Re: Socrates and the Liar

John Jones schrieb:
Even if Liars statement refers to itself, there are two possible
interpretations of it. Better to use the alternative here -
'everything I say is false'. Either the statement is the manifesting
condition through which all statements are made - in which case, a la
Wittgenstein, the statement avoids paradox, OR, the statement refers
to a totality in which it itself is a member, thereby assuming a
transcendental realism - that things (statements) subsist by their own
efforts, with the consequent paradox emerging. The paradox emerges
because the statement requires that 'everything I say is false' is
both object and manifesting framework for the object. All we need do
to resolve the paradox is abandon transcendental realism, and - ensure
that we know the difference between frameworks and their objects.

BTW, you didn't show how a difference between framework and
objects will "solve" the paradox.

I mean the paradox is very simple, even without invoking the
hell of an apparatus. The following

"This sentence is false",

Is equivalent to:

X <-> ~X

Which has simply no model, althought it has a propositional
variable as a parameter X. Thats all. (*)

So when you hear the paradox you mind spins around and tries
to instantiate X, so that the sentence becomes true. But because
it has no model, you will not find a value for X that makes
the sentence true.

That your mind spins around is a very natural behaviour. When
somebody tells you a story or when you read a book, you have
to do this all the time. You have to make up a model of what
you read, only this way you can disambiguate language.

So the vexing thing is that this sentences lets run you
into the void. And this is not your everyday experience. But
I don't see what this has to do with Framework and Objects
except that the sentence is reflexive.

But reflexivity can also be an object property, without
invoking the notion of a framework. And this should be your
everyday experience. In my opinion the normal response of
and invidual to this sentence is:

- Reflexivity is an everyday experience, and this makes
our mind spinn

- Unsatisfiability, that the sentence has no model, is a less
everyday experience.

We could even postulate that satisfiability is a premiss
of our everyday communication and that this drives a lot
of our thought processes. There are such psychological theories
around, which state the drive toward consistent mental models.

On the other hand reflexivity is also a standard instrument
now in social psychology. Although it makes things more complicated,
it is acknowledge as a determinant factor in many phaenomena.
Take for example voting and public polls. There is a close
interaction between the both.

So we are not living in a simple world. We are living
in a world with reflexivity (**). And I think it totally
counterproductive in postulating that there is something
wrong with reflexitivity because in fact there is a framework
somewhere and objects somewhere, but never showing what this
distinction will bring in terms of explaining the phaenomena
reflexivity.

Also all the time refering to such winers as Wittgenstein
and Kant doesn't make it better. Why not make some research,
and check out some modern approachs. For a beginning for example
Maturana (***). Also there are so called "reflexive architectures"
nowadays of computer systems and AI systems. And there are
dozens of logics that can capture the meaning of tokens such
as "self" or "this".

All this seems to be beyond your imagination. And I think such
a restricted imagination is not the norm for human beings. On
the contrary, reflexivity is everbodys DAY-TO-DAY BUSINESS.

Best Regards

(*) There was a year ago or so a thread about that,
where we did an analysis and there was kind of a consense
that x <-> ~X is the result. But clearly there are other
interpretations possible.

(**) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory)

(***)
http://www.isss.org/maturana.htm
3.3 Self-consciousness
When an observer sees a flow of coordinations of coordinations of behavior through the coordinations of coordinations of doings on the body of languaging beings, then he or she can claim that the beings are beginning to operate in a domain of awareness of parts of their own body. The body, and self, arise in language in the same manner as any other object arises in language. The operation of self-consciousness is the reflexive distinction of a self in language that takes place as an operation that constitutes our body and our being as an object in interobjectivity. Dr. Gerda Verden-Zöller has shown that this is the way self consciousness arises in human babies when the languaging mother plays with the baby, for example, saying “nose” as she touches the baby's nose (see Verden-Zöller in Maturana & Verden-Zöller, 1993). Thus self-consciousness arises as an operation of coordination of coordination of behavior that takes place in the mother/child play which constitutes self-awareness of the nose as the nose arises as an object in interobjectivity in the recursive coordinations of behavior of the baby with the mother.
This is not seen easily when one thinks that language takes place as a symbolic operation that refers to entities that can be distinguished because of their independent existence. If to be conscious means to be aware of something as it exists independently of the being that is aware of it, how could a human being become aware of him or herself, if he or she is not an entity that exists independently of him or herself? It is because of this difficulty that we speak as we refer to ourselves as if we had a dual existence (e.g. when we say “I am speaking about myself”, or “I, in my true self”) The problem generated in this duality dissolves as we understand that language consists in living together in coordinations of coordinations of behaviors that arise in the flow of living together in recursive interactions.
Etc...
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Socrates and the Liar
    ... And this is not your everyday experience. ... But reflexivity can also be an object property, ... When an observer sees a flow of coordinations of coordinations of ... The body, and self, arise in language in the same manner as any ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Languages reflexivity and transitivity and Kleene closure
    ... > The language X is defined over S* ... > (the Kleene closure of L) is the smallest transitive and reflexive ... transitivity and reflexivity that you yourself have presented above. ...
    (comp.theory)