From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!nacjack!codewks!system Sat Oct 24 20:44:43 EDT 1992
Article 7361 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!nacjack!codewks!system
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Message-ID: <0FB2sB4w165w@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz>
>From: system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 92 20:17:44 NZDST
References: <1992Oct15.185041.19681@oracorp.com>
Organization: The Code Works Limited, PO Box 10 155, Auckland, New Zealand
Lines: 32

daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:

> In article <Bvz218.5B6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
> 
> 
> Consider the following sentence G:
> 
>     David Chalmers will never believe this sentence.
> 
> Now, some people will complain that G isn't a proper sentence, since
> it is self-referential. However, it is clear enough (to me, at least)
> what the sentence means, and so I think it is a perfectly good
> sentence. (If you don't like the self-referential nature, I can
> replace it by "David Chalmers will never believe the sentence
> occurring in the email message from Daryl McCullough to David Chalmers
> on October 15, 1992." Then in an email message, I will send David
> Chalmers the message "David Chalmers will never believe the sentence
> occurring in the email message from Daryl McCullough to David Chalmers
> on October 15, 1992.")
> 
While it is clear enough what the sentence means, it is still a 
meta-reference, and IMO your little trick with the email message still 
leaves it a meta-reference (a sentence talking about a sentence). For 
that reason, I personally, don't find your argument persuasive, or 
valid.

-- 
  Wayne McDougall, BCNU
  This .sig unintentionally left blank.

Hello! I'm a .SIG Virus. Copy me and spread the fun.


