Or is self-reference inherently contradictory so that nothing can actually refer to itself, but only to objects outside of itself?

Yep, your post refers to itself.

is self-reference inherently contradictory — Yohan

Not inherently.
It's just that, with self-reference, you have to be careful.
There are some further implications, like for self-knowledge.


• Self-Reference (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Logical Paradoxes » 4. Paradoxes of Self-Reference (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Self-reference (Wikipedia)

I dont think so. Referencing is a causal relationship between the referencer and what is referenced. Something having a relationship with itself is incoherent. Something can only be what it is. Referring to that something entails using something else to point to it.

I can say my name, but the sound of my name does not exhaust what it is to be me. The sound of my voice speaking my name is only part of what it means to be me and the sound of my name points to more than me just saying my name.

Yep, your post refers to itself. — jorndoe

So if there was a painting with the words painted on it "I am a painting". You think the painting is literally referring to itself? Isn't reference a type of thought? Wouldn't that be the same as saying the painting is having a thought?

Define what it is to be the post, and then define what it is referencing the post. You might find that part of the post is referencing the whole. So a thing cannot reference it self, but can use part of itself to reference itself, like using your fingerprint.

Referencing is a causal relationship between the referencer and what is referenced. — Harry Hindu

Can one talk about the future? Or things happening far away? Or counterfactuals?

↪Yohan
Define what it is to be the post, and then define what it is referencing the post. You might find that part of the post is referencing the whole. So a thing cannot reference it self, but can use part of itself to reference itself, like using your fingerprint. — Harry Hindu

I think its always a mind who labels sensory data as being objects, then interprets objects to be symbols, then attaches meaning to the symbols, eventually creating the idea of a post. It's actually the mind that arranged the post and referred to it, and/or the reader as well after it was posted, but not the post itself. The post does not exist as a form of communication without some mind...at least I can't conceive how it could.
It makes sense that part of the post is used to refer some mind to the whole post.

Stove's gem again. This post cannot refer to itself without a mind to interpret it, therefore it cannot refer to itself.

Lets make the implicit explicit.

"Is this sentence of the post referring to itself"?

Yes.

Being a computer scientist, I would argue that this post can only be considered as referring to itself if there is a link inside the post back to the post.

Like this: Reference to this post.

I think Jorndoe beat me to that point though a few comments above.

This comment refers to itself.

Yes it can because self-referencing is OK in our mental framework.

Stove's gem again. This post cannot refer to itself without a mind to interpret it, therefore it cannot refer to itself. — Banno

It seems like people who believe stuff can happen without a mind are very selective on what those things are...apparently words can mean things without a mind giving meaning to the words.... but a tree can't be beautiful without a mind present to give a tree that particular kind of meaning. Or do you think the beauty of a tree can exist without a mind

Yeah, silly buggers. They're a bit like the folk who think they have to specify that letters can't read themselves, presumably to guard against sentence sentience...

↪Yohan Yeah, silly buggers. They're a bit like the folk who think they have to specify that letters can't read themselves, presumably to guard against sentence sentience... — Banno

I don't mind being silly, unless it means I am wrong or offensive. I think you meant the perception of sentence sentience?

I guess my point about the subjectivity of beauty is so bad it's not even worth addressing? I have to admit, I do kind of think trees are beautiful objectively.

Is this post referring to itself?

Only a human can refer to itself. The post is not human. Therefor, no.

In a technical sense, that link posted before does, literally in that it is a URL, refer to this post. However, that only makes sense in the context of the internet, ie the medium that this post is posted on. So, neither this post nor the link can be interpreted without the medium.

Referencing is a causal relationship between the referencer and what is referenced.
— Harry Hindu

Can one talk about the future? Or things happening far away? Or counterfactuals? — Michael

Absolutely, because these things are ideas in which scribbles and sounds can be about. You never talk about your actual future. You can only talk about your potential future, which is an idea in the present, spoken or written about after the fact of you thinking of it. You can only talk about things after they have happened - either out in the world or in your head. And then the talking isn't the thing being talked about, but something else. We have language and then we have what language is about. Interestingly, we can use language to talk about language, but then some instance of language use cannot refer to all the rules of a language and how its used.

Define what it is to be the post, and then define what it is referencing the post. You might find that part of the post is referencing the whole. So a thing cannot reference it self, but can use part of itself to reference itself, like using your fingerprint. — Harry Hindu

Actually, your comment is referring to the post, not the comment. The post is more than the comment and when I click the link, it refers me to the whole post. Therefore, some thing can never refer to itself. It must use something that isn't its whole self to refer to its whole self.

It makes no sense for something to use itself to point to itself. Its always just itself, and any pointing to the self is done by utilizing other things, like scribbles and sounds.

Absolutely, because these things are ideas in which scribbles and sounds can be about. You never talk about your actual future. You can only talk about your potential future, which is an idea in the present, spoken or written about after the fact of you thinking of it. You can only talk about things after they have happened - either out in the world or in your head. And then the talking isn't the thing being talked about, but something else. We have language and then we have what language is about. Interestingly, we can use language to talk about language, but then some instance of language use cannot refer to all the rules of a language and how its used. — Harry Hindu

If I predict something about the future then my prediction is true iff the future happens as I predict. Therefore my prediction is about the future, not a particular idea in my head.

The same for events that happen far away. "My brother is eating Weetabix right now" is true iff my brother is eating Weetabix right now. My statement is about what my brother is actually doing, not a particular idea in my head.

The same for counterfactuals. "Harry Hindu would have agreed with me if I had written my post in French" is true iff things would have been as I said, and so is about a counterfactual event, not a particular idea in my head.

Otherwise how can counterfactuals, predictions, and descriptions of far away things ever be false?

Consider this sentence:
"Hi, I am this sentence"
True or false claim? False, because the one who wrote the sentence is not the sentence. the 'I am' refers to the writer of the sentence.

Imagine we are hanging out in a coffee shop. Out of nowhere I say to you "I am a self-referrencing sentence." Would there be two claims? One of me claiming to be a self referencing statement, and the other the statement itself which is claiming to be a self referencing statement?

The discussion in this thread seems to be confused, oscillating between two pretty much entirely different questions: first, about the reality of reference in general, and second, about the possibility of self-reference.

As for the person who refers to themself as a sentence, one would advise him or her to go back to English class to learn what "I", "am", and "sentence" mean.

Is this post referring to itself? — Yohan

The word "this" suggests it is; after all, "this" is the post itself. However, that the sentence is an interrogative is interesting because it breathes life into these words; the reader is left to wonder whether the post is alive and self-aware and inquiring into its own nature.

As far as I can tell, only consciousness that's reached a certain level of sophistication is capable of self-reference not in a declarative sense like the liar sentence but in an interrogative sense like in the OP.

What intrigues me is whether it could be the other way round? Did the self-referential interrogative capabilities of language lead to self-awareness?

That's my two cents.

One cannot answer the op's question in the negative, without admitting the very thing one wishes to deny. One would have to maintain that the op is senseless. Too late for some. Personally, i refer to myself quite often - look, I just did - and again. And as you can see, I sometimes talk about the things I am saying. and if you can understand me, then I must be able to speak thus.

Otherwise how can counterfactuals, predictions, and descriptions of far away things ever be false? — Michael

What does it even mean for the future to be false unless you aren't really talking about the future, but a representation of the future? The fact that these things can be false is evidence that they are not necessarily about, or causally connected with, counterfactuals, predictions, and descriptions of far away things. That was the point of distinguishing the actual from the potential.

If I predict something about the future then my prediction is true iff the future happens as I predict. Therefore my prediction is about the future, not a particular idea in my head. — Michael

Exactly. The future and your prediction are two separate things. Isn't a property of a prediction is that it occurs before the future? Predicting something after it happened isn't a prediction of the future. It would be a memory of the past.

Predictions are actually related to memories of the past. It seems to me that you need memories of the past in order to make predictions. So predictions are not caused by some condition in the future, but some present state of the mind in recalling past conditions.

Self-reference appears to create an infinite regress, of the self referencing itself, referencing itself, referencing itself, etc., just like when a visual or audio feedback loop is created by the camera or microphone looking at itself, looking at itself, looking at itself, etc., or listening to itself, listening to itself, listening to itself etc.

What does it even mean for the future to be false unless you aren't really talking about the future, but a representation of the future? The fact that these things can be false is evidence that they are not necessarily about, or causally connected with, counterfactuals, predictions, and descriptions of far away things. That was the point of distinguishing the actual from the potential. — Harry Hindu

I'm not saying that the future is false. I'm saying that my prediction about the future is false if my prediction doesn't come to pass. If my prediction about the future is false if my prediction doesn't come to pass then my prediction is about the future (something that as-of-now has no causal power), and not about an idea in my head.

If my prediction about the future is about an idea in my head then what would it mean for my prediction to be true or false?

Predictions are actually related to memories of the past. It seems to me that you need memories of the past in order to make predictions. So predictions are not caused by some condition in the future, but some present state of the mind in recalling past conditions. — Harry Hindu

That's the point I'm making. My prediction is not caused by some condition in the future, but it is about some condition in the future, which is why the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of that condition determines the truth of my prediction.

Therefore it's false to say that "referencing is a causal relationship between the referencer and what is referenced." We can refer to things that have no causal relationship with us.

My prediction is not caused by some condition in the future, but it is about some condition in the future, which is why the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of that condition determines the truth of my prediction.

Therefore it's false to say that "referencing is a causal relationship between the referencer and what is referenced." We can refer to things that have no causal relationship with us. — Michael

If your prediction is false then it isnt about the future. This means that predictions aren't about the future, but are about memories of similar conditions. Like i said, memories are required to make predictions and predictions are based on what you know, not what you don't. So the causal relationship is between your prediction and your memories. It is false that you are ever referencing the future with predictions. You are referencing your memories, which are about the past.