[Guest]

Bob reads on WebMD about a condition known as hypochondria: "a condition," the definition says, "wherein the patient repeatedly believes that he has one or more conditions that he does not have."

Bob begins to believe that, in fact, he has hypochondria. This being a somewhat disturbing psychological condition, Bob goes to his doctor, concerned about his mental health.

"Doctor," Bob says, "I think I have hypochondria!"

The doctor dismisses his concerns, but Bob continues to be worried. He goes back the next month.

"Doctor," Bob says, "I think I have hypochondria!"

Again, the doctor dismisses his concerns. But Bob is still not satisfied. After another month, he goes back, trying one more time.

"Doctor," Bob says, desperate, "I think I have hypochondria!"

"No," his doctor says, frustrated. "You definately don't have hypochondria."

Question: Is Bob's doctor right?

Caveat: we are using the given definition of hypochondria given in the story above, to simplify what is really a rather complex condition.

[Guest]

You're adding information to the puzzle. The condition Bob believes he has is hypochondria, not cancer.

No, I stated it is possible that Bob believes he has another condition. Nowhere in the OP did it state that Bob believed he had hypochondria and only hypochondria. Thus, is it is possible he believes he has another condition which he actually doesn't have. More importantly, the OP doesn't state that he told the doctor that he doesn't think he has any conditions, so the doctor is incorrect in his statement that Bob is not a hypochondriac, as he very well could be if he believes he has another condition that he doesn't have.

If you were trying to create a logic paradox, you need to cover all the bases.

[Guest]

No, I stated it is possible that Bob believes he has another condition. Nowhere in the OP did it state that Bob believed he had hypochondria and only hypochondria. Thus, is it is possible he believes he has another condition which he actually doesn't have. More importantly, the OP doesn't state that he told the doctor that he doesn't think he has any conditions, so the doctor is incorrect in his statement that Bob is not a hypochondriac, as he very well could be if he believes he has another condition that he doesn't have.

If you were trying to create a logic paradox, you need to cover all the bases.

The puzzle clearly says this: "Bob begins to believe that, in fact, he has hypochondria"

If you're going to assume that there could be more relevant information than this, then let me ask you: how were you even able to answer, when the question "Is Bob's doctor right?" may not even have referred to the same doctor referred to earlier in the puzzle?

Maybe I was asking you whether Bob's proctologist was right when he told Bob last week that Bob had cancer. Maybe I was asking whether Bob's dentist was right in telling Bob that he had serious gum disease.

I did not specify that the doctor who's accuracy we are questioning was THE SAME doctor as the doctor I'd been quoting before. Thus, you should not have had any information to go on at all.

Unless, of course, you take the puzzle AS GIVEN, rather than adding more information to it without reason.

Your requirements leave almost NO puzzle, as commonly stated, with a definite answer.

----------------Puzzle-------------------

What is the truth value of this sentence:

"This sentence is false."?

Answer: Oh, it's a paradox.

WAIT. Says vinays84, maybe we're dealing with THREE-VALUED LOGIC!

Or, maybe you're asking what the truth value of the whole sentence is: "What is the truth value of this sentence: "This sentence is false."?" If that's the case, then there is NO truth value, because it's a question.

Thus, we really have no idea how to answer this logic puzzle. Ohs no!

--------------------------------------------

Right?

[Guest]

You say that we should base our opinion of whether the good Doctor is right or wrong on his answer? Right or wrong is irrelevant. He definitively ruled out a diagnosis without even asking his patient why he thinks he might have the condition. The quack should lose his license for treating a patient so dismissively.

Oh, and since this paradox is based solely on a singular, poorly worded definition, I think that semantics is right in the wheelhouse.

Anyone else find it ironic that WebMD would have a lousy definition for Hypochondria?

On a side note, spelling is pretty much a glass house around here, isn't it? Doctor Dismissive probably should get a pass on this one.

[Guest]

Is there an actual answer to this or is it one of those neverending topics?

[Shakeepuddn]

Bob would have had to suspect a condition OTHER than hypochondria to meet the given definition of a hypochondriac; otherwise he would have no reason to suspect he was one IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Furthermore, the very nature of hypochondria, regardless of what definition is given, precludes anyone from suffering from it if they finally realize they had been previously:

“Oh, I realize I was just suffering from hypochondria and so I probably don’t have cancer . . . no worries.” Viola! Patient cured (though this doesn't preclude another bout in the future).

Lastly, Bob’s fear IS NOT a result of hypochondria but of a serious lack of understanding regarding the condition.

The doctor is quite correct and Bob is simply a profound idiot with anxiety issues.

[Guest]

The doctor is quite correct and Bob is simply a profound idiot with anxiety issues.

Thanks for the laugh! I'll agree with the second half. I'd definitely find a new doctor if this is an example of his general bedside manner. <_< Perhaps I just have higher standards for my health care professionals.

[Guest]

You say that we should base our opinion of whether the good Doctor is right or wrong on his answer? Right or wrong is irrelevant. He definitively ruled out a diagnosis without even asking his patient why he thinks he might have the condition. The quack should lose his license for treating a patient so dismissively.

So the doctor is not a good doctor due to mistakes made in his methodology, and therefore there's no room to analyze the accuracy of his statements? I disagree, just as I disagree that he can't be factually incorrect because he is morally incorrect.

Bob would have had to suspect a condition OTHER than hypochondria to meet the given definition of a hypochondriac; otherwise he would have no reason to suspect he was one IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why is that? You've never met someone who is so anxious about the entire world that they can read a description of a condition and think that they have the condition? I have met this sort of person. If they are not thinking entirely rationally to begin with, there seems to be no reason why someone could not think they have hypochondria, without having first thought that they have another condition. People can believe two contradictory statements...surely someone can believe this.

Furthermore, the very nature of hypochondria, regardless of what definition is given, precludes anyone from suffering from it if they finally realize they had been previously:

Ah...the very nature of the condition regardless of the definition given and thus OUTSIDE of the scope of this puzzle...

“Oh, I realize I was just suffering from hypochondria and so I probably don’t have cancer . . . no worries.” Viola! Patient cured (though this doesn't preclude another bout in the future).

Ah. Mental illness is so easy! Incredible. You should write a journal article. I'm sure patients the world over will be happy to hear about this sort of cure.

"So...I have no rational reason to be unhappy and worried? Oh...hey, I'm not depressed anymore!" lol

Look, if you're one of those people so bunged up about the ACTUAL definition of hypochondria that you can't get past it to look at a logic puzzle, just do this: look back at the original puzzle, and replace every instance of 'hypochondria' with 'ridiculophobia'. Ridiculophobia, we shall say for the sake of this puzzle, is indeed a real condition that fits the description previously given to hypochondria in the original puzzle.

Now...will that help you pay attention to the puzzle itself?

Is there an actual answer to this or is it one of those neverending topics?

Well...

The puzzle is supposed to work this way:

Bob thinks he has RIDICULOPHOBIA, so he tells his doctor about his concerns.

NOTE: he does not think he has any OTHER condition...this is not stated in the puzzle, and it is clearly stated that he thinks he has ridiculophobia, thus that is the information we should pay attention to.

The doctor...the same doctor he told his concerns to...says that he does not have ridiculophobia. This occurs several times.

Note: it is the same doctor involved each time, and the same person named Bob involved each time. At no time does Bob think he has any other condition. Neither is Bob lying, nor is Bob a genie in diguise who is trying to test the doctor's treatment of patients for the AMA, nor is Bob a hologram or figment of the doctor's imagination. Both the doctor--the same doctor each time--and Bob--the same Bob each time--are human beings. And we are using two-valued logic, in which statements can only be either TRUE or FALSE.

So, Bob's doctor says "No, you do not have ridiculophobia." In saying this, he is referring to Bob, and to the same condition of ridiculophobis we have been discussing the whole time. In denying that Bob has ridiculophobia, the doctor is saying that Bob does not have the condition, knowing that ridiculophobia ITSELF is the condition Bob thinks he has (and not some other condition...like cancer...which Bob most certainly does not think he has.

There are two possibilities:

1) "You do not have ridiculophobia" is true.

2) "You do not have ridiculophobia" is false.

If it's true, then Bob does not have the condition that he repeatedly believes that he has. But to have ridiculophobia is to repeatedly believe to have a condition you do not have. Thus, if the doctor is right that Bob does not have ridiculophobia, then Bob has ridiculophobia.

But if Bob does have ridiculophobia, then Bob believes that he has a condition he in fact does not have...which is ridiculophobia. Thus, Bob does NOT have ridiculophobia. So if the doctor is wrong and Bob DOES have the condition, then Bob does not have the condition.

The problem is that the doctor's statement is true just in case it's false, and false just in case it's true. The statement seems to have either no truth value, or two truth values, which seems to be a problem.

Edited January 17, 2009 by brotherbock

[Guest]

WAIT. Says vinays84, maybe we're dealing with THREE-VALUED LOGIC!

You're an idiot. You've argued with everyone that's given an answer just because you couldn't properly word your OP. On top of that, you're too arrogant to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. This will be my last response to you as you're not even worth my time.

[Guest]

You're an idiot. You've argued with everyone that's given an answer just because you couldn't properly word your OP. On top of that, you're too arrogant to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. This will be my last response to you as you're not even worth my time.

As a matter of fact I have not argued with everyone who has given an answer. This can easily be confirmed by going back and looking at all of the answers given. Please stop lying. As another matter of fact, I have indeed listened to those who have disagreed with me. What I have become frustrated with are not those disagreeing, but those who are claiming to have 'answers' that are outside the scope of the puzzle. "He may have cancer!" is such an answer, as are those appealing to other definitions of the condition. This tends to bother me. And you're calling me an idiot because I dare to reply that I have, in fact, worded the OP properly? So I'm an idiot because I don't agree with you, huh?

If those are the sort of judgments you make, my not being worth your time won't cause me to lose much sleep. I'm not concerned about being worth the time of abusive people.

For those still having problems with the fact that I used a non-standard definition of hypochondria, here's this...not entirely complete, but I didn't have a ton of time to do it.

...and isn't looking at THAT so much more fun than dealing with a logic puzzle (within the scope of normal language wording)?!

Edited January 17, 2009 by brotherbock

[Guest]

the definition that you have given for hypochondria or ridiculophobia is that the patient repeatedly believes that he has one or more conditions but nothing is said about the doctor beleiving the condition

he should have hypochondria till a point where he believes in it only and does not know it as the doctor denies the fact that he has ridiculophobia.

[Shakeepuddn]

Ok. The def. says a condition wherein a patient believes he has one or more conditions that he does not have.

So Bob contemplates this . . . Hmm, what condition do I think I have that I really don't? Non-sensical.

There are steps that would be made, steps that are understood but outside the "scope of the puzzle." They involve cognition, action, and understanding by your imaginary players that MUST be considered or speculated upon if you even want people to respond. This is Wittgenstein's freed fly my friend. A positivistic display of logical equations doesn't come close to capturing the nuances involved with what a riddle conjures or the numerous modes of expressions and intentionalities in language that logic will ever fail to capture.

Now, back to the puzzle: As stated, hydrocondria requires an object other than itself, because if it is understood as being hypochondria, then it is also understood that the condition feared is non-existent and thus hypochondria is not in play. Unless of course you ARE the sort of person who fears everything about the world, including what is printed on a label or in a website, and too stupid or lazy to investigate what it means before whining to your doctor, in which case you are an idiot with anxiety issues . . . NOT a hypochondriac. As I stated.

We as literate human beings have a given understanding of certain terms and definitions. It goes without saying that hypochondria needs an object other than itself to be such. I understand you would like us to “bracket our learned understanding of this fact, but just because it isn't stated in the definition that Bob read, a definition that all of us, including your imaginary doctor, would know is pathetically vague, doesn't mean the doctor is in error. "He" would certainly have a better understanding of the matter than the web definition. Or do you have specific pre-fab puzzle parameters for your doctor's understanding of hypochondria as well?

Sure, if we stick to Bob's imaginary world and your hypochondria as defined, and assume the doctor goes by this fictitious understanding of hypochondria too, then ok, the doc is wrong. But what's the fun in that?

Edited January 19, 2009 by Shakeepuddn

[Guest]

he doesent beacause he would complain acbout different disseses

[Guest]

Ok. The def. says a condition wherein a patient believes he has one or more conditions that he does not have.

So Bob contemplates this . . . Hmm, what condition do I think I have that I really don't? Non-sensical.

There are steps that would be made, steps that are understood but outside the "scope of the puzzle." They involve cognition, action, and understanding by your imaginary players that MUST be considered or speculated upon if you even want people to respond. This is Wittgenstein's freed fly my friend. A positivistic display of logical equations doesn't come close to capturing the nuances involved with what a riddle conjures or the numerous modes of expressions and intentionalities in language that logic will ever fail to capture.

So is your claim that humans can't believe nonsensical things? I will simply say you are wrong. Plenty of humans believe things that don't make sense, and often our thought processes get very, very confused.

Is your second claim that, in order to work on a logic puzzle, people MUST speculate about the belief structures of the characters in the story? What is the modal status of that 'must'? Regardless of the answer to that, I will say that you are wrong...and I think looking at the answers that WERE GIVEN, without such speculation, show that I am right in this.

As an aside, what about the equations I posted is 'positivistic', specifically? I know, that's a scare word that gets thrown around a lot in the recent revival of metaphysics, usually used as a way to dismiss a claim without argument. Do you by chance mean 'logical positivism'? Even so, I would claim that the equations are merely a formalization of the normal language that I was using in the puzzle. Nothing terribly positivistic about that.

We as literate human beings have a given understanding of certain terms and definitions.

Is this an innate language claim? Chomsky-esque? All literate humans have a given--and only one--understanding of certain terms and definitions?

It goes without saying that hypochondria needs an object other than itself to be such. I understand you would like us to “bracket our learned understanding of this fact, but just because it isn't stated in the definition that Bob read, a definition that all of us, including your imaginary doctor, would know is pathetically vague, doesn't mean the doctor is in error. "He" would certainly have a better understanding of the matter than the web definition. Or do you have specific pre-fab puzzle parameters for your doctor's understanding of hypochondria as well?

What I have are a few people--unlike the people who were perfectly well able to consider the puzzle without this problem--who are unable to contemplate a puzzle because they are unable to dismiss something that they know of the world as *irrelevant* to the puzzle. My mistake, apparently, was not expecting intelligent people to be unable to do this. Hence, I have changed the puzzle, so that the word 'hypochondria' is no longer a part of the puzzle.

Sure, if we stick to Bob's imaginary world and your hypochondria as defined, and assume the doctor goes by this fictitious understanding of hypochondria too, then ok, the doc is wrong. But what's the fun in that?

The fun in that, since you ask, is that given the parameters of the puzzle, the doctor is NOT wrong...nor is the doctor RIGHT. I agree, a puzzle like this in which the answer is simply that someone is wrong would not be terribly fun--"Bob thinks he has the hanta virus. His doctor says 'no'. Is the doctor right?"

IF you are able to set aside your own (possibly mistaken) understanding of hypochondria, you'd be able to see that puzzle. What happens when you see that puzzle?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe you start to ask why a condition like RIDICULOPHOBIA can result in a paradox very similar to the Liar's Paradox, or to "This sentence is false", or to Russell's 'heterological/autological' paradox. Or to this one:

----------------------

All games are either finite--the rules of the game do not allow for the possibility of the game going on infinitely--or they are infinite--the rules of the game allow for the possibility of the game going on infinitely. Chess is a finite game--if no piece is taken after too many moves, the game ends. Risk is an infinite game. There is nothing to stop two players from endlessly moving their pieces around the board, neither attacking the other, yet still playing the game.

Here is a game, called Metagame. Metagame is played in the following manner: the first player chooses any FINITE game. The second player then makes the first move in that chosen game, and the game continues until the end.

Question: is Metagame finite or infinite?

----------------------

By looking at puzzles like this, we can draw some conclusions about certain kinds of paradoxes, statements, and conditions.

Or...people can SEE the puzzle, see what parameters the puzzle sets out, and instead say "But, but...that's not the way that word is used outside of the puzzle!!!" Your choice.

[Guest]

i have a question

if bob beleived that he had hypochondria(aka ridiculophobia) then he must have thought of one or more conditions that he does not have he would have thought that,he has some other conditions that he actually does not have.if this is not true then he by thinking he has hypochondria would not have it as the definition says that the patient actually does not have it.

can anyone please clarify this

[Guest]

i have a question

if bob beleived that he had hypochondria(aka ridiculophobia) then he must have thought of one or more conditions that he does not have he would have thought that,he has some other conditions that he actually does not have.if this is not true then he by thinking he has hypochondria would not have it as the definition says that the patient actually does not have it.

can anyone please clarify this

I can try...that's one heck of a sentence there

By my lights, for Bob to have ridiculophobia, all that must be true is for him to believe that he has a condition that he does not have. So, if he believes that he has ridiculophobia, and he does not have it, then he has it. Right? And if he believes he has ridiculophobia, and he does have it, then he doesn't have it.

I don't think it's impossible for Bob to believe that he has ridiculophobia, and not believe that he has any other condition. That sounds irrational, but there's no requirement that Bob be rational, either for the puzzle, or to satisfy the requirements of having ridiculophobia.

True story: I once knew a girl who believed that the TV show Little House On The Prairie was a documentary, and that the events depicted in the show were real events, happening to real people. This led her to believe all kinds of irrational and contradictory things...and yet believe them she did.

[Guest]

Here's my two cents:

The doctor can't possibly answer the question, because the situation--as described in the riddle--can not exsist. If he has it than he doesn't, and if he doesn't than he has it. After contemplating this, the doctor's head probably exploded!

BTW, Your puzzle certainly created some great buzz. Good job.

i have a question

if bob beleived that he had hypochondria(aka ridiculophobia) then he must have thought of one or more conditions that he does not have he would have thought that,he has some other conditions that he actually does not have.if this is not true then he by thinking he has hypochondria would not have it as the definition says that the patient actually does not have it.

can anyone please clarify this

[Guest]

Here's my two cents:

The doctor can't possibly answer the question, because the situation--as described in the riddle--can not exsist. If he has it than he doesn't, and if he doesn't than he has it. After contemplating this, the doctor's head probably exploded!

BTW, Your puzzle certainly created some great buzz. Good job.

This actually started out as a joke I was trying to make. No one laughed, but it seemed a lot more interesting to me afterwards.

You're right about the 'has it then he doesn't have it', of course. And I think you're right in the end about the doctor not being able to answer the question at all. But I'm not sure, though, that the situation can't exist, in that I do think it's entirely possible for Bob to believe what he does in the puzzle, and for the doctor to say what he says...I just think that what he says isn't really an answer. (see below)

I'm not even sure you need to name it (seeing that the name is causing a lot of trouble). Say Bob is just not thinking very rationally these days. He says to the doctor "Doc, I think I have a condition where you think you have a condition you don't have!" The doctor, after puzzling that sentence out for a second, asks "what condition is it that you think you have?" And Bob answers "Just that one...the one where you think you have the conditions you don't have...and no other condition." Now, certainly Bob is irrational, if he plainly puts it this way, and the doctor--aside from all the other things he could say to Bob that have been mentioned here, including referring him to specialists, etc etc--seems to be able to say one of the following:

1) "You DO have a condition wherein you think you have a condition you do not have" or

2) "You DO NOT have a condition wherein you think you have a condition you do not have".

If he says the first, he is telling Bob that Bob has the described condition--the condition that he therefore doesn't have, seeing that he is referring to the condition itself.

If he says the second, he is telling Bob that Bob doesn't have the condition--but if Bob doesn't have a condition described in this way, then he has whatever conditions he thinks he has--namely, the condition we're discussing

So the doctor seemingly cannot be right, even though I think such a situation could occur.

Here's what I think is getting people, really, and it involves what I think is the best answer to these kind of paradoxes:

Spoiler for ...:

The doctor's statements become nonsense, literally. If we have to choose between the doctor's answer being either true or false, and we find that it's false if it's true and it's true if it's false, the best conclusion is that it's not really even a statement at all. It's fundamentally meaningless, given the specific content. So, the words the doctor says aren't really an 'answer'. He might as well have said "No Bob, the tiger Jack Jill loves the of yaya."

It's like the classic "Can an omnipotent God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" If you say 'yes', then the omnipotent being can't lift a rock. If you say 'no', then the omnipotent being can't make a rock. One answer is to just say that the question isn't even intelligible.

[Shakeepuddn]

^^^So is it (sic) your claim that humans can't believe nonsensical things? I will simply say you are wrong.^^^

I didn’t make this claim. Try to address the example I proffered please.

It is a puzzle, correct? A brain teaser, if you will. One you wish people to contemplate? Are we to assume your character Bob has a brain? Can we assume he uses it? Are we “allowed” within the scope of your puzzle to assume Bob would “think?” Oh! I see clearly now . . . it was a cute little linguistic paradox you wanted to share with us. Thanks.

But regarding your post as a riddle that you DID request an answer to, I’ll post the reason for my comment again since it didn’t seem to get across:

Bob reads the definition of hypochondria. He apparently knows that it is a “condition” one believes one has. But why isn’t it sound to assume he would also understand that hypochondria relates to a condition that is itself non-existent, as stated in the definition you provided? If Bob fears he has hypochondria, then it would be natural to inquire WHAT CONDITION BOB FEELS HIS HYPOCHONDRIA RELATES TO. If he says “hypochondria,” then he is an idiot, not a hypochondriac.

^^^Is your second claim that, in order to work on a logic puzzle, people MUST speculate about the belief structures of the characters in the story?^^^

Of course not! But people will naturally impose and assume normal belief structures for the characters in positing their actions and motivations for such. EX: Why did Tom try to smash Jerry on the head with a hammer? Well because he was angry at Jerry for shoving a hot poker up his behind. Your position seems to be that NO, we cannot make such assumptions. They are just cartoon characters and can’t feel emotion. Bob to you is just a “B” in a logical equation. Apparently you didn’t consider that others would not take this route.

^^^What is the modal status of that 'must'? Regardless of the answer to that, I will say that you are wrong...and I think looking at the answers that WERE GIVEN, without such speculation, show that I am right in this.^^^

I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered an individual who would question the “modal status” of must, LOL!! Ok, not everyone “must” consider the possible motivating factors of the characters in a riddle. These can remain dead fictions instead of tropes for reality. Tom is just a cartoon, he has no anger. He is just a logical function and should not be considered as human.

Oh wait! But then “fear” and “distress” and Bob’s “worry” are right out the window too. Oh well. That’s why logical positivism, in trying to dissect meaning from language, falls short. But you MUST be aware of this as you seem to have an understanding in these matters.

“I” must consider such factors because not doing so is NOT appealing to all facets of possibility in contemplating your puzzle. Or am I to be rebuked for that?

The GIVEN answers, by your own admission are incorrect. You say there is no right OR wrong answer, which in my opinion makes your riddle an exercise in futility for the sake of ripping on others who try to earnestly find a plausible and sound answer.

^^^Even so, I would claim that the equations are merely a formalization of the normal language that I was using in the puzzle. Nothing terribly positivistic about that.^^^

Actually there is. Your equations fail to address possible motivation, understanding (lack of), etc. This is EXACTLY why I mentioned the “scare” word. I see now that you prefer respondents to NOT consider such matters, and that your characters are meaningless symbols NOT meant to be considered as people that can think. My bad.

^^^Is this an innate language claim? Chomsky-esque? All literate humans have a given--and only one--understanding of certain terms and definitions?^^^

Is an appeal to Chomsky really warranted here, or just a swipe to impress us with your familiarity with literary criticism? Did I say one and only one? Are “you” literate? Do you have any understanding of certain terms and definitions, or are you a language-less droid?

^^^IF you are able to set aside your own (possibly mistaken) understanding of hypochondria, you'd be able to see that puzzle.^^^

I see “that” puzzle. It’s a simple paradox. Wow!^^^

^^^Maybe you start to ask why a condition like RIDICULOPHOBIA can result in a paradox very similar to the Liar's Paradox, or to "This sentence is false", or to Russell's 'heterological/autological' paradox^^^

I’ve already done such speculation in philosophy classes when I was much younger and thought a more provocative approach here would be to consider the puzzle from a subjective angle rather than as a simplistic linguistic paradox. After all, you did inquire whether or not the doctor was right. This naturally leads one (me) to approach it as pertaining to reality, rather than as a cute little word-play you devised to make your logic professor proud and dazzle us with your prowess at logic.

You see, what is at issue here is the fact that people will approach the puzzle in different ways. That my way didn’t conform to your expectations is certainly no cause for you to make the snide suggestion that I am unintelligent. I could easily state that my mistake was in assuming YOU would be intelligent enough to consider “that” aspect of answering a riddle. It’s not that the answer is neither right nor wrong, but that the answer (non-existent anyway and so a canard for you to even request one) is wholly dependent upon how one approaches the riddle as a rejoinder.

But you seem familiar enough with philosophy and language theory to appreciate that, so I imagine our discourse on this matter is at an end.

Thanks.

[Guest]

I can try...that's one heck of a sentence there

By my lights, for Bob to have ridiculophobia, all that must be true is for him to believe that he has a condition that he does not have. So, if he believes that he has ridiculophobia, and he does not have it, then he has it. Right? And if he believes he has ridiculophobia, and he does have it, then he doesn't have it.

I don't think it's impossible for Bob to believe that he has ridiculophobia, and not believe that he has any other condition. That sounds irrational, but there's no requirement that Bob be rational, either for the puzzle, or to satisfy the requirements of having ridiculophobia.

True story: I once knew a girl who believed that the TV show Little House On The Prairie was a documentary, and that the events depicted in the show were real events, happening to real people. This led her to believe all kinds of irrational and contradictory things...and yet believe them she did.

Fact: The scenario you set up in the OP is, by all means, a paradoxical one. I have not denied that.

Opinion: We as human beings are prone to emotion when it comes to our physical and mental health and well being. The same anxiety which plagues Bob effects all of us to some extent. We are all amature hypochondriacs in our own right.

With the wealth of information available on the topic, such as your WebMD example, we become burdened with knowledge and information that we can easily apply to ourselves, accurate or not. This being said, as this topic has shown us quite clearly, we (read: intelligent, rational human beings) are often passionate about any discussion that directly or indirectly involves the knowledge which we depend on to give us a sense of security about our mortality, longevity, and quality of life.

If you had set this puzzle up using almost any other example, such as the myriad of choices presented in the paradoxes forum found elsewhere on this site, you would have your paradox debate.

Personal observation: I find that the same problem crops up often when people try to post an original paradox topic. That problem being that the paradoxical statement has to be taken "as is." As in this case, it is supposed to be taken as a problem of pure logic. Not only does the OP use a subject (health and well being) that closely concerns most thinking people, it gives us a poorly written definition of a complex term to work with. We are asked to try to make a pursuasive argument based on a purely logical assessment of a wholly illogical sentence, without using our own knowledge or experience as our guide. This is against our nature and instincts.

Conclusion: You ask us to take our emotional attachment to, and scope of knowledge of the topic and set them aside. That is difficult to say the least. I suppose, since "this statement is false" has been taken, we will be forced to endure less than perfect paradoxes.

Suggestion: I think you should call your condition Paradoxia.

(I think I need a drink)

[Guest]

^^^So is it (sic) your claim that humans can't believe nonsensical things? I will simply say you are wrong.^^^

I didn’t make this claim. Try to address the example I proffered please.`

I am addressing your examples. You indicated that there is a problem with the puzzle because it would be irrational for Bob to believe what I've indicated he believes. The only way this is a problem for the puzzle is IF Bob cannot believe irrational things. Thus, I ASKED you whether that was your claim. If that's not your claim, then you are incorrect about this being a problem for the puzzle.

Chomsky...is your question to me about why I mentioned Chomsky an attempt to impress me with how unimpressed you are? We can play this game all day...

As to how I addressed the rest of your post, I asked for specifics regarding your use of MUST and your claims about human understanding of terms because you were making some very general, sweeping claims about how people operate. You claimed that people MUST do such-and-such in order to solve a puzzle. You then seemed to be claiming that all humans have AN understanding of words and definitions...either that we ALL have the same understanding, or that one person cannot have multiple understandings. Either claim is contentious.

So my point in getting very specific with you was to illustrate to you where your hyperbole was failing to prove your point. Your more specific claims you have now made are much better. YOU prefer to do such-and-such. That's fine. Your claims about how everyone does such-and-such (and implied, that therefore *I* should do such-and-such too) are problematic.

Yes, it's a paradox. And you may sarcastically say 'wow' and roll your eyes. If so, then you are not the target audience of this puzzle. As I understand it, there are many people here who are not jaded about such matters, who are new to logic puzzles and paradox, and thus something like this, a new presentation, may be interesting to them.

If you want to have a discussion about the actual nature of hypochondria, Bob's irrational beliefs, the moral responsbilities of doctors, subjective interpretations of language, or any other number of topics, please, let me know. I'd be happy to discuss such things. But to discuss such things is to step outside of the puzzle. Furthermore, these considerations do not indicate a 'problem' with the puzzle, when it is taken as a self-contained logic puzzle. Thus enticing me into a discussion of Bob's intentional states by beginning with claims about the structure of the puzzle will not work.

Edited January 19, 2009 by brotherbock

[Shakeepuddn]

I am addressing your examples. You indicated that there is a problem with the puzzle because it would be irrational for Bob to believe what I've indicated he believes. The only way this is a problem for the puzzle is IF Bob cannot believe irrational things. Thus, I ASKED you whether that was your claim. If that's not your claim, then you are incorrect about this being a problem for the puzzle.

Chomsky...is your question to me about why I mentioned Chomsky an attempt to impress me with how unimpressed you are? We can play this game all day...

As to how I addressed the rest of your post, I asked for specifics regarding your use of MUST and your claims about human understanding of terms because you were making some very general, sweeping claims about how people operate. You claimed that people MUST do such-and-such in order to solve a puzzle. You then seemed to be claiming that all humans have AN understanding of words and definitions...either that we ALL have the same understanding, or that one person cannot have multiple understandings. Either claim is contentious.

So my point in getting very specific with you was to illustrate to you where your hyperbole was failing to prove your point. Your more specific claims you have now made are much better. YOU prefer to do such-and-such. That's fine. Your claims about how everyone does such-and-such (and implied, that therefore *I* should do such-and-such too) are problematic.

Yes, it's a paradox. And you may sarcastically say 'wow' and roll your eyes. If so, then you are not the target audience of this puzzle. As I understand it, there are many people here who are not jaded about such matters, who are new to logic puzzles and paradox, and thus something like this, a new presentation, may be interesting to them.

If you want to have a discussion about the actual nature of hypochondria, Bob's irrational beliefs, the moral responsbilities of doctors, subjective interpretations of language, or any other number of topics, please, let me know. I'd be happy to discuss such things. But to discuss such things is to step outside of the puzzle. Furthermore, these considerations do not indicate a 'problem' with the puzzle, when it is taken as a self-contained logic puzzle. Thus enticing me into a discussion of Bob's intentional states by beginning with claims about the structure of the puzzle will not work.

Wow BB, you're as stubborn as I am!

Was it really necessary to dissect my "hyperbole," which actually has naught to do with my point?

I'm not jaded in the least, but I certainly didn't appreciate your very rude suggestion that I am unintelligent simply because I took a different route with your riddle, which I actually like very much. This is a forum. You may have your own target audience, but all are welcome to respond I believe, hopefully without fear of demeaning rhetoric in return. At no point in your original post did you mention that respondents are required to stay within the confines of logical linguistic structure. As a respondent, I bring my own understanding, intentionality, and belief structures to the table (maybe Bakhtin or Vygotsky would be more in line here). Thus I chose to approach your riddle from a different perspective than the one intended for and expected from your target audience. In doing this, I believe I provided a valid answer "from that perspective." If you wish to debate the matter "from that perspective," then fine. I prefer to lay it to rest though. Don't you?

Cheers