Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3023 talk.philosophy.misc:1792
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fun with the semantics of paradox
Summary: I am decidedly undecided on the point I am failing to make here.
Keywords: Meaning, sense and nonsense, truth and falsehood.
Message-ID: <43413@linus.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jan 89 12:46:09 GMT
References: <551@soleil.UUCP>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Organization: IdeaSync, Inc., Chronos, VT
Lines: 34

I continue to be stimulated by Dave Peru's roving mind.

In article <551@soleil.UUCP> peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes
about paradox:

 > When you view the meaning of a paradox, your brain is on a razor's edge.
 > Depending on what side you fall, the paradox is decidedly true or false.
 > Example:  This statement is false.

When sorting sentences into the two categories, TRUE and FALSE, paradoxes
arise with sentences that defy such categorization.  As in most paradoxes,
this one reveals that two categories are insufficient to classify
sentences.  A third category is UNDECIDABLE.  A fourth category is
MEANINGLESS.  A fifth category is AMBIGUOUS.

 > Getting back to paradox, here's a test of your understanding:
 > 
 > Paradox is not this sentence.  True or false?

For now, I would categorize Dave's sentence as AMBIGOUS.  Does it
mean "This sentence is not an example of a paradoxical sentence."?
Does it mean "This sentence is not the definition of the category
of objects known as 'paradoxical sentences'."?

Raymond Smullyan speaks of "meaningless sequences of words".  Each
word in the sequence may have unambiguous meaning, but the *sequence*
may not have clear meaning.

--Barry Kort


Today's quote:	"There are two kinds of people in this world:  Those
		 who divide the world into two kinds of people and
		 those who don't."