From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uvaarpa!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasghm Tue Nov 24 10:52:17 EST 1992
Article 7662 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uvaarpa!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasghm
>From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Self-Reference and Paradox (was Re: Human intelligence...)
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Sender: news@unx.sas.com (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Message-ID: <Bxtqon.I97@unx.sas.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:41:11 GMT
References:  <26551@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: theseus.unx.sas.com
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 38


In article <26551@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
|> In article  <BxtBwx.LvH@unx.sas.com> Gary Merrill writes:
|> ]In article <1992Nov14.151559.13227@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
|> ]|> 
|> ]|>     This sentence is false.
|> ]|> 
|> ]|> refers to an unrestricted notion of falsity, and is therefore
|> ]|> meaningless. We can replace "false" by a restricted notion of falsity
|> ]
|> ]This sort of thing has been tried before.  One problem is that the displayed
|> ]sentence is *not* meaningless in any normal sense of this term.  We
|> ]know perfectly well what it means -- and that's the problem.
|> 
|> The term "meaningless" is ambiguous here.  There are many examples of
|> problematic meanings in language.  For example, what does the word
|> "unicorn" denote?  What does "nothing" denote?  Clearly, both words
|> have a meaning in some sense, but neither has a "normal" denotation.
|> If you take the view that sentences denote their truth values, then
|> the liar's paradox can be taken as another example of the same thing.

The liar's paradox is quite independent of the position that sentences
denote their truth values.  Moreover, "meaningless" appears to be unambiguous
in the above context.  My point was that the meaning of the sentence
is sufficiently clear for us to use it in common inferences.

The analogies to "unicorn" and "nothing" are weak and unconvincing.
Surely it is not suggested that "This sentence" fails to denote as
"unicorn" does or as "nothing" does.

Certainly if we wish to take the position that a sentence is a *name*
that *denotes* something, then we may court various problems.  Thus
it is wise not to take that position.  Unfortunately, the liar remains
with us.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm


