Re: Liar's Paradox
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 3 Apr 2008 13:11:21 -0700
Marshall says...
On Apr 3, 11:16 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Do you see your reply as having some relevance to what
I wrote?
Yes. You said: "Natural language has ambiguous, nondeterministic,
context-sensitive semantics by design and intent". I responded
by saying that that has nothing to do with the Liar Paradox
(the subject of this thread). Maybe you didn't intend for your
statement to have any relevance to this thread?
Have you found success in the past with the technique of
repeating the same phrase over and over again in response
to requests for clarification?
Okay, I have no idea what your point is. You have no idea
what my point is. Let's drop it.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- References:
- Liar's Paradox
- From: raydpratt
- Re: Liar's Paradox
- From: Marshall
- Liar's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?
- Next by Date: Re: Liar's Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: Liar's Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Liar's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|