Why are paradoxes considered profound?

The "self" does not get lost because it like truth are established by social negotiation. That is how co-religionists self reinforce each other in their parochial contexts whichothers find nonsensucal.

The short answer to that is "no". However if the concept of "structure" is extended to include the context or zeitgeist in which the object of study is embedded a more "balanced" utilitarian view might emerge. For example, medieval medicine relied on a concept of "the four humours" (blood, bile etc). Modern physicians would laugh at such a structuring, but at the time social agreement with respect to that analysis no doubt gave confidence to patients and doctors alike such that a certain amount of "alleviation" might actually be agreed. Similarly, fast forwarding to Freud, where Freudian patients tended to have Freudian dreams (compared with Jungian patients ! ) a common interactional context between doctor and patient could produce tangible "results".

And again we see the universal phenomenon of culture--a broad and intricate set of (mostly tacit) "agreements" about the structure of the world.

And again we see the universal phenomenon of culture--a broad and intricate set of (mostly tacit) "agreements" about the structure of the world.

I just did provide you a frame of multiple "selfs" systemic "negotiation" in a Solipsist set background which you chose to ignore...Social negotiation itself necessarily requires an high degree of conservation of information not a word on that...entropy nothing again...I suppose you are not committed to "negotiate" that much...You just repeat the same thing time and again...so there´s nothing to debate...I am done here.

...Being a sufficiently intelligent person I suppose you are fully aware that the kind of thesis you defend wont last another 20 years even for that small part of the world who still takes it seriously...its doomed to recycling.

I doubt it. By definition, analysis is the decomposition of complex structures into simple ones. In practice, analysts get to choose how to conduct the decomposition, and which structures to count as simple. How can they not impose their choice of structures?

...yeap...better to explain straight away that analysis is precisely what they are trying to wash down...not that different from religious groups...

Sorry. That's just word salad. Solipsism goes out of the window as soon as you use language acquired from others. On the other hand, the opacity of many of your remarks may condemn you de facto to a solipsism of your own making. My repetition of of non-dualistic aspects of metalogic stands in contrast to your repetition of a requirement for an "informational" substrate. My contention is that "information" is an epihenomenon of interaction and therefore cannot be a substrate....and that is the view of second generation "cognitive scientists" (the ones who have dumped algorithmic models), which counters your "20 year challenge".

...again you have a very narrow notions on language...solipsism was a mind exercise challenge which you chose to not address, fine...nevertheless you said nothing regarding how social negotiated concepts still maintain an high degree of information conservation... given your frame of reference they should naturally decay with the increase in subjective entropy...you can´t at all explain the degree of sustained coherence with obscure expressions like "negotiated concepts" in which what is negotiated cannot even be measured with exactness...
Neuroscientists are abandoning the very concept of mind, free will, and such, as for language you would be far better with an expert on encoding then with the bunch of mystifier's I suppose you are referring to...In 20 years time or less you will get the chance of seeing the downfall of allot more then the pro mind groovy group you belong to...you can ad to it half of the crap studied in human sciences just as well...its not even news as it is already happening...not the case that you can hide it with a couple of posts...it is an entire way of living and thinking that is being recycled, a mass extinction that reminds me of the old humour tricks from the 60´s, not that funny I´m afraid...anyway´s I am not here to provoke your beliefs any more then you are willing to listen, which given your repetitive discourse and lack of creativity to say the least, it is not much...being the most informed on your group around the forum only makes your "sin" all the way bigger...language as an epiphenomena, Christ...one hardly can get any more obscure then that...as usual you missed some very original counters on my part...no worries it was to be expected...

This coming from a guy who clings to his views with religious fervor.
You are so desperate for the world to make sense according to your criteria that you trample ruthlessly on anyone who challenges you, resorting to insults and obscure phrasings to disguise your naivety.

...in case you did n´t noticed after your yesterday disastrous attempts at basic logic your opinion among minimally intelligent people does n´t count for much now...specially when you had the nerve of attributing me the authorship of an old well known paradox mixed in a cocktail of ad hominems hardly intelligible...if you want to play play with your cat moron !

You prove my point. Rather silly of you as well, as anyone can revisit those posts and see for themselves.

...you wish...they are clean as whistle !

I have listened to your attempts to promote determinism,/materialism.
Such veneration of simplicity is worthy of comparison with the fascination with the clockwork curiosities of the 18th century. We are three centuries on, in an age where "logicality","causality", and even"locality", have become nebulous concepts in physics, and where the concept of "materiality" has come to include reference to a renegade called "dark matter". And all this paradigmatic shifting has happened for humanity within a ludicrously short span with respect to the history of humanity, or life, or this universe.
...so I listen...and I smile !

They say he's descended from the apes, but the apes deny it....

So when I promote information Theory I am promoting materialism...you should go to a doctor and check your eyes soon Fresco...

"Information" is "that which resolves choice between alternative actions". Actions of what ?.....answer mechanisms. !
EDIT
And I believe in particle physics "information transmission" requires an exchange of "particles"

I did n´t said I was n´t a mechanist, I am !..."matter" rings nothing to me but more obscurantism, at least on that we agree...

And who is the ultimate arbiter of "same" and "different"....?