Re: Liar paradox, one more time
From: Paul Holbach (paulholbachSPAMBAN_at_freenet.de)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: Paul Holbach: "Re: Liar paradox, one more time"
- Previous message: kevincar: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- In reply to: Poker Joker: "Re: Liar paradox, one more time"
- Next in thread: Poker Joker: "Re: Liar paradox, one more time"
- Reply: Poker Joker: "Re: Liar paradox, one more time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jul 2004 12:25:14 -0700
> "Poker Joker" <Poker@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<
> YkiOc.56407$vN3.20520@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > "Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote in message
> > news:881c8779.0407291735.34ac845a@posting.google.com...
> > Would you mind revealing your definition of "semantically acceptable"?
> Let's just say that a sentence is semantically acceptable if its meaning
> is well understood; Almost everyone who would be expected to receive
> the message would gather the same meaning. With regards to the
> following sentence: "This sentence is not true." What meaning do you
> gather?
The meaning I gather is that the sentence "This sentence is not true"
says of itself that it is not true.
> Do you think it is the same meaning I gather?
I beg your pardon, but I happen to be incapable of scanning your mind
telepathically.
> > Gibberish looks like "3j6)=!GDk+*j"!
> Are you telling us it doesn't look like "3j6(=!GDk+*j"!
>
> If it does, then each of the following are also gibberish:
>
> Do cars wonder if three years know?
This sentence is both grammatically ill-formed and semantically*
incongruous.
(* refers to linguistic semantics)
> Never revolve his night.
This sentence is semantically incongruous, but not ungrammatical.
If you want, you may call these two sentences "gibberish", for they do
not make literal sense.
> This statement is not true or it is gibberish.
This sentence is both grammatical and semantically congruous.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong about self-referential
statements.
You wouldn´t object to eg "This is an English sentence", would you?!
> If this statement is not true then it isn't gibberish, otherwise it is
> gibberish.
This sentence is both grammatical and semantically congruous.
> This statement only looks like it isn't gibberish.
This sentence is both grammatical and semantically congruous.
And so is
"This sentence is false."
I´m afraid the contention that the Liar sentence is gibberish or
meaningless is indefensible!
Regards
PH
- Next message: Paul Holbach: "Re: Liar paradox, one more time"
- Previous message: kevincar: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- In reply to: Poker Joker: "Re: Liar paradox, one more time"
- Next in thread: Poker Joker: "Re: Liar paradox, one more time"
- Reply: Poker Joker: "Re: Liar paradox, one more time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|