First, putting 'philosophers' in scare quotes is sophomoric.

Not every instance of a sentence needs to be considered dependent on a particular speaker.

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.

Beyond that, one of the lessons of the liar paradox, due to Tarski, is that in certain interpreted languages, a liar sentence cannot be formulated

I asked whether the sentence is true.

Aside from the whether a sentence is part of "the world", obviously sentences are true or false when they refer to other sentences: "'Joe is cool' has three words" is true. "'This sentence has five words' has five words" is true.

But the other poster said that sentences have truth value only if they refer to "the world" and not themselves. But is that true? "This sentence has five words" has no truth value?

Count the words and decide whether or not the sentence is true, or don't decide.

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

There is always an implicit or implied speaker. When you consider a claim like that you are implying the linguistic intentions of the average English speaker in order to infer meaning. A nonsensical statement fails in all of this, insofar as there is no true speaker and there is no implicit speaker. The only people who pretend that such nonsensical statements have meaning are, again, "philosophers."

The other poster said that sentences have truth value only if they refer to "the material world" and not themselves. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You continue your habit of falsely attributing quotes. He said nothing about the "material" world.

You continue your habit of falsely attributing quotes. He said nothing about the "material" world. — Leontiskos

You are lying that I "continue". Among thousands of posts, not more than a handful of times, I've botched attribution, and I've corrected it immediately when I found out. And this time, I corrected the quote to take out 'material' before you posted (of course, I'm not blaming you for not seeing that before you posted, as obviously you were posting at the same time as I was editing).

Meanwhile, in another thread, I fulsomely documented your lies about what I posted, more than once. And your response was an obnoxious false attack on me while you didn't have the integrity to at least recognize that you had claimed I had said the opposite of what I said.

There is always an implicit or implied speaker. — Leontiskos

Not for me. I can consider a sentence for consideration without assuming an implied speaker, and certainly not an implied speaker who asserts it to be true.

You are lying that I "continue". — TonesInDeepFreeze

You are full of vapid nitpicking. But I am glad you corrected your mistake this time.

Not for me. I can consider a sentence for consideration without assuming an implied speaker, and certainly not an implied speaker who asserts it to be true. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure you do. When someone considers the claim, "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously," you will inform them that the statement they are considering is nonsensical. We could say that to consider a possible utterance is to speak it secundum quid, and what is not able to be spoken is not able to be considered. 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.

Bringing this back, then, to the OP, we should ask whether the "sentences" in question—along with their attributed meaning—have any possible speaker. For example, is it possible for someone to speak, "I am lying," while simultaneously meaning that they are lying and that they are not-lying? No, it is not. There is no possible speaker in such cases, and hence the "sentences" are nonsensical (even in the additional cases where they are thought to have an extrinsic object).

If the mind is pure matter (brain, nervous system) and it can compute Godel's truths — Gregory

Again, the true sentences are not provable in certain systems, but provable in others. We cannot prove the Godel sentence in, say, PA, but we can prove it in other systems. And, in other systems, we can prove that it is true in n other systems.*

* The distinction between (1) proving a sentence in a system and (2) proving that the sentence is true in an certain interpretation:

(1) In a system S, show a derivation of the sentence P. That is syntactical.

(2) For a given interpretation R of the language for S, show in another system T, a derivation of 'P is true per R'.

You are lying that I "continue".
— TonesInDeepFreeze

You are full of vapid nitpicking. — Leontiskos

Talking about implied speakers, I do take it that there is a speaker behind "You continue your habit [...]" and that speaker chooses the words intentionally and for effect. And I refer now to that speaker as 'you'.

You wrote that I "continue a habit" of false attribution. But, again, (1) It is a light year away from a "habit". Again, over thousands and thousands of posts I've erred sometimes (as would just about any imperfect human). But anytime it's been pointed out to me or I've discovered it, I've acknowledge the error. And, in this case, I realized the error myself and immediately corrected in edit. (2) It is not vapid nor nitpicking to catch you claiming it is a continuation of a "habit". I take it that you wrote that it is a continuation of a habit to make a point that it is a continuation of habit and that you did that for effect.

You wrote a falsehood, and apparently for effect. Instead of owning your own words, you speciously turn it back on me, to fault me for catching your lie.

Meanwhile, still not acknowledgement of your lies about me elsewhere that actually were continued, and continued after I called you on them.

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.

But, again, (1) It is a light year away from a "habit". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Perhaps you have a habit that you are not aware of. Someone wrote a single post in the whole thread and you managed to misquote that single, short post. I submit that what is at play is the strawmanning that you are often engaged in, for your idiosyncratic interpretations always harm the legitimacy of your interlocutor's position.

You wrote a falsehood, and apparently for effect. Instead of owning your own words, you speciously turn it back on me, to fault me for catching your lie. — TonesInDeepFreeze

There is a wonderful dovetailing between you and this thread with respect to conflating (purported) falsehoods with lies. But we've been over that already.

You skipped my examples that are not of that kind. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I addressed your example of word-counting.

Just now, you referenced the sentence "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" without there being an implied speaker other than a hypothetical one. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Where have I said that the implied speaker cannot be hypothetical?

And previously — TonesInDeepFreeze

I addressed this in my reply to that post.

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

Again:

Sure you do. When someone considers the claim, "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously," you will inform them that the statement they are considering is nonsensical. We could say that to consider a possible utterance is to speak it secundum quid, and what is not able to be spoken is not able to be considered. 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.

Bringing this back, then, to the OP, we should ask whether the "sentences" in question—along with their attributed meaning—have any possible speaker. For example, is it possible for someone to speak, "I am lying," while simultaneously meaning that they are lying and that they are not-lying? No, it is not. There is no possible speaker in such cases, and hence the "sentences" are nonsensical (even in the additional cases where they are thought to have an extrinsic object). — Leontiskos

"This sentence has five words," has a possible speaker, therefore it can be spoken, and therefore it can be spoken secundum quid (in the form of a consideration). When we consider a statement we say, "What would it be like to make a statement such as this? :chin:" When, "No one in their right mind would ever speak such a thing," then it cannot be legitimately considered.

But the other poster said that sentences have truth value only if they refer to "the world" and not themselves. But is that true? "This sentence has five words" has no truth value?

Count the words and decide whether or not the sentence is true, or don't decide. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is true that we can treat sentences as objects of predication, but the difference is that the number of words that a sentence contains is a material property, not a formal property. So ↪RussellA could say, "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously," has five words, but he could not say, "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously," is true (or meaningful). Counting words and affirming a truth value are two different things. — Leontiskos

(1) Whatever your definitions of 'material property' and 'formal property', the question was:

the other poster said that sentences have truth value only if they refer to "the world" and not themselves. But is that true? "This sentence has five words" has no truth value?

Count the words and decide whether or not the sentence is true, or don't decide. — TonesInDeepFreeze

(2) The comparison with "colorless green ideas" is not apt, since I am not asking about a sentence that has such problematic phrasing as that one.

The point was that the other poster said we should eschew self-referential sentences since they don't make claims about "the world".

But (a) Are sentence not part of the world? and (b) The sentence "This sentence is false true" is self-referential, but is it not true? [corrected in edit]

is it possible for someone to speak, "I am lying," while simultaneously meaning that they are lying and that they are not-lying? — Leontiskos

The matter I addressed whether self-referential sentences all must be disqualified, not whether the liar sentence in particular must be disqualified.

And we may consider sentences that are displayed without implication that they have an implied or even hypothetical speaker. There instances in which we may consider display of a sentence so that we may consider it in and of itself.

You skipped my examples that are not of that kind.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

I addressed your example of word-counting. — Leontiskos

At that point, that was about a self-referring sentence, not about implied speakers.

And the question does not reduce to counting words:

Later, I also gave examples about implied speakers.

Just now, you referenced the sentence "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" without there being an implied speaker other than a hypothetical one.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Where have I said that the implied speaker cannot be hypothetical? — Leontiskos

It's good that we agree that there may be hypothetical speakers.

Perhaps you have a habit that you are not aware of. Someone wrote a single post in the whole thread and you managed to misquote that single, short post. I submit that what is at play is the strawmanning that you are often engaged in, for your idiosyncratic interpretations always harm the legitimacy of your interlocutor's position. — Leontiskos

(1) "Perhaps" just about anything. Perhaps you don't know what you're talking about. Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. If it were a habit, then it would be more than a few instances. Moreover, if a few instances suffices to be a habit, and ones where the person refused to acknowledge, then you have a quite nasty habit.

(2) When I saw my post, I immediately recognized that 'material' was not correct. So I immediately corrected. That goes to my credibility not against it. When I see a newspaper that has a self-corrections section each day, then I credit that publication for that not discredit them for it. Rather than falsely say I have a habit of falsely attributing, true statements would be "TonesInDeepFreeze, has a long record of quite accurate posting, though, as with any imperfect human, he sometimes errs; but he as an exemplary record of correcting any error that he finds or is pointed out to him."

(3) You commit the fallacy of false sampling. For any given error by anyone, we could consider it in context of the few recent posts or in context of thousands and thousands of posts. Your fallacy is of the forrm "I went to Kansas City and got in a car accident the moment I got in a car. So Kansas City is a dangerous place to be in a car".

(4) But if we did adopt your false sampling speciousness. In a thread, you completely reversed what I said on the central topic. And you continued to lie in that way after I brought it your attention at least three time. So, by sampling in that thead alone, we may conclude that you lie habitually.

(5) It was not strawmanning. I mistakenly recalled what I read in his post, then immediately corrected. Moreover, my argument didn't even depend on whether the reference was to 'the world' or 'to the material world.

[added in edit] (5a) I am not dishonest to intentionally strawman. But even if I were (which I'm not), I'm not stupid to blatantly do it. If I had not corrected myself, but instead tried to get away with a strawman, then it very likely work directly against me.

(6) You accuse me of captiousness. But it is you who are captious in not recognizing that imperfect humans, such as I, err, and it is to their credit not discredit that they correct themselves when they see that they did.

conflating (purported) falsehoods with lies. But we've been over that already. — Leontiskos

No conflation. And not merely purported. The first time you stated the falsehood, I corrected you. But you continued; then it becomes a lie. And it is in the record of the posts that at least a few times (probably at least five) I explicitly said the opposite of what you claimed I said, and that concerned not just some incidental matter but rather the central point in that thread.

The matter I addressed whether self-referential sentences all must be disqualified, not whether the liar sentence in particular must be disqualified. — TonesInDeepFreeze

What I am primarily interested in is the OP. I am sure Russell can speak for himself.

And we may consider sentences that are displayed without implication that they have an implied or even hypothetical speaker. There instances in which we may consider display of a sentence so that we may consider it in and of itself. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Despite the fact that these sentences of yours are not grammatically correct, you are of course welcome to try to defend your assertions.

Here is the central sort of question you are avoiding:

is it possible for someone to speak, "I am lying," while simultaneously meaning that they are lying and that they are not-lying? — Leontiskos

What I am primarily interested in is the OP. I am sure Russell can speak for himself. — Leontiskos

It is eminently your prerogative to engage with whatever you like. But you did engage my points about the other poster. And you are now suggesting a wedge against me for not engaging more the original question. It is my prerogative to engage or not engage the original question or any other matters that arise.

The other poster addressed the original question with an argument that self-referring sentences are to be eschewed because they don't refer to "the world". So I followed up on that. That is eminently reasonble. And you followed up on my followup. And that is eminently reasonable.

And I did engage the original question. And I've given good background and information about it. And I addressed one of the questions about it. I don't propound a full explanation of the liar paradox and I don't propound a resolute position on it. That doesn't disqualify me from remarking on matters that arise about it or anything else in the discussion.

If you wish to continue to exercise your prerogative to speciously fault me as a poster, then I will exercise my prerogative to reply to that.

not grammatically correct — Leontiskos

Recently in another thread, another poster took exception to certain senses of 'grammatical'. So, you are welcome to define it yourself so that I can address your claim given your own definition. Otherwise, I'll just say that these are easily recognizable as well formed sentences, ordinary English:

Joe is cool.

Harry Truman was a president.

Also:

'This sentence is true' has five letters.

That is well formed in the sense that is has a subject (the string of words 'This sentence is true' and a predicate 'has five letters'), though it may be problematic depending on one's analysis. But note that the analysis does not require determining whether 'This sentence is true' is a legitimate sentence.

And I did engage the original question. And I've given good background and information about. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You <made some unfounded assertions> and then wrote 8 short non-committal replies with more unfounded assertions, all in response to posts that were written some five years ago. So no, I don't think you have.

Recently in another thread another poster took exception to certain senses of 'grammatical'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

See: Grammatically Correct (Collins). Here are the sentences in question:

And we may consider sentences that are displayed without implication (sic) that they have an implied or even hypothetical speaker. There (sic) instances in which we may consider display (sic) of a sentence so that we may consider it in and of itself. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The point here is that if you really think the cases that the OP has in mind, such as the "Liar's paradox," are coherent, then you are free to make such an argument. Thus far you have not done so, despite ample opportunity.

And we may consider sentences that are displayed without implication (sic) that they have an implied or even hypothetical speaker. There (sic) instances in which we may consider display (sic) of a sentence so that we may consider it in and of itself.
— TonesInDeepFreeze — Leontiskos

Oh, for Pete's sake! So you are not responding about the example sentences I gave regarding the subject of implied speakers. Instead, you're on about scrutinizing for strict proper construction in an informal, conversational post! Not even as to its substance but as to minor liberties it may take in conversational presentation! Talk about nits! Talk about veering from topic! And it is ubiquitous in posting forums that people take great liberties and often even carelessly type jumbles while, sometimes, we can still see what they're saying and honor that by replying to their intent, not to their typos, grammar mistakes or even their faltering with the language.

I'll say anytime: I don't even pretend that my prose is worthy of more formal publication. I make many typos. I take liberties with grammar. I sometimes make ignorant grammar mistakes. That is to say: Y kan be not so fulse you see!- metapiscics not untology true objects, yes?

Obviously 'There instances' is a typo of omission; 'implication' is terse for 'the implication'; 'display of' is terse, informal, for 'a display of'.

I don't bug other posters about things like that. However, sometimes when something is not clear to me because it was poorly written, I might point out that the lapse in the writing so that the poster can restate for more clarity. And that is distinct from people writing formulas or conveying a technical point so poorly that it is, or may be, false or misleading. Even then, unless the poster continually shows that he or she just doesn't care about being accurate, then I might comment on that. Also, sometimes, though certain formulations might not be incorrect, I suggest clearer or more elegant formulations.

But I definitely don't hassle people about examples such as you just gave!

We could spend 24 hours a day, 365 days a year raking over typos, grammar mistakes and spelling mistakes among all kinds of posters. How inane that you do so now!

- You haven't given any arguments for your unfounded assertions. The only thing that got close were some poorly written sentences. Hence my reply:

Despite the fact that these sentences of yours are not grammatically correct, you are of course welcome to try to defend your assertions.

Here is the central sort of question you are avoiding:

is it possible for someone to speak, "I am lying," while simultaneously meaning that they are lying and that they are not-lying?
— Leontiskos — Leontiskos

The proponent of the "Liar's paradox" wants to say that something like, "This sentence is false,"* represents something that is simultaneously true and false in the way that constitutes a formal contradiction. I have no idea what they purport to mean by this. I think they are confused. I challenge them to give a coherent explanation for their thesis.

* Or that, "I am lying," represents an utterance that is simultaneously a lie and a non-lie.

The so-called "Liar's paradox" seems quite silly
— Leontiskos

Knowing something about logic and the context helps to understand why the liar paradox is of interest.

I agree it's not much use to spend much time pondering about them
— leo

Me too.
— Leontiskos

Good then that no one is forcing you to spend time on it. But meanwhile it is worth time to people who study logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Those are not unfounded. It is true that knowing the way many writers in logic have not found the subject silly helps to understand why it is of interest.

It is true that knowing the way many writers in logic have not found the subject silly helps to understand why it is of interest. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Argumentum ad populum, then? Such a weak response does not stand up to the arguments that are found in the OP and in this thread.

8 non-committal replies with more unfounded assertions, all in response to posts that were written some five years ago. — Leontiskos

Wow, again, so much speciousness in just a few words.

(1) You skipped my point that posters are not required to take a position on any matter whatsoever, including the main subject of a thread.

(2) You skipped that I did happen to address crucial aspects of the subject.

(3) It is to my credit, not discredit, that I don't take a rash, polemical, tendentious approach to a complicated subject.

(3) You merely claim there are unfounded assertions.

(4) It doesn't matter how long ago posts were written. They still exist to be read, so they exist to be commented on.

Especially when the thread is brought back up, and so that people would naturally read the thread from its start.

And who brought the thread back up? Could it be .... you?

And you replied to a post from five years ago, while now you're suggesting that there's something askance in me doing that?

Moreover, I haven't just replied to posts five years ago, but to recent posts also.(Though, again, it would not be the least bit wrong to reply to old posts.)

- So still nothing contentful, about the topic of the thread? Still just talking about yourself? Do you often get stuck in front of mirrors?

Hence my reply:

Despite the fact that these sentences of yours are not grammatically correct, you are of course welcome to try to defend your assertions.

Here is the central sort of question you are avoiding:

is it possible for someone to speak, "I am lying," while simultaneously meaning that they are lying and that they are not-lying?
— Leontiskos
— Leontiskos — Leontiskos

Again, you are prosecuting the fact that I don't presume to have a full explanation of, and resolute position on, the liar paradox. You even skipped my remarks about that.

The proponent of the "Liar's paradox" wants to say something like, "This sentence is false,"* represents something that is simultaneously true and false in the way that presents a formal contradiction. I have no idea what they purport to mean by this. — Leontiskos

If you want to know more about it, then you can find out by reading about it.I suggest starting with the undefinability theorem. And I suggest not a haphazard Wikipedia article. But a solid understanding does require understanding some technical material. If you don't wish to study the basics of mathematical logic, then of course that's your prerogative. But an answer to your comment "I have no idea what they purport to mean by this" is to suggest that you can find out.

And even in this thread I mentioned the undefinability theorem.

Again, you are prosecuting the fact that I don't presume to have a full explanation of, and resolute position on, the liar paradox. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You have made it abundantly clear that you will continue to refuse to answer the question of the OP. :ok:

So still nothing contentful, about the topic of the thread? Still just talking about yourself? — Leontiskos

You persist to talk about me. So it is quite proper that I defend against your falsehoods about me and your inane pettiness about me.

And I've said a fair amount about the subject of the thread.

What alternate reality are you from?

Do you often get stuck in front of mirrors? — Leontiskos

Yes, it is my job to clean the mirrors at the funhouse mirrors attraction at the amusement park down shore.

Meanwhile, I suggest you invest in a mirror. You bring up that I reply to old posts, when you started recently by replying to an old post. You fault me for talking about myself, when I am defending against your garbagy posting as you talk about me. You claim that I have a "habit" of false attribution when I don't, but you continued to falsely attribute to me. You faulted me for making several posts in a short time in another thread, but you do that pretty much all the time.

Too bad that alternate reality you're from is accessible to this one.,

Argumentum ad populum, then? — Leontiskos

No, it is not. My point went over your head. I didn't argue that the writers are right. Indeed, there are conflicting views about the liar sentence. I only said that you would find why it is of interest in logic, mathematics and philosophy, if you would read what some of those logicians, mathematicians and philosophers have written about it, and see why the subject is not silly to them. And noticed that I have not said that your position that the sentence is meaningless is incorrect due to what others have written, only that others don't find the matter to be silly and that one could find out why by reading about it.

- Yes, I understand what you were saying. It is a form of argumentum ad populum.

You have made it abundantly clear that you will continue to refuse to answer the question of the OP. — Leontiskos

What are you, The Philosophy Forum interrogation officer?

It is incumbent upon me to snap to right now for you with a reply to your position that the liar sentence is meaningless? If I don't do that, then any of my other comments are to be discounted?

Does you hold for posters in general that they are required to address a main subject directly, or is it just I that must do that?

(1) There is no question in the original post.

Your latest ridiculous comment deserves repeating some things I've said.

(2 People people are not required to declare a position on a subject in order to comment on it, comment on other comments about it, or to disagree with claims about it that come up in the course of conversation. It is not uncommon for people to engage aspects of a conversation beyond the initial subject or aspects of the conversation related to the initial subject, or even aspects of a conversation not related to the original subject but rather matters that come up incidentally or tangentially.

(3) I have addressed the main subject anyway, especially as I mentioned one of the most famous theorems about it.

(4) It is to a poster's credit, not discredit, if he or she presumes not to have achieved an adequate explanation to a philosophical problem and therefore declines to state a resolute position on it.

What are you, The Philosophy Forum interrogation officer? — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, I'm just a guy wondering why I forgot to put you back on my ignore list when I reinstalled my browser. This has now been remedied.

I look forward to reading the posts of those who are interested in engaging the OP:

The proponent of the "Liar's paradox" wants to say that something like, "This sentence is false,"* represents something that is simultaneously true and false in the way that constitutes a formal contradiction. I have no idea what they purport to mean by this. I think they are confused. I challenge them to give a coherent explanation for their thesis.

* Or that, "I am lying," represents an utterance that is simultaneously a lie and a non-lie. — Leontiskos

Yes, I understand what you were saying. It is a form of argumentum ad populum. — Leontiskos

That is a strawman.

If you understood what I'm saying, then you've chosen to misrepresent it.

I did not say that the writers are correct. Indeed, there is disagreement among them. I didn't even say in that remark, contrary to you, that the subject is not silly. I only said that one would find out why the subject is of interest by reading what writers have said about it.

I forgot to put you back on my ignore list when I reinstalled my browser. — Leontiskos

Sorry to hear about your computer problems.

Getting back to the subject:

Consider "Phil is a fool".

or

Consider the sentence "Phil is a fool".

I did not assert the sentence "Phil is a fool". There is no implied actual speaker of the sentence. And there is no implied hypothetical speaker of the sentence. Merely, I mentioned the sentence for consideration. It is not the case that an occurrence of a sentence has an actual or implied speaker or relies on having a hypothetical speaker. Even without hypothesizing a speaker, I can consider the sentence in many ways, including whether it is true, how many words it has, etc.

Consider the sentence: "There is a baby Gila monster under the nearest rock that weighs more than three pounds and is closest to the northernmost gas station in the Mojave desert."

No actual nor implied speaker. And I don't need to hypothesize that there is a speaker merely to wonder whether the sentence is true or false. Even if no one said the sentence and even if I don't consider whether someone might say the sentence, I can still wonder whether it is true.

I make that point in response to an earlier question I asked, as the response claimed that any occurrence of a sentence has an actual or implied speaker.

And my earlier question was in response to an argument that self-referring sentences are to be eschewed because they don't refer to "the real world".

This sentence has five words.

Is that string true, false, neither, another truth value, meaningless, not a sentence?

I did not assert the sentence "Phil is a fool". There is no implied actual speaker of the sentence. And there is no implied hypothetical speaker of the sentence. Merely, I mentioned the sentence for consideration. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I already addressed this in some detail:

Sure you do. When someone considers the claim, "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously," you will inform them that the statement they are considering is nonsensical. We could say that to consider a possible utterance is to speak it secundum quid, and what is not able to be spoken is not able to be considered. 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.

Bringing this back, then, to the OP, we should ask whether the "sentences" in question—along with their attributed meaning—have any possible speaker. For example, is it possible for someone to speak, "I am lying," while simultaneously meaning that they are lying and that they are not-lying? No, it is not. There is no possible speaker in such cases, and hence the "sentences" are nonsensical (even in the additional cases where they are thought to have an extrinsic object). — Leontiskos

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."