From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!secapl!Cookie!frank Tue Nov 24 10:51:05 EST 1992
Article 7561 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!secapl!Cookie!frank
>From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Nov10.025040.117799@Cookie.secapl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:50:40 GMT
References: <1992Nov1.144220.21708@oracorp.com>
Organization: Security APL, Inc.
Lines: 30

In article <1992Nov1.144220.21708@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams) writes:
>>>`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?
>>
>>You can't talk about what G *says* if you are only considering it as a
>>string of words.  You are explicitly talking about what it as a statement,
>>about it what it refers to, when you do this.
>
>G is a string of words which we *interpret* as a statement. The
>question is, how do we interpret G? Its meaning is pretty clear,
>it seems to me.

The quotation from the original article, which Daryl has now deleted, said
"let's get away from talk about statements".  But he apparently can't make
his argument work without talking about statements.

And as a statement, G is self-referential in an unacceptable way.  Consider
sentence H:

`Diagonalizing `Diagonalizing this sentence produces a string of words which
is false when interpreted as a statement.' produces a string of words which
is false when interpreted as a statement.'

If we can interpret G as a statement, we can interpret H likewise; but this
produces a flat-out contradiction.  Thus it is *not* legitimate to interpret
G as a statement, however clear its meaning may seem.


