Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.

On Jan 1, 10:55 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:26 am, "R. Srinivasan" <sradh...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Lat us say Mr. X blurts out "This sentence is....." and exactly at
that point he drops dead. Can you now let us know what is the sentence
that Mr. X had in mind? The answer is we cannot be sure at all. All we
can say is that if Mr. X had no sentence in mind at the time of his
death, he was attempting to attribute some property to a non-existent
sentence.

Suppose Mr. X had a sentence in mind, but because of some
drug-induced state instead said "False this is sentence." What
does that tell us about the meaning of some other sentence?
Nothing. Even if the other sentence we wish to consider is
a reordering of the words of the first sentence.


Sure. But that is because "False this is sentence" is not even
gramatically correct. I wouldn't call it a sentence. But let us take
"'False' is the truth-value of this sentence". That would seem to
override my objection at first sight. But it really doesn't. The same
objection applies, because how can someone know the truth-value of a
sentence before even defining it? If Mr. X were to drop after uttering
"'False' is the truth value of this...." then again assuming "this"
points to the sentence under construction, Mr. X cannot possibly have
had any sentence in mind to which he is trying to attribute the truth-
value of "False".


The problem here is that we human beings can parse sentences only when
their words are read sequentially, which means that the informal
notion of "time" is important in understanding what sentences mean.

Syntax does not require time. It just requires order.


That is correct. A sentence must be presented with the words in the
correct order. But the issue I am considering is how a human mind
actually understands that sentence. Just as a human being can utter
only one word at a time, I claim that a human being can also read (or
conceptualize, understand etc.) only one word at a time. For example,
consider "This sentence is meaningless". Although all the words are
visible at any given time, the human mind actually reads "This" first,
then "sentence" and so on. While reading a word, we actually "utter"
it in our minds, and while uttering it, we have no other word in mind.
It is our memory that enables us to make sense of all the words put
together, after having read them one at a time, in the given order. To
see this clearly, just consider that somebody else is reading out that
sentence out to you. You clearly hear only one word at a time, and it
is your memory that enables you to put them all together and make
sense of the sentence.

As for "order", it is the human conception of space and our ability to
distinguish left from right, top from bottom, etc. that makes "order"
possible. In other words, even "order" could actually be a mind-
dependent concept, in the sense that some other alien creature could
have senses that take in the words of the presented sentence in a
different order, or maybe not even in any fixed order.


Keeoing this in mind, let us re-formulate the sentence in question in
an *exactly* equivalent manner as follows:

"This sentence, which has not yet been defined, is meaningless"

Now we can clearly agree that the above sentence attempts to attribute
the property of "meaninglessness" to a non-existent sentence.

I do not agree that the above sentence does not exist.


To the left of and including "defined" in the above sentence, we
clearly have no completed sentence. To the right we have "is
meaningless" which makes an assertion *about* a sentence, which we
have just correctly asserted as incomplete and therefore non-existent.
As I said in my previous post, to assert that a sentence indeed exists
you would have to accept Platonic existence of the sentence indpendent
of our attempted definitions. So in the above sentence, "is
meaningless" actually is about that Platonically existent sentence
which "exists" despite our incomplete definition. In other words, if
"This sentence" actually points to that Platonically existent object,
then our inability to demonstrate a construction for that object
before declaring it as "meaningless" is not a fatal objection. This
may be OK in classical logic, but not in NAFL, which requires us to
explicitly construct the objects being referred to.


Conclusion: When somebody utters "This sentence is blah blah blah..."
then s(he) should have a *constructed* sentence in mind the moment
"sentence" is uttered.

A different syntax could put the word "sentence" at the end,
and then your objection goes away. Your objection depends
on English word order.


No not really. I have given an example at the beginning of this reply.

Regards, RS

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Strong AI Thesis (No Chinese room, I promise)
    ... My objection was that you are using the word "existence" differently from most ... so-called "mind" is simply the outcome of the 100% physical brain. ... The quicksort algorithm, when it's not just a physical hardware ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Play, Want, Bin 28/07/2008
    ... Mind you, in the past I've bumped into people from work before in the pub ... but only in the privacy of their own homes. ... The same objection might be levelled ... at a sports official whose leisure activities involve applying the lash to ...
    (uk.games.video.misc)
  • Re: Non-linear combination
    ... So was the objection right or wrong? ... > what I have originally in mind is more in the direction ... > of combining two streams from PRNGs of n-bit units. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... Your main objection seems to be that it seems implausible to you. ... Assume the mind is non-physical but linked, somehow, to the brain. ... mind interact and influence each other. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Choice sequences, intuition, etc
    ... |disjunctive connective - it says "either there is a construction ... have peace of mind, whether they are safe, whether they can ... them have taken paradigm shifts as being such radical ... adopted a "constructivist" frame of mind. ...
    (sci.logic)