Surely He trusts that God would only make Him suffer if it was necessary? NO. It seems Jesus thought God might conceivably make him suffer just for a laugh or something. UTTER TOSH!
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	5-Apr-05/7:22 AM
I haven't made any new rules restricting his liberty! What would a Liar-Confuser answer if you asked him the following question "Consider the word 'green'. Does it begin with G?" Imagine you're a liar-confuser. Suppose you wore a hat because you were cold. The shortest description of why you wore a hat is "Because I'm cold." If I say to you "Consider the description of your reason for wearing a hat. Does it begin with A?" What would you answer, bearing in mind that YOU MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION and you MUST LIE?
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	5-Apr-05/3:57 AM
Then the rule should not be "Ask and ye shall receive," it should be "Ask me to do whatever I want, and I will do whatever I want." Do you agree?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	5-Apr-05/3:50 AM
No. The only two rules required are 1. He must answer the question. 2. He must tell a lie. You have already said you agree with both of these. Consider this simpler example. It makes your misunderstanding clearer: Go to a Liar-Confuser and say "Consider the word that describes the colour of most peas. Does it begin with with G?" If he answers anything other than "No" then he has broken rule number 2: Thou shalt lie. Using the alphabetical method, you can extract from him the spelling of the word 'green'. It's exactly the same with the "Why did you do X?" example. Suppose X is "hit Father Christmas". And the Liar-Confuser's reason for hitting Father Christmas is "Because he's gay." We say to the Liar-Confuser "Consider THE description of why you hit Father Christmas. Does it begin with A?" THE description of why he hit Father Christmas is "Because he's gay". If the Liar-Confuser answers anything other than "Yes" to the first question, then he has not told a lie, because the description begins with B, not A. Do you get it now?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/5:30 PM
I have not introduced any new rules. If the Liar-Confuser changes his description, then he is not answering the question you asked him. The question you asked him refers to THE (note definite article) description you asked him to think about in the first question. You say to him "Consider the shortest description of why you did X. Does it begin with A?" If the Liar-Confuser does not genuinely consider the real description of why he did X, and makes up some other one, THEN HE IS NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION!!!
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/5:16 PM
OK, I'm glad you agree they have to answer the question. But what lie are you suggesting he changes? You aren't discovering his lie, you're discovering the description (the description he has in his mind) of what his reason was for doing X. There's no lie in his mental description. It's genuinely the description of why he did X. If, on the other hand, I asked him to TELL me what the description was directly, THEN he'd tell me a lie like "The description is: 'I did X because I'm Father Christmas'"
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/5:02 PM
I knew you'd say that. I'm not trying to trap you or catch you out. When you consider the problem of extracting information from a Liar, it becomes clear that there are two sorts of liars. To give you an idea of why Liar-Confusers were introduced to the discussion, consider the question "What did you have for breakfast?" Someone who is a liar answering your question could give two sorts of answer. The first is of the form "I didn't have baked beans". This is an informative lie, because you instantly know the liar had baked beans. In our formulation, this is what a Liar would say. The other possible answer is of the form "I had Ely Cathedral for breakfast." This lie is an answer to the question, but it is completely uninformative, because we don't get any closer to finding out what the liar actually had for breakfast. That is the sort of thing a Liar-Confuser would say. I have not added any new rules that weren't already obvious. If you insist that Liar-Confusers don't have to answer the question, then they could just lock themselves in a cupboard and parp the national anthem. That's not answering the question. It's also academically an utterly useless example.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/4:50 PM
Wrong. The Liar-Confuser has to answer the question you ask. And he has to lie. If he randomly changes "the shortest description of his reason" as the letters unfold, then he is not answering your question. Your questions are continually referring to THE description you asked him to think about in the first question, and any deviation from that on his part is an instance of not answering the question. You may say "Oh he's a confuser he doesn't have to answer your question" but that's silly, because then he could just say "wibble", or keep silent the whole time, which is OBVIOUSLY not what we mean by a Liar-Confuser.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/4:29 PM
Suppose you want the answer to the question "Why did you do X?". You say to the Liar-Confuser: "Consider the shortest description of your reason for doing X. Does this description begin with an A?" If he answers "No" then you know it begins with A and you move on to the next letter. If he answers "Yes" then you know it begins with B..Z and you say "Does the description begin with a B?" ... and so on. Exactly the same method as I outlined for the breakfast situation.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/3:16 PM
Using an alphabetical method that doesn't generate a contradiction.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/3:10 PM
Yes.
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	4-Apr-05/2:42 PM
Yeah only that's a load of balls really, isn't it? If it weren't a load of balls, all those catholics would have survived the potato famine.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/2:32 PM
I don't know what you keep asking. I think we all agree that Liars can communicate easily with each other. Liar-Confusers clearly don't want to communicate in the first place, but in spite of that, it is possible for anyone to extract whatever information they want from a Liar-Confuser. The REAL reason why Liars or Liar-Confusers could never really exist has nothing to do with whether or not they can communicate, and everything to do with the fact that they could solve the Halting Problem, which we all know is impossible. QED.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/2:27 PM
To -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. (not Dovina): Look, the Liar-Confusers have to answer your questions. They can't keep silent. Otherwise they may as well always keep silent, as that is the best way of witholding information. Moreover, when they do answer, they have to answer with a lie. The difference between Liar-Confusers and Liars is that Liar-Confusers will tell some arbitrary lie that isn't going to help you. BUT: if you adopt the alphabetical method, I think you can always extract the information you want. Of course it may take a while, but you will be able to get it in the end. Do you agree?