From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!mtecv2!academ01!iordonez Fri Sep  4 09:41:29 EDT 1992
Article 6746 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!mtecv2!academ01!iordonez
>From: iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Marvin Minsky's Conscious Machines
Message-ID: <iordonez.715293767@academ01>
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:42:47 GMT
References: <1992Aug13.025506.2404@news.media.mit.edu> <iordonez.714442640@academ01> <86891@netnews.upenn.edu>
Sender: usenet@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: academ01.mty.itesm.mx

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>In article <iordonez.714442640@academ01>, iordonez@academ01 (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
>>P: This sentence is not true.

>>If senntence P were formalizable, it could be expressed in a logical
>>finite formal system, which would require defining each of its elements.

>Ways to formalize self-reference have been around for most of this
>century.  Intuitively reasonable ones are new.  See, eg, Barwise and
>Etchemendy(?) THE LIAR for two such.

I don't know if this is supposed to prove that sentence P is formalizable,
but anyway please note that in my original post I claimed that P is not
formalizable because it contains a "not TRUE" part, and not because it
is self referent. The concept "truth" is not formalizable.

--Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso
iordonez@mitras.mty.itesm.mx



