From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!nacjack!codewks!system Mon Nov  9 09:36:19 EST 1992
Article 7467 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!nacjack!codewks!system
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Message-ID: <kH5FTB5w165w@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz>
>From: system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 19:11:19 NZST
References: <1992Oct24.144617.20159@oracorp.com>
Organization: The Code Works Limited, PO Box 10 155, Auckland, New Zealand
Lines: 46

daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:

> In article <1992Oct15.185041.19681@oracorp.com>,
> system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes:
> 
> >> Consider the following sentence G:
> >> 
> >>     David Chalmers will never believe this sentence.
> >> 
> >
> >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.
> 
> `Diagonalizing `Diagonalizing this sentence produces a string of words
> that will never be believed by David Chalmers.' produces a string of words
> that will never be believed by David Chalmers.'
> 
> Now what exactly does G say? Well, it says that a certain string of
> will never be believed by David Chalmers. So G is no meta-statement,
> it is simply a statement about strings of words and David Chalmers
> beliefs. However, let's find out exactly what string of words G is
> claiming that David Chalmers will never believe. Well, it is the
> diagonalization of `Diagonalizing this sentence produces a string of
> words that will never be believed by David Chalmers.', which is just
> G0. Therefore G is saying that David Chalmers will never believe the
> diagonalization of G0. However, G *is* the diagonalization of G0!
> Therefore, G, which is no meta-statement, but is simply a statement
> about brains and strings, nevertheless implies that G will never be
> believed by David Chalmers.
> 
What exactly does G say? IMO it says MORE than " a certain string of 
words will never be believed by David Chalmers". It says carrying out 
an action "diagonalizing" on myself (the sentence) will result in a 
certain string of words that will never be believed by David Chalmers.

And since this action is  a self-referential action, I STILL have the 
same problems with your argument.

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

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


