Good catch Tim. I would put it slightly differently - there are missing steps/facts in Corvus' "logic":

P -> Q
If John is in Tokyo, then John is in Japan.
R
John is in Paris (not in Tokyo). <=== A fact from real life situation.
S
Paris is not in Japan <=== Another fact from real life situation.
R & S ->~Q
Therefore John is not in Japan.

P -> Q
R
S
R & S->~Q
Therefore ~Q — Corvus

P is irrelevant to getting ~Q. Of course this is all loosey-goosey and not formal 1st order logic

I am a millionaire totally and solely dependent on the fact of the antecedent "If I win the lottery jackpot". — Corvus

In which case, Q would have been proved without the proof process. — Corvus

I thought I was clear, obviously not. I've bolded the key phrase. As you acknowledged, this is simply not the case - your being a millionaire is clearly NOT dependent on winning the lottery. For your example to work, it needs to be re-phrased. I can think of two options:

1 - Add an additional qualifier: If I was not previously a millionaire, then etc etc . .
OR
2 - Get rid of the "totally and solely dependent". E.g., If I win the lottery jackpot then I will be a millionaire

And without which, you have left the logic behind, not having proved ~Q, but simply having asserted it. — tim wood

.I am a millionaire totally and solely dependent on the fact of the antecedent "If I win the lottery jackpot". — Corvus

You could already be a millionaire prior to the lottery drawing.

Words have meanings/usages - and your inconsistent statements render your arguments meaningless. Just to give a contrast, I disagree with @Bob Ross but his position is clearly articulated and understandable. I'll give you the last word if you want.

I haven’t contradicted myself, or at least you have not shown it. — NOS4A2

Sigh. I'm a glutton for punishment. I'll try one more time. Here are two statements from you:

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. — NOS4A2

Humans have the capacity to speak a language at some point in their lives. — NOS4A2

The second statement clearly contradicts the first. The second statement says that there IS a measurable property that appears (and may disappear) in any human being - namely the capacity to speak a language.

And again, you do not make any distinction between the terms "person/personhood", "human", or "human being" - so you cannot define your way out of this contradiction.

I don't know any way to make this any clearer.

If I take your position seriously, then we cannot say that a dog fossil is a dog fossil. — Bob Ross

A corpse of a dog is a hunk of meat that used to be a dog until it died - it is no longer a dog. A dog fossil is a fossil of an animal that was a dog when it was alive.

Do you consider a brain dead individual on life support to be a member of the human species?
Is he some other species? I’d love to hear that argument. — NOS4A2

Does your reasoning rely on some distinction between “person” & “human being”?
I don’t distinguish the two, personally. — NOS4A2

It's really hard to follow what you're saying since you keep changing your terminology.
You have repeatedly stated that you do not see any difference between being a person and being a human being - so I was using your terminology. I'm assuming here that when you say "human being" then this entails being a member of the human species.

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. Therefor no one can pick and choose with any certainty when one is or isn’t a person. — NOS4A2

Humans have the capacity to speak a language at some point in their lives. — NOS4A2

You're all over the map here contradicting yourself. Is there a distinction between personhood (being a person) and being a human being (i.e. being a member of the human species?) Yes or no?

And to answer your question, I consider a brain dead body on life support to be a hunk of meat.

I'm amused by this little side discussion about necrophilia. Let me offer a quick personal observation. My father bequeathed his corpse to medical science. This was a noble gesture. I haven't decided yet what to do with my corpse - I vacillate between my dad's decision, or donating body parts, or doing one of these environmentally sound burials. But either way it is my choice.

So if a person decides that they wanted to charge any necrophiliacs out there to, umm, do their thing on their corpse - say $100,000 a pop - and then donate that money to a worthy charity? Apart from being really bizarre (in my opinion) I'm guessing that would be morally/ethically OK.

So what happens if a person does not specify what to do with their corpse? That's up to the estate. Should the estate be allowed to rent the corpse out to necrophiliacs? I can't give a definitive answer but my sense of things is that unless the person expressed some desire in that regard then I would disapprove. Of course there is always the laws of the land to take into account as well.

NOS conflates person & human being so I was working within that framework. There have been so many posts flying back and forth that it is hard to follow, but I'll try to work within your framework. Anyway, with that in mind we still disagree. I do not consider a dead dog to be a dog. This is not "uncontroversially true" - it is opinion. I consider a dead dog to be a hunk of meat that used to be a dog. Same thing applies to Homo Sapiens.

Yes; and that is uncontroversially true. — Bob Ross

Firstly this is not "uncontroversially true" - it is an opinion. Many people disagree with you.

And on that note we will have to agree to disagree. I understand and respect your principled opinion. But I (along with many other people) consider a brain dead body to be a hunk of meat, not a person.

Still circling. You have not yet defined the characteristics that define a human person.

Now it’s a human person. First it was a human being, then it was a human animal, next it’s a human person. — NOS4A2

Your replies are becoming even more incoherent. Here's what you said a few days ago:

Does your reasoning rely on some distinction between “person” & “human being”?
I don’t distinguish the two, personally. — NOS4A2

I'll try one more time. What are the characteristics that describe a human person / human being?

A genetically unique individual which has the genes of a human is, standardly, considered a member of the human species. I don’t see anything circular here. — Bob Ross

Do you consider a brain dead individual on life support to be a member of the human species?

Still circling. You have not yet defined the characteristics that define a human person.

Being a human animal is all that is required to be a member of the human species. — NOS4A2

You're still going around in circles. How do we identify whether a collection of cells and protoplasm is an animal - let alone a human animal. Why is a severed limb not an animal (I agree that it isn't, but you have not provided a coherent explanation)?

When, for you, does an organism become a member of its species? Anything you say is going to be utterly arbitrary, if it is not conception. — Bob Ross

This is still circular logic. What makes one collection of cells and protoplasm a member of the human species? It is not merely the presence of a particular set of genes/chromosomes - there must be something else.

This is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

You are saying (or at least it appears that way) that a zygote is a human being because it turns into a human being. But unless you can give some definition/explanation of how to identify a human being this reasoning is circular and vacuous. And as you said elsewhere

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. Therefor no one can pick and choose with any certainty when one is or isn’t a person. — NOS4A2

Does your reasoning rely on some distinction between “person” & “human being”?

A zygote is a very brief stage of development of an individual human organism, — NOS4A2

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. Therefor no one can pick and choose with any certainty when one is or isn’t a person. — NOS4A2

I can't figure out your terminology . What do you mean when you use the terms "personhood" vs. "human organism / human being"

A fertilized egg is a human being because it is the earliest stage of development of a completely separate organism of the human species. — Bob Ross

Maybe I'm missing some context and/or not following you, but this seems to be circular reasoning. You seem to be saying that a zygote is a human being because it will develop into a human being. But this begs the question - how do we define a human being? Or put slightly differently, what are the essential qualities of a particular collection of cells and protoplasm that allow us to call it human?

Also (at the risk of going on a tangent) - do you make any distinction between "human being" and "person". In my mind these are synonyms?

I don't understand your reply. You say there is no means to determine personhood, yet (if I follow you correctly) you agree that a country's legal system has to make that decision.

No measurable property called “personhood” appears or disappears in any given human being. Therefor no one can pick and choose with any certainty when one is or isn’t a person. — NOS4A2

But that's the whole point of this particular line of discussion. The laws have to make that distinction - there needs to be some means to determine whether any given collection of cells and protoplasm is legally a person or not.

I’m continually impressed with how patient you are in these discussions.

I'm not following you. When you use the word "they"? Who are you referring to?

I’m coming in late here, so apologies in advance if this has already been discussed somewhere in the preceding 14 pages - but at the risk of adding yet another dimension to this good discussion it should be pointed out that there is already a real life aspect here: namely self driving cars. There are numerous hypothetical situations, here’s one:

You`re alone in a self driving car going 55 mph down a two lane road. All of a sudden another car filled with people pulls out in front of you and stalls (maybe it’s driven by a person or maybe there’s a mechanical failure). We’ll assume the technology is sophisticated enough to tell that there is more than one person in the other car. Your self driving car cannot swerve around it because there’s another car coming the other way. The only options are to plough into the stalled car or or to swerve off the road down a steep hill and over a cliff. Your self driving car has air bags and other safety equipment so if your car crashes into the side of the stalled car you will survive with minor injuries but the occupants of the other car will be seriously injured and possibly die. On the other hand if your self driving car chooses to serve off the road then likely you will die.

How should the programmers of the self driving car handle this situation? Beats me.

Therefore, how can any one say that "this sentence contains five words" is true if no one knows which sentence is being referred to? — RussellA

Just to repeat:

"this sentence contains five words" is true IFF this sentence contains five words — RussellA

This sentence has five words. Not true? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, true. — RussellA — EricH

Which sentence were you referring to when you made these statements?

it is not correct to say that the sentence "this sentence contains five words" is true because it contains five words. — RussellA

"this sentence contains five words" is true IFF this sentence contains five words, not because the sentence "this sentence contains five words" contains five words. — RussellA

This sentence has five words. Not true? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, true. — RussellA

The words "has" and "contain" have identical meaning in the context of this discussion.

Conclusion? "This sentence contains five words" is true. QED

OK. So now let's go back to your Possibility two

In the expression "this sentence is false", which sentence is "this" referring to?

There are several possibilities.

Possibility two
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" means that the expression "this sentence" is false. But this is meaningless, and is similar to saying "this house" is false. — RussellA

So let's substitute "has five words" for "is false" but otherwise keep your reasoning word for word:

In the expression "this sentence has five words", which sentence is "this" referring to?
Possibility 2
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence has five words" means that the expression "this sentence" has five words. Of course it's false, but per your reasoning it appears meaningful.

This sentence has five words. Not true? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, true. — RussellA


Summary
In summary, I see a set of words on my screen. I see that there are five words, and this is true. The five words happen to be "this", "sentence", "has", "five" and "words". I, as the observer, recognize a meaning in the five words as "this sentence has five words". Words being inanimate cannot refer. Only a conscious observer outside the words can refer. In the mind of this conscious outside observer, the words "this sentence" refers to the statement "this sentence has five words", which is true. — RussellA — EricH

I'm not following you. Please humor this bear of little brain and take this one step at a time. You said previously that "This sentence has five words" is true. Do you still hold that position. Yes or no?

I thought I was understanding you, but now I'm confused. Here's what you said earlier:

This sentence has five words. Not true? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, true. — RussellA

Summary
In summary, I see a set of words on my screen. I see that there are five words, and this is true. The five words happen to be "this", "sentence", "has", "five" and "words". I, as the observer, recognize a meaning in the five words as "this sentence has five words". Words being inanimate cannot refer. Only a conscious observer outside the words can refer. In the mind of this conscious outside observer, the words "this sentence" refers to the statement "this sentence has five words", which is true. — RussellA

Going back to your 3 possibilities, this is the form of your Possibility 3. So as I read this, you consider "This sentence has five words" to be true under your Possibility 3. Am I getting this right?

I will duplicate your examples only substituting the Pentastring instead of Liar's paradox. Here's what you said (with substitutions):

In the expression "this sentence is false" "this sentence has five words", which sentence is "this" referring to?

Possibility one
It could be referring to the sentence "the cat is grey". In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" "this sentence has five words" means that the sentence "this cat is grey" is false has five words, which is meaningful but obviously false.

Possibility two
It could be referring to itself. In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" "this sentence has five words" means that the expression "this sentence" is false has five words. But this is meaningless, and is similar to saying "this house" is false.. This is meaningful but false ("this sentence" has two words.)

Possibility three
It could be referring to the sentence "this sentence is false" "This sentence has five words". In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" "This sentence has five words" means that the sentence "this sentence is false" is false "this sentence has five words" has five words. Meaningful and true.

So AFAICT the Pentastring is meaningful in all 3 of your possibilities. Yes this is a minor point, but I wanted to clear it up.

As to whether a sentence which is seemingly self referential but instead points to the world is truly self referential or not? I leave that to you and Tones. :grin:

If I'm following this, you stated that all self referential statements are meaningless. Tones disagrees with that and offers the counter example "This sentence has five words". I could be mistaken (happens on a regular basis) but it seems that this is meaningful under all three of your possibilities. — EricH


It depends what the word "this" in the expression "this sentence is false" is referring to.

If it is referring, for example, to the sentence "this cat is grey", then the expression "this sentence is false" means that the sentence "this cat is grey" is false, which is meaningful.

But if it is referring to itself, then the expression "this sentence is false" means that the expression "this sentence" is false, which is like saying "this house" is false.

Surely in this instance, isn't it the case that both "this sentence" is false and "this house" is false are meaningless? — RussellA

Perhaps you were in a hurry when you responded, but I wasn't talking about the Liar Statement, I was talking about Tones' counter example "The sentence has five words." So in all 3 of your scenarios "This sentence has five words" appears to be meaningful.

Now if I'm following from your last reply to Tones you seem to be acknowledging this - but you are claiming that because "This sentence has five words" asserts a situation in the real world then it is no longer self referential. Am I following you correctly?

If I'm following this, you stated that all self referential statements are meaningless. Tones disagrees with that and offers the counter example "This sentence has five words". I could be mistaken (happens on a regular basis) but it seems that this is meaningful under all three of your possibilities.

Is there a reference you can point to for this approach? A manual or guide?

"This string has five words"
The words seem to me to correspond with things in the world. — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is just to expand on RussellA ’s response. The underlying issue here is that there is no information in the 5 words which lets us know that it is self referential. The words “This string” (or “This sentence”) could be pointing to a different sentence, say, “Two plus two equals four”.

You say the the words seem to you to correspond with things in the world - and that may very well be the case - but in order to make that conclusion we need to rely on additional information NOT in those 5 words.

Suppose we did this:
A) “The sentence identified by the letter A in this post has thirteen words”

This works, but we need to rely on information not in the sentence.

Alternatively, I could hand you a piece of paper and on that piece of paper would be the words “The sentence on this piece of paper I just handed you has fourteen words”

That also works, but again we are relying on information in the world.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

I do have a slight different take than RussellA on what combination of words constitutes a sentence. Consider poetry:

“The quality of mercy is not strained”
“The moon was a ghostly galleon”
"Make a joyful noise unto the Lord"
etc

I consider these to be sentences. They are grammatically correct and they evoke images and/or emotions in my mind. However they do not take a truth value since they are not asserting anything specific about the world. Well OK - “The moon was a ghostly galleon” in theory makes a statement about the world, so literally interpreted it is false, but we all recognize that it is poetry and not to be taken literally.

So in this sense “This sentence has five words” is a legitimate sentence, it just does not take a truth value unless we make an assumption about the specific meaning of the first two words.

I hope this helps clarify things.

Just to add to Tim Wood's previous question,what is meant by the words "God" (or "God-like") and "positive"

Thanks! Just edited my post.

Existential Comics has a good take on Witt this week:

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/551

Perhaps I'm totally missing the point, but a hole needs boundaries that define where it is - i.e. what/where is the border between the "hole" and the "not hole"? Otherwise there is no hole.

What is in the hole? If we're talking about the physical universe (reality, existence, everything that is the case, etc) then the word "nothing" (or nothingness) does not apply because even in empty space there are energy fields and subatomic particles coming in and out of existence.

Doesn't 'pop up' imply it popped up from a origin point/event, and thus, by my use of the term 'cause', this origin point/event is the cause? — Barkon

No. There is no specific prior event that causes the atom to decay at that particular point in time.

Otherwise, what is the significance of 'popping up'? Is it what the claim to be 'nothing-ness', you claim pop has no meaning? — Barkon

The philosophical concept of causality does not apply to physical phenomena at the atomic & sub-atomic level. The words "significance" and "meaning" do not have any meaning/usage here.