When someone considers the claim, "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously," you will inform them that the statement they are considering is nonsensical.
— Leontiskos
You skipped my examples that are not of that kind.
But as to your example.
Just now, you referenced the sentence "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" without there being an implied speaker other than a hypothetical one. You were able to type the sentence, reference it, and still you are not the speaker of the sentence.
I'll do it again. Consider the following sentence that I am displaying but not asserting:
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
There is no implied speaker, especially not one asserting.
And previously:
For example, in a math book may appear sentences that were typed by an author but are not considered to be specific to any one person. For example, I can display the sentence, "Harry Truman was a president" and that sentence can be discussed no matter that its just typed by me.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
Also, consider the following sentence that I am not asserting but merely displaying so that we can talk about it:
This sentence has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze
1. Phil is a fool.
2. Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
What is the difference between (1) and (2)? The relevant difference is simply that (1) has a possible (implicit or hypothetical) speaker whereas (2) does not. To merely assert that (1) has no hypothetical speaker is to ignore this difference between (1) and (2). The things that the OP is considering are like (2), not (1), ergo, "There is no possible speaker in such cases, and hence the "sentences" are nonsensical." — Leontiskos
Phil is a fool.
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
What is the difference between (1) and (2)? The relevant difference is simply that (1) has a possible (implicit or hypothetical) speaker whereas (2) does not. To merely assert that (1) has no hypothetical speaker is to ignore this difference between (1) and (2). The things that the OP is considering are like (2), not (1), ergo, "There is no possible speaker in such cases, and hence the "sentences" are nonsensical." — Leontiskos
Of course "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" can be spoken.
One could go out tomorrow with a bullhorn on the Spanish Steps to say a hundred times
"Colourless green ideas sleep furiously! Do you hear me people, colourless green ideas sleep furiously!" — TonesInDeepFreeze
The objection to such a consideration is always something like, "No one in their right mind would ever speak such a thing." To consider an utterance that has no possible speaker is to consider a nonsensical utterance. — Leontiskos
Also, in other threads I've commented on the matters of the incompleteness theorem in philosophy of mathematics. I don't have comments at this time on the incompleteness theorem in connection with science, epistemology, ontology and metaphysics. — TonesInDeepFreeze
What is the difference between (1) and (2)? The relevant difference is simply that (1) has a possible (implicit or hypothetical) speaker whereas (2) does not. To merely assert that (1) has no hypothetical speaker is to ignore this difference between (1) and (2). The things that the OP is considering are like (2), not (1), ergo, "There is no possible speaker in such cases, and hence the "sentences" are nonsensical." — Leontiskos
However, I grant that would be qualified by your earlier "in their right mind". — TonesInDeepFreeze
My initial reply is that whether in right mind or not, it can be said. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Indeed, a reply to your argument should not have overlooked your qualification 'in their right mind', so when you noted that, I immediately recognized that you did qualify that way. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Now, if you would only recognize that you were wrong to continue to claim I took a position, when I had posted at least a few times that I take the opposite of that position, and hopefully to desist from misrepresenting me that way. — TonesInDeepFreeze
What position is that? — Leontiskos
Also, in other threads I've commented on the matters of the incompleteness theorem in philosophy of mathematics. I don't have comments at this time on the incompleteness theorem in connection with science, epistemology, ontology and metaphysics.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
In his 2002 lecture, "Gödel and the end of physics", Stephen Hawking made excellent comments on the connection with physics. He obviously left out technical details because those were irrelevant to the question at hand. People attending his lecture were simply not interested in the technical details. They just wanted to know what the value of Gödel's theorem is for physics. Hawking pointed out that positivism is simply futile. Laplace's demon is the wrong view on physics because it will never be possible. — Tarskian
Let me jump in somewhere: if a liar says he is lying, the foundation is shaky enough to allow either that he is telling the truth or that is he not (telling the truth). What exactly is he lying or not lying about? That's unclear. He is the premise, the substance, that is relative in the equation, so anything he says can either be true or false and we can't know because he, a priori, is an unreliable being. From his own perspective he may have some dialectic that tells him when and where he lies, but in our eyes we can assume nothing about what he says except that he lies most of the time. — Gregory
e.g. you are under the spell of material implication — Leontiskos
You may as well accuse a doctor of lying when he tells you that you have a tumor and you tell him that you do not. — Leontiskos
That's not "e.g." since it is not what you said - it is clearly weaker. — TonesInDeepFreeze
In the other thread, I think about three times, you claimed [...], or [...], or that [...]. Something to that effect. — TonesInDeepFreeze
That is a stupid analogy. — TonesInDeepFreeze
if a liar says he is lying, the foundation is shaky enough to allow either that he is telling the truth or that is he not (telling the truth). — Gregory
What exactly is he lying or not lying about? — Gregory
He's talking about his lying. If he's lying, then he's lying that he's lying. If he's not lying, then he's telling the truth that he's lying. Both disjuncts are absurd.
he is an unreliable being. — Gregory
we can assume nothing about what he says except that he lies most of the time. — Gregory
It seems that you have no clear idea what I am supposed to have said:
In the other thread, I think about three times, you claimed [...], or [...], or that [...]. Something to that effect.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
Which is wonderful: you run around accusing people of lying and you have no idea what they are supposed to have even said. — Leontiskos
In the other thread, I think about three times, you claimed that I conflate material implication with everyday use of "if then", or that I that I consider material implication to be the only correct understanding of "if then", or that I insist that "if then" can only be considered as material implication. Something to that effect. — TonesInDeepFreeze
That is a stupid analogy.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
It's not. — Leontiskos
it seems to me that in this case we are considering the assertion, "I am a liar," or, "I always tell lies," rather than, "I am lying." — Leontiskos
Number one isn’t. — Fire Ologist
“This sentence has five words” you don’t know which sentence the speaker is taking about — Fire Ologist
“Grammar is false” similarly isn’t about anything that can be true or false.
“Punctuation is true.”
What? — Fire Ologist
This sentence has five words. Not true? — TonesInDeepFreeze
a liar — Gregory
when he says "i always lie" [...]Either he HAS always lied and he is owning up to it or he is lying that he always lies, wherein he must have at least once spoken the truth.. The latter seems to be where the trouble is — Gregory
When L says he is lying, he hasn't specified what he is lying about. — Gregory
It's like the barber paradox. Not enough information is given so we must assume he grow his hair to hippie length. — Gregory
To us, when he says "i always lie", we must understand the language "game" involved. Either he HAS always lied and he is owning up to it or he is lying that he always lies, wherein he must have at least once spoken the truth.. The latter seems to be where the trouble is — Gregory
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.