[FOM] The Lucas-Penrose Thesis
Keith Brian Johnson
joyfuloctopus at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 2 02:10:45 EDT 2006
--- laureano luna <laureanoluna at yahoo.es> wrote:
>Consider the Strengthened
> Liar:
>
> (1) (1) expresses no true proposition
>
> After realizing that (1) has no truth value, I state:
>
> (2) (1) expresses no true proposition
>
> and I can take (2) as a different object from (1) only
> because I notice that (1) and (2) do not express
> equivalent thoughts (indeed (1) expresses no thought).
>
> The reasoning above requires reference to semantical
> features, since the whole point is that two
> syntactically identical sentences have different
> semantical values; and I believe there is no possible
> disambiguation of all linguistic cases of this kind.
Mightn't we view the distinction between (1) and (2) as one of implicit
meaning? In (1), (1) is taken to have truth-value, so we could write
it as
(1) The purportedly truth-valued sentence (1) expresses no true
proposition.
We then analyze (1), find that it is neither true nor false, and
conclude that the purportedly truth-valued sentence (1) is actually not
truth-valued. Then we write
(2) The actually non-truth-valued sentence (1) expresses no true
proposition.
And that's simply true. Making them more explicit reveals that (1) and
(2) were never the same sentence; they only appeared to be.
Keith Brian Johnson
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the FOM
mailing list