From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uunet!psinntp!wrldlnk!usenet Tue Nov 24 10:52:42 EST 1992
Article 7703 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:7703 sci.logic:2423
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uunet!psinntp!wrldlnk!usenet
>From: "Bernd Finkemeyer" <p00122@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Self_Reference and Paradox (was Re: Human Intelligence...)
Message-ID: <2931575640.1.p00122@psilink.com>
Sender: usenet@worldlink.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Bear Software
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:37:25 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 29

| The following has been relayed from a Compuserve subscriber. Please send
| private replies to: "76675.1422@compuserve.com".

I find that I can evaluate true or false only with statements that make a
definite unambiguous assertion of fact (in the sense of a datum or an algorithm
that can be used to process a chain of thought to a useful conclusion).  If a
statement has no ultimate potential usefulness, I have trouble evaluating it as
true or false.

I don't see that "This sentence is false." makes any assertion or counter
assertion of fact, only of logical incomprehensibility.

Forget true or false, try yes or no.

This sentence can be interpreted as true or false.   NO (maybe?)
This sentence can only be interpreted as false.  NO (I'm pretty sure.)
This sentence is false.
     NO, absolutely, the true/false test can not be applied here.

Granted, the paradox does serve a purpose in processing thoughts about the
thinking process.  The paradox itself can be evaluated as useful, but only
inasmuch as it's assertions remain ambiguous and impossible to evaluate in
terms
of true or false.

Ken Easlon, Third Austrian Crosshatch, The Wiggleburner Institute
76675.1422@COMPUSERVE.COM




