I’ll take a stab at it. My intuitive take on it is that the subject who states the proposition can’t be negated. So propositions generally refer to something or some state of affairs other than the self, some thing or state which may or may not be. But when they refer to the self, then there’s no possibility of negation, because that would negate the possibility of there being a proposition as there would then be no-one to put it. That has to do with the problem of reflexivity, which is that one can only grasp something other to oneself. Put another way, propositions always must concern something, even if reduced to abstraction, and ‘something’ is always in a relationship of being other to oneself. That relationship of otherness is the bare minimum condition for there being a logical proposition about anything. (There’s the ‘epistemic cut’ again.)

reflexivity — Wayfarer

:up:

Self-referential paradox: A person saying, "I don't exist."

1. Reflexive (implicit) affirmation: To say "I don't exist", I must exist but this is unstated.

2. Reflexive (explicit) negation: I don't exist.

Yalbo's paradox is not reflexive.

I’ll have to take your word for that.

And isn’t the op about self reference paradoxes in particular?

It seems it's not self-reference that leads to paradox. Something else is going on.

Yalbo's paradox is not reflexive. — Banno

It seems it's not self-reference that leads to paradox. Something else is going on. — Banno

Well remove the self-reference (reflexivity) and check if the paradox still exists

1. That sentence is false (liar paradox).
2. If that sentence is true then, Germany borders China. (Curry's paradox).

Also, not all paradoxes are self-referential.

And isn’t the op about self reference paradoxes in particular? — Wayfarer

Yes, it is.

If sentence 2 is false, sentence 3 is true. — Banno

How do you infer that?

Ok, it should read "If sentence 2 is false, some sentence after 2 is true".

Suppose some Sn is true.
So Sn+1 is false.
So there is some k > n+1 such that Sk is true.
But Sn is true and k > n, so Sk is false.
So Sn is false.
So for all n, Sn is false.
But then for all n, Sn is true.
So for all n, Sn is false and Sn is true.

That's the idea.

Self-referential paradox: A person saying, "I don't exist." — TheMadFool

How is this a paradox? IF this it true then you must exist, Definitely that is true.
But if this is false then you do exist. This doesn't seem impossible to me, there is a definite conclusion that can be reached, "This statement is false."

Self-referential paradox: A person saying, "I don't exist."
— TheMadFool

How is this a paradox? — I love Chom-choms

It's not a paradox. It's a lie. Someone saying he doesn't exist denies his own existence. So, instead of a lie, it could be denial also.

How is this a paradox? — I love Chom-choms

It's self-refuting, it amounts to saying: I exist AND I don't exist, a classic contradiction!

It's self-refuting, it amounts to saying: I exist AND I don't exist, a classic contradiction! — TheMadFool

No contradiction here. Just two different meanings of "to exist".

No contradiction here. Just two different meanings of "to exist". — SoftEdgedWonder

Equivocation! Interesting, explain please.

Equivocation! Interesting, explain please. — TheMadFool

Equivocation. That's the word I looked for! Thanks. There are two different meanings for "exist". Which ones? I can exist while not existing at the same time.

My two rules are:
Only agents can refer to anything. (reference is a form of thought)
Agents cannot refer to themselves. (A finger can only point away from itself)

It's self-refuting, it amounts to saying: I exist AND I don't exist, a classic contradiction! — TheMadFool

Can you please explain your reasoning.
The only definite statement I can say is that he cannot be telling the truth but from that I can infer that his statement is false or it is misunderstood. If it is a misunderstanding then there is no point into discussing it any further, at least from this perspective. So the only worthwhile conclusion is that the person's statement is false, which would mean that he does exist. and I don't see any problem with that conclusion. If I am wrong then how? Please explain.

My two rules are: — Yohan

then:

Agents cannot refer to themselves. — Yohan

he cannot be telling the truth — I love Chom-choms

Yes, the person who utters the words, "I don't exist" is lying but the reason why you came to that conclusion is because it's self-refuting or self-contradictory. See reductio ad absurdum.

Equivocation. That's the word I looked for! Thanks. There are two different meanings for "exist". Which ones? I can exist while not existing at the same time. — SoftEdgedWonder

Not much of an explanation.

My two rules are: — Yohanthen:
Agents cannot refer to themselves. — Yohan
— Banno
I can use my finger to point at my body, but I can't point the tip of my finger at itself.

I can use my finger to point at my body, but I can't point the tip of my finger at itself. — Yohan

You can point it at the other tips. Assuming all tips have a common core you can learn about the pointing tip.

@SoftEdgedWonder
I can use a mirror to indirectly observe what my face looks like. Indirect self knowledge is possible. My point is that some part of the reference-er cannot refer directly at itself.

Another way to think about this. Reality contains everything, but reality is not contained by anything. I can point to things in reality, but I can't point to the container of everything.

I can use my finger to point at my body, but I can't point the tip of my finger at itself. — Yohan

What about that mirror thing? It's pretty freaky. Just remember to account for the inversion or you'll get all fucked up. The mirror image is said to be identical, because it has the same chirality, but's really not identical because it is a reflection.

What about that mirror thing? It's pretty freaky. Just remember to account for the inversion or you'll get all fucked up. The mirror image is said to be identical, because it has the same chirality, but's really not identical because it is a reflection. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not the man in the mirror? I am not looking at myself looking at myself?

When you use the mirror, doesn't the tip of your finger point at itself through the means of reflection? Can't a pointing be reflected?

When you use the mirror, doesn't the tip of your finger point at itself through the means of reflection? Can't a pointing be reflected? — Metaphysician Undercover

A mirror image of my finger is not my finger, so if we are very technical, we can still say no.
But I guess we can say this is a way the finger can indirectly point at itself, or refer to itself. But this would be me assigning meaning to my finger as pointing, and then further assigning meaning to the image in the mirror as pointing.
You would have to ask me if I am intending to point at the mirror, the imagine in the mirror, or am using the mirror to point my finger at itself.