A nifty little editorial there, some about the subject, but a lot, pejoratively, about me.

You can't define "mentions". — Treatid

The sense in which 'mention' is used in context of the use-mention distinction:

To mention a word is to speak about the word.

On the other hand, a word may be used to refer to something else.

For example:

"London" has six letters.
The word is spoken about.

London is populous.
The word is used to refer to the city not to the word.


It should be easy to see:

London is a city. (true)

London is populous. (true)

London is a word. (false - London is a city, not a word)

London has exactly six letters. (false - London is not a word and does not have a number of letters)

"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city)

"London" is populous. (false - "London" is not a city and does not have a population)

"London" is a word. (true)

"London" has exactly six letters. (true)

You are trying to assert a set of invariant linguistic rules. — Treatid

I'm just observing that if we don't keep straight the difference between use and mention, then we get whacky results, and that some of the other poster's argument don't hold up on account of conflating a phrase itself with the thing the phrase refers to.

you are trying to browbeat RussellA into believing that your interpretation of words is the one and only true interpretation. — Treatid

I was interested in his argument and interested in what may be his reply to criticisms of it. I took a good amount of time to study his argument. Then I saw errors in it; and explained why they are errors. And I presented a counterargument that seems correct to me, though I was interested in what criticisms there might be to the counterargument. And I offered him information and explanation of a common and well known notion. I haven't tried to "browbeat" anyone into believing anything.

every single person who reads a sentence interprets it as they will. — Treatid

True. And interesting that the other poster's view is that "This sentence has five words" can't be meaningfully understood. But it does seem understandable to me. Yet, I don't accuse the other person of trying to "browbeat" me to believe that is not understandable.

The idea that your personal interpretation of, say, the Liar's paradox is correct and everyone else is wrong is a level of hubris even I don't aspire to. — Treatid

Pretty much all I've said about the liar paradox is:

(1) To state what it is.

(2) To correct the the misunderstanding that results if we don't recognize that it stipulates "all and only" and not just "only".

(3) To point out that reading various writers on the subject informs us as to why it is a subject of interest in mathematics, logic and philosophy.

(4) The video that was mentioned argues erroneously by conflating "refers to" with "equals".

I get that you are trying to establish a common ground for productive dialogue. But you can't do it. — Treatid

Of course, there is never a perfect commonality among people. That doesn't entail that we cannot reach enough commonality in certain situations. We don't have to have perfect commonality just to have a productive exchange. Moreover, at least the other poster does know more about use-mention now, so that he can use it going forward, revise it for himself, or reject and ignore it if he likes.

only person who interprets things identically to you - is an identical copy of you. — Treatid

The only person who interprets identically to me is me. But identical understanding is not required. Meanwhile, the only person who interprets things identically to you is you. But I'm not disqualifying anything you say on that consideration.

for someone apparently sure of their position - you are peddling a whole lot of BS. Actually, [...] — Treatid

Actually, I explicitly stated that I am not sure of the argument I've given in favor of the view "This sentence has five words" is meaningful and true. I said it seems to me that my argument is correct but that I am interested in seeing how it might not be correct. On certain other matters though, yes, I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure that London is a city and not a word, and that "London" is a word and not a city. And that in the video "This sentence" refers to "This sentence is false", and that "This sentence" does not equal "This sentence is false". And that the other poster's argument about "This string has five words" suffers from a crucial use-mention error. And you've not shown that anything I've said is "BS".

I struggle to understand how anyone with the slightest awareness of linguistics can turn around and proclaim a given interpretation to be definitive. And yet here you are trying to tell RusserlA that his interpretation is wrong.

For shame. — Treatid

My remarks were about his claim that self-referring sentences are not meaningful. He gave an argument for his claim. I gave a plausibility counter-argument and showed errors in his own argument. And I carefully studied each line of his posts. I don't think that's shameful.

do you genuinely believe that you can define... anything? — Treatid

I use many words in their ordinary sense, and some words in certain contexts in more academic senses. In some contexts, rigorous definitions may be provided, while in other contexts I would just point to an ordinary dictionary, and while recognizing that dictionaries are ultimately circular in that certain words are defined with other words whose definition circles back to the word being defined. And that certain words are just so basic that they are ultimately understood contextually or ostensively. And sometimes I use words idiosyncratically for effect, hoping that they'll be understood in context and by some tolerance of the reader. And sometimes I mistakenly misuse words.

Meanwhile, I guess you have your own notions about the way you use words, such as with the words you use in your fusillade against me.

"London" has six letters. The word is spoken about. London is populous. The word is used to refer to the city not to the word. It should be easy to see: London is a city. (true).................."London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city) — TonesInDeepFreeze

The use-mention distinction

(Note, using brackets to try to make the expression clearer)

I agree that the expression ("London" has six letters) is an example of mention, in that the linguistic expression "London" is being spoken about. In this case that it has six letters.

I agree that the expression (London is a city) is an example of use, in that the linguistic expression "London" is being used to refer to something else, in this case a city.

I agree that expression ("London" is a city) is ungrammatical.

However, in the expression ("London" is "a city"), as the linguistic expression "London" is being spoken about, this is also an example of mention. In this case that it is "a city". Note that "a city" is just a set of words, and is not referring to anything that may or may not exist in the world.

Another example of meaning would be ("Big Ben" is "the bell inside the clock tower"), as the linguistic expression "Big Ben" is being spoken about. In this case that it is "the bell inside the clock tower". Note that "the bell inside the clock tower" is just a set of words, and is not referring to anything that may or may not exist in the world.

Norman Swatz in his article Use and Mention explains that dictionary definitions are examples of meaning.

The use/mention distinction (as it has come to be called) is of particular relevance in the theory of definitions. For when we give the definition of a term, we mention the term, we do not use it. For example, the term, "pain", is defined, but pain itself is not defined. We define only terms, never their referents.

As @Treatid correctly points out: Me: I challenge you to define "Word". You: Words. Me: Define those words. You: More Words. Me: Define those words. Etc. You can choose infinite regression or circular definitions.

In the Merriam Webster dictionary, "London" is defined as "a city and port on both sides of the Thames River in southeastern England............"

"Big Ben" is defined as "a large bell in the clock tower..............."

We use the dictionary to find out the meanings of words.

A word is defined by reference to another word, which is defined by reference to another word. Definitions never ground a word in the world. As Wittgenstein pointed out, there is a difference between a word being "said" as in a dictionary and a word being "shown" as in picturing something in the world.

The expression ("London" has six letters) is an example of mention, as the linguistic expression "London" is being spoken about, in that it has six letters.

Similarly, the expression ("London" is "a city") is also an example of mention, as the linguistic expression "London" is also being spoken about, in that it is "a city".
===============================================================================

The video that was mentioned argues erroneously by conflating "refers to" with "equals". — TonesInDeepFreeze

The Liar Paradox

That the paradoxical expression "this sentence is false" is meaningless doesn't depend on the word "equals". The argument in the video is about meaning.

I will repeat the argument, as this answers the OP.

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

There are several possibilities.

Possibility one

It could be referring to the sentence "the cat is grey". In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" means that the sentence "this cat is grey" is false, which is meaningful.

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.

Possibility three
It could be referring to the sentence "this sentence is false". In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" means that the sentence "this sentence is false" is false.

But we know that the sentence "this sentence is false" means that the sentence "this sentence is false" is false.

This means that the sentence "the sentence "this sentence is false" is false" is false

Ad infinitum. Therefore meaningless.

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.

Just to be clear: I haven't said that I deny that all self-referential sentences are meaningless. Rather, I only suspect that it is not the case that all self-referential sentences are meaningless, and I'm interested in what would be objections to an example I gave in which it seems there is a self-referential sentence that is not meaningless.

I agree that expression ("London" is a city) is ungrammatical. — RussellA

I said it is false; I didn't say it is ungrammatical.

However, in the expression ("London" is "a city"), as the linguistic expression "London" is being spoken about, this is also an example of mention. In this case that it is "a city". Note that "a city" is just a set of words, and is not referring to anything that may or may not exist in the world. — RussellA

(1) Just to be clear, the example I gave was not:

"London" is "a city"

It was:

"London" is a city.

(2) "a city" refers to that two word phrase.

"London" is "a city"

assets that the "London" (which is one word) is "a city" (which is two words), which is false.

As Treatid correctly points out: Me: I challenge you to define "Word". You: Words. Me: Define those words. You: More Words. Me: Define those words. Etc. You can choose infinite regression or circular definitions. — RussellA

(1) I never defined 'words'.

(2) It's not clear to me what his point is, but perhaps it's (a) We define 'word' by using words. So what? (b) Definitions are either circular or infinitely regressive (or some words are taken as undefined, i.e. primitive). So what? You and I are both using words and definitions. That doesn't disqualify either of our arguments.

/

The video that was mentioned argues erroneously by conflating "refers to" with "equals".
— TonesInDeepFreeze

The Liar Paradox

That the paradoxical expression "this sentence is false" is meaningless doesn't depend on the word "equals". The argument in the video is about meaning. — RussellA

"This sentence" refers to "This sentence is false".

But "This sentence" is not "This sentence is false".

"This sentence" has two words. "This sentence is false" has four words. Clearly, "This sentence" is not "This sentence is false".

[He uses gray, white and black text to separate out phrases. But in certain instances I take it that he is indicating mention as opposed to use. I'll just use quote marks. And I'll use italics to indicate what he says orally or on screen.]

He says: "This sentence" has to reference the entire sentence.

Indeed, "This sentence" references "This sentence is false"'.

But then he conflates 'references' with 'equals':

He says: "This sentence" equals "This sentence if false".

That's false. "This sentence" references "This sentence is false". But "This sentence" does not equal "This sentence is false".

Then he says: If "This sentence" is "this sentence is false"

It's not. So we're done really. Same as with 'equals', "This sentence" references "This sentence is false". But "This sentence" is not "This sentence is false".

He continues: then what the liar's paradox is really saying is [on screen]"This sentence is false" is false[/on screen] but this is a problem, because if you substitute "This sentence" for itself, you're left with [on screen]""This sentence is false" is false" is false[/on screen]

But he didn't substitute "This sentence" for itself. He substituted "This sentence is false" for "This sentence", based on his false claim that "This sentence" doesn't just refer to "This sentence" but that "This sentence" is "This sentence is false".

Consider:

"This sentence was typed at noon"
And suppose "This sentence was typed at noon" is true.

There, "This sentence" refers to "This sentence was typed at noon" but it is not the case that "This sentence" is "This sentence was typed at noon".

"This sentence was typed at noon" was typed at noon. (True)

Substituting "This sentence was typed at noon" for "This sentence":

""This sentence was typed at noon" was typed at noon" was typed at noon. (False)

So substituting "This sentence was typed at noon" for "This sentence" is not legitimate.

Substituting "This sentence is false" for "This sentence" is not legitimate.

I will repeat the argument — RussellA

Actually, you've introduced new arguments:

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

There are several possibilities.

Possibility one

It could be referring to the sentence "the cat is grey". In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" means that the sentence "this cat is grey" is false, which is meaningful.

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.

Possibility three
It could be referring to the sentence "this sentence is false". In this case, the sentence "this sentence is false" means that the sentence "this sentence is false" is false.

But we know that the sentence "this sentence is false" means that the sentence "this sentence is false" is false.

This means that the sentence "the sentence "this sentence is false" is false" is false

Ad infinitum. Therefore meaningless. — RussellA

One. "This" in "This sentence is false" doesn't refer to "the cat is grey".

Two. "This sentence is false" does not mean that the expression "this sentence" is false.

Three:

"This string has five words" is true.

""This string has five words" is true" is true.

ad infinitum

"Einstein's famous formula has five symbols" is true.

""Einstein's famous formula has five symbols" is true" is true.

ad infinitum.

Fermat's Last Theorem is true.

"Fermat's Last Theorem is true" is true.

ad infinitum

Even without self-reference, we can generate infinitely many sentences in the manner that you do.

I mentioned that a while ago, and you didn't address it.

And recall that your claim is not just that "This sentence is false" is meaningless but that all self-referential sentences are meaningless. So the ad infinitum argument doesn't work for you in that regard.

And what you and the video miss regarding "This sentence if false" is that the longer and longer sentences alternate ad infinitum between effectively claiming that "This sentence is false" is false and effectively claiming that "This sentence is false" is true. And that boils down to the paradox itself.

Also, he argues that "This sentence is false" is not defined. But what is the definition of any sentence? Usually we don't define a sentence. What is the definition of "The sky is dark"? Definitions of 'sky' and 'dark' sure. And we say such things as ""The sky is dark" is true if and only if the immediate atmosphere lacks light". But that's not a definition of "The sky is dark". Meanwhile, "This sentence is false" is true if and only if "This sentence is false" is false. That's the paradox, but not for failing to "define" "This sentence is false".

/

And you've still not addressed the Pentastring example. It doesn't lose effect just because you choose to ignore it.

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?

If you skip my main argument, then we won't get anywhere. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I will set outside some of your other points for the moment, and try to get to the heart of the matter. Otherwise if you make five points, and I respond to each of your points with my own five points, and you then respond to each of my points with your own five points, this thread will end up longer than War and Peace.

I wrote that my belief is that self-referring expressions are meaningless. You wrote that your belief is that some self-referring expressions can be meaningful, and give the Pentastring example

I hope that I am not missing out anything crucial from your Pentastring argument.

The Pentastring argument is not a case of self-reference, as it is referring to something that exists in the world.

At least at first blush, "The string has five words" seems syntactic. A noun phrase, "This string" followed by a predicate, "has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Agree, though it depends what "this" is referring to.

So you need to demonstrate that it is meaningless. But meanwhile, perhaps see if there is an error in the reasoning I gave for why we may take it to be meaningful. That reasoning could be wrong, but if it is, then I'd be interested to know how. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The sentence "this sentence is false" is not necessarily meaningless. The sentence is meaningful if the word "this" refers to the sentence "the cat is grey", for example.

"This string has five words" asserts that "This string has five words" has five words. That seems meaningful. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Why? If it did, then "this string has ten words" would assert that "this string has ten words" has ten words.

So it seems "This string has five words" is a sentence as it fulfills the two requirements: syntactical and meaningful. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Not necessarily. It depends what "this string" refers to. If it refers to either "this string" or "this string has five words", then it is self-referential and meaningless.

And "This string has five words" is true if "This string has five words" has five words, which it does; so "This string has five words" seems to be true. So, "This string has five words" seems to be true sentence. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Then it would follow that "the cat is grey" is true if "the cat is grey" has four words. That the sentence "the cat is grey" has four words doesn't make it true that the cat is grey.

Suppose we define 'the Pentastring' as the "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

No problem, let's define 'the Pentastring' as the "This string has five words". This sounds very similar to defining 'Big Ben' as "the bell inside the clock tower".

So, we have a subject from the world, viz. the Pentastring. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That we define 'a unicorn' as "a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse........................" doesn't necessarily mean that unicorns exist in the world. But let us suppose that the Pentastring exists in the world alongside Big Ben.

So, "The Pentastring has five words" is meaningful. — TonesInDeepFreeze

But we know that "the Pentastring" has been defined as "This string has five words".
Therefore "The Pentastring has five words" means that "this string has five words has five words". But this doesn't seem grammatical, and if not grammatical, then meaningless

To determine whether the Pentastring is true, we determine whether the Pentastring has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Suppose the Pentastring exists in the world, alongside the Big Ben. As objects existing in the world, such as Big Ben and the Pentastring have no truth value,they can be neither true not false. The sentence "the Pentastring has five words" has five words. It is not the Pentastring that has five words.

In "This string has five words", 'this string' refers to the Pentastring, which is in the world. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No problem. In the world exists the physical objects Big Ben, being a bell inside a clock tower, and a Pentastring, being a string of five adjacent words.

And "This string has five words" is equivalent with "The Pentastring has five words", in the sense that each is true if and only if the Pentastring has five words. So, "This string has five words" is meaningful. — TonesInDeepFreeze

We know that 'the Pentastring' has been defined as "This string has five words".

Therefore, the sentence "The Pentastring has five words" means that "this string has five words has five words"

Therefore, it is not the case that "This string has five words" is equivalent with "The string has five words has five words"

To determine whether the Pentastring is true, we determine whether the Pentastring has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is not an example of self-reference. A Pentastring is a string of five adjacent words existing in the world.

As "the cat" in the sentence "the cat is grey" is referring to the cat existing in the world, "the pentastring" in the sentence "the Pentastring has five words" is referring to the Pentastring existing in the world.

As the sentence "the cat is grey" is not an example of self-reference, then neither is the sentence "the Pentastring has five words"

which is to determine whether "This string has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is true that the sentence "this string has five words" has five words. It is also true that the sentence "the cat is grey" has four words.

The fact that the sentence "the cat is grey" has four words is irrelevant to whether the cat is grey. Similarly, the fact that the sentence "this string has five words" has five words is irrelevant to whether this string has five words.

To determine whether "This string has five words" is true, we determine whether "This string has five words" has five words. The determination of the truth value of the Pentastring is exactly the determination of the truth value of "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

The sentence "the cat is grey" is true if the cat is grey. Similarly, the sentence "this string has five words" is true if this string has five words.

As a Pentastring is a string of five words, we can also say that the sentence "this string has five words" is true if this is a Pentastring.

But then again, this is not a case of self-reference, as "this string" is referring to something that exists in the world.

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?

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. — EricH

I think that the sentences "this sentence has five words" and "this sentence is false"
can be treated in a similar way.

For both sentences, the question is, what does "this sentence" refer to?

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

Possibility two
It could be referring to itself. The sentence "the cat is grey" has a meaning because "the cat" is referring to something outside itself, ie a cat. However, if "this sentence" is referring to itself, the sentence "this sentence has five words" has no meaning, because "this sentence" is not referring to anything outside itself.

Possibility three
It could be referring to the sentence it is a part of, ie, "this sentence has five words". In this case, the sentence "this sentence has five words" means that the sentence "this sentence has five words has five words". But again, any meaning disappears.

Dependent on what "this sentence" is referring to, the sentence "this sentence has five words" may or may not be meaningless.
===============================================================================

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? — EricH

I think I am right in saying that @TonesInDeepFreeze wrote that he believed that there seems to be a self-referential sentence that is not meaningless, and gave the Pentastring example.

@TonesInDeepFreeze wrote on page 5:
Suppose we define 'the Pentastring' as the "This string has five words".
So, we have a subject from the world, viz. the Pentastring.
So, "The Pentastring has five words" is meaningful.

The sentence "the Pentastring has five words" is not self-referential, because we have been explicitly told that the Pentastring exists in the world, ie we have a subject from the world, viz. the Pentastring.

A self-referential expression cannot refer to something existing in the world.

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:

RussellA: Your posts are runaway trains of confusions. Maybe I can catch up later. But for now:

Suppose we define 'the Pentastring' as the [string] "This string has five words".

So, we have a subject from the world, viz. the Pentastring.

So, "The Pentastring has five words" is meaningful.

To determine whether the Pentastring is true, we determine whether the Pentastring has five words.

Put this way:

In "This string has five words", 'this string' refers to the Pentastring, which is in the world. And "This string has five words" is equivalent with "The Pentastring has five words", in the sense that each is true if and only if the Pentastring has five words. So, "This string has five words" is meaningful.

To determine whether "The Pentastring has five words" is true, we determine whether the Pentastring has five words, which is to determine whether "This string has five words" has five words. To determine whether "This string has five words" is true, we determine whether "This string has five words" has five words. The determination of the truth value of the Pentastring is exactly the determination of the truth value of "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

The sentence "the Pentastring has five words" is not self-referential, because we have been explicitly told that the Pentastring exists in the world, ie we have a subject from the world, viz. the Pentastring. — RussellA

Notice that there you left out that the Pentastring is "This string has five words". So "This string has five words" exists (in the world, or whatever rubric du jour). Applying the name "The Pentastring" to "This sentence has five words" allowed you to determine that the Pentastring is meaningful. But the determination of the truth value of the Pentastring is exactly the determination of the truth value of "This string has five words".

A self-referential expression cannot refer to something existing in the world. — RussellA

So sayeth RussellA. Contrary to demonstration.

As to whether a sentence which is seemingly self referential but instead points to the world is truly self referential or not? — EricH

"The Pentastring has five words" doesn't have the word 'this' so perhaps it seems not self-referential in the way of "This string has five words". But keep in mind that the Pentastring is "This string has five words".

"This string has five words" is self-referential. But the Pentastring is "This string has five words", so the Pentastring is self-referential.

To determine whether the Pentastring is true is to determine whether "This string has five words" has five words.

To determine whether "This string has five words" is true is to determine whether "This string has five words" has five words.

The Pentastring is meaningful if and only if "This string has five words" is meaningful, because the Pentastring is "This string has five words".

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.).........................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. — EricH

An expression that refers to itself can never have a meaning

An expression can only have a meaning if it refers to something outside itself.

We are given the expression "this sentence has five words", and are told that the expression "this sentence" refers to itself'.

I agree that the expressions "tall house", "grey cat", "that mountain" and "this sentence" have two words.

We are given the expression "this sentence has five words", yet we both agree that the expression "this sentence" has two words.

So how can the same expression have both two words and five words?

It can only be that the expression "this sentence" in the first instance of its use is not referring to the second instance of its use.

So, given the expression "this sentence has five words", where "this sentence" refers to itself, how do you get the knowledge that "this sentence" has two words?

Notice that there you left out that the Pentastring is "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

This conflicts with what you wrote on page 7.

"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city) — TonesInDeepFreeze

"This string has five words" is an expression, whilst the Pentastring is something that exists in the world.

The Pentastring is a string of five words - OK
This Pentastring is this string of five words - OK
"The Pentastring is a string of five words" - OK
"This Pentastring is this string of five words" - OK

The Pentastring is this string of five words - not OK
This Pentastring is the string of five words - not OK
"The Pentastring is this string of five words" - not OK
"This Pentastring is the string of five words" - not OK

There is no conflict with what I wrote previously.

"This string has five words" is an expression, whilst the Pentastring is something that exists in the world. — RussellA

Again, as I pointed out:

An expression, such as the expression "Big Ben" refers to the thing Big Ben.

But with other expressions, the thing an expression refers to may also be an expression.

Einstein's famous formula is "E=MC^2". The expression "Einstein's famous formula" refers to the expression "E=MC^2".

The Pentastring is "This string has five words." The expression "The Pentastring" refers to the expression "This string has five words".

Again, since the start, and as I have pointed out to you again, but now you ignore again:

I'll list the variations again so that, hopefully, you'll understand:

An expression refers to a thing:

Big Ben is the clock tower in London.
"Big Ben" refers to the clock tower in London.
"Big Ben" refers to Big Ben.
"Big Ben" is not "the clock tower in London".
"Big Ben" does not refer to "the clock tower in London".
"Big Ben" does not refer to "Big Ben".
Big Ben is not "the clock tower in London".
Big Ben is not "Big Ben".

An expression refers to a thing that is itself an expression:

Einstein's famous formula is "E=MC^2".
"Einstein's famous formula" refers to "E=M2^2".
"Einstein's famous formula" refers to Einstein's famous formula.
"Einstein's famous formula" is not "E=MC^2".
"Einstein's famous formula" does not refer to "Einstein's famous formula".
Einstein's famous formula is not "Einstein's famous formula".

An expression refers to a thing that is itself an expression:

The Pentastring is "This string has five words".
"The Pentastring" refers to "This string has five words".
"The Pentastring" refers to the Pentastring.
"The Pentastring" is not "This string has five words".
"The Pentastring" does not refer to "The Pentastring".
The Pentastring is not "The Pentastring".

This Pentastring is this string of five words - OK — RussellA

"This Pentastring is this string of five words" has more than five words, so it's false. Anyway, it's not something I ever wrote.

These are not something I wrote. I don't know the point of mentioning them:

The Pentastring is this string of five words - not OK
This Pentastring is the string of five words - not OK
"The Pentastring is this string of five words" - not OK
"This Pentastring is the string of five words" - not OK — RussellA

To isolate the key point:

The Pentastring is "This string has five words." The expression "The Pentastring" refers to the expression "This string has five words".

Just as:

Einstein's famous formula is "E=MC^2". The expression "Einstein's famous formula" refers to the expression "E=MC^2".

You wrote that your belief is that some self-referring expressions can be meaningful, and give the Pentastring example — RussellA

I said that it seems to me that there are self-referring expressions that are meaningful but that I'm open to be being convinced otherwise and that I'm interested in finding any flaws there might be with the Pentastring argument.

Cleaning up your mess:

This string has five words" asserts that "This string has five words" has five words. That seems meaningful.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Why? If it did, then "this string has ten words" would assert that "this string has ten words" has ten words. — RussellA

So what? "This string has ten words" is false. That doesn't make it meaningless. "London is in France" is false. That doesn't make it meaningless.

Why are you wasting our time on such points?

So it seems "This string has five words" is a sentence as it fulfills the two requirements: syntactical and meaningful.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Not necessarily. It depends what "this string" refers to. If it refers to either "this string" or "this string has five words", then it is self-referential and meaningless. — RussellA

That's just you again reasserting you claim! It's not an argument. You keep doing that: Responding to my argument by just reasserting you claim. Meet Mr. Ouroboros.

"This string has five words" is true if "This string has five words" has five words, which it does; so "This string has five words" seems to be true. So, "This string has five words" seems to be true sentence.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Then it would follow that "the cat is grey" is true if "the cat is grey" has four words. That the sentence "the cat is grey" has four words doesn't make it true that the cat is grey. — RussellA

What in the world? How in the world do you come up with such a bizarre non sequitur?

we define 'the Pentastring' as the [string] "This string has five words".
— TonesInDeepFreeze

No problem, let's define 'the Pentastring' as the "This string has five words". This sounds very similar to defining 'Big Ben' as "the bell inside the clock tower". — RussellA

There you ignore that I mentioned that an expression can refer to an expression.

Define "Einstein's famous formula" as "E=MC^2". So Einstein's famous formula is "E-MC^2".

Define "The EqualityClause" as "All men are created equal". The EqualityClause" is "All men are created equal".

Define "JFK's'IconicMaxim" as "Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". JFK'sIconicUtterance is "Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country".

But we know that "the Pentastring" has been defined as "This string has five words". Therefore "The Pentastring has five words" means that "this string has five words has five words". But this doesn't seem grammatical, and if not grammatical, then meaningless — RussellA

No, "The Pentastring has five words" means "This string has five words" has five words.

You speciously (either from dishonesty or ignorance) dropped the quote marks.

I didn't say that the Pentastring is this string has five words. I said the Pentastring is "This string has five words"

How transparently specious or stupid to drop the quote marks!

objects existing in the world, such as Big Ben and the Pentastring have no truth value,they can be neither true not false. — RussellA

Big Ben is not a linguistic object. The Pentastring is a linguistic object. Just as TheEqualityClause is a linguistic object.

The sentence "the Pentastring has five words" has five words. It is not the Pentastring that has five words. — RussellA

Again, the Pentastring is "This string has five words". The Pentastring has five words, they are: 'this', 'sting', 'has', 'five' and 'words.

Just as the EqualityClause have five words.

the sentence "The Pentastring has five words" means that "this string has five words has five words" — RussellA

It's not enough for you to post that speciousness. You have to post it twice.

determine whether the Pentastring is true, we determine whether the Pentastring has five words.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

[...] is not an example of self-reference. A Pentastring is a string of five adjacent words existing in the world. — RussellA

Again, the Pentastring is "This string has five words".

it is true that the sentence "this string has five words" has five words. It is also true that the sentence "the cat is grey" has four words.

The fact that the sentence "the cat is grey" has four words is irrelevant to whether the cat is grey. Similarly, the fact that the sentence "this string has five words" has five words is irrelevant to whether this string has five words. — RussellA

That is one of the most bizarrely irrelevant analogies I've ever read.

"The cat is grey" says nothing about number of words.

"This string has five words" does say something about number of words.

"The cat is grey" is true if and only if the cat is grey.

"This string has five words" if and only if "This string has five words" has five words.

sentence "the cat is grey" is true if the cat is grey. Similarly, the sentence "this string has five words" is true if this string has five words. — RussellA

That's nonsense concocted by you by ignoring that pronouns are contextual.

Consider:

"This guy is in love with Lani" means this guy is in love with Lani.

That's false.

The first occurrence of 'this guy' refers to Herb Alpert. The second occurrence of 'this guy' refers to me. Herb Alpert is in love with Lani. I'm not in love with Lani.

"This guy is in love with Lani" in context is true if and only if Herb Alpert is in love with Lani. It's not the case that "This guy is in love with Lani" in that same context is true if and only if TonesInDeepFreeze is in love with Lani.

"This string has five words" in context is true if and only if "This string has five words" has five words. It's not the case that "This string has five words" is true if and only if this string has five words.

As a Pentastring is a string of five words — RussellA

No, I didn't define a predicate "is a Pentastring". Rather, I defined a name "The Pentastring".

An expression that refers to itself can never have a meaning

An expression can only have a meaning if it refers to something outside itself. — RussellA

That's your claim, which you try to support with arguments that have been shown to be specious.

We are given the expression "this sentence has five words", yet we both agree that the expression "this sentence" has two words.

So how can the same expression have both two words and five words? — RussellA

No expression can.

"This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words".

"This sentence" is not "This sentence has five words".

It can only be that the expression "this sentence" in the first instance of its use is not referring to the second instance of its use. — RussellA

Consider:

This sentence has five words.

Recognize:

"This sentence" is not "This sentence has five words".

"This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words".

"This sentence" doesn't refer to "This sentence".

To isolate the key point: — TonesInDeepFreeze

As you say, this is a key point, on which your other points depend.

1) "The Pentastring" exists in language, such that "The Pentastring is a string of five words". 2) The Pentastring exists in the world, such that the Pentastring is a string of five words.

As regards usage, as more than one Pentastring exists in the world, the expression "The Pentastring" is not referring to one particular Pentastring, but is being used to refer to a general class of objects.

On the other hand, as only one Eiffel Tower exists in the world, the expression "the Eiffel Tower" is referring to one particular Eiffel Tower, and not to a general class of objects.
===============================================================================

Einstein's famous formula is "E=MC^2". — TonesInDeepFreeze

A Stanford article writes that the mass-energy equation, E = mc2, is one of the fundamental principles in physics, revealing that mass and energy are equivalent.

I would have thought that the formula E=MC^2 shouldn't be in quotation marks. For example, science is culturally important, and "science" has seven letters. Similarly, E=MC^2 is famous, and "E=MC^2" has six characters.
===============================================================================

The expression "The Pentastring" refers to the expression "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

We agree that the Pentastring is a string of five words, but as there are many Pentastrings in the world, to say "The Pentastring is this string of five words" would be grammatically incorrect. It would be more grammatically correct to say either "this Pentastring is this string of five words" or "the Pentastring is a string of five words".

Otherwise, I would agree that the expression "The Pentastring" refers to the expression "a string of five words"
===============================================================================

The Pentastring is "This string has five words." — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is grammatically incorrect, as an object in the world is not an expression in language.

I agree when you wrote - "London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city).

"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city) — TonesInDeepFreeze

As a city is not "London", a Pentastring is not "this string has five words"

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?

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? — EricH

I see words on my screen, which happen to be the words - this - sentence - has - five - words.

I recognize a meaning in these words as 1) "this sentence has five words".

In addition, I have the thought that this sentence, ie the words on my screen, has five words, and say 2) "this sentence has five words".

It is a coincidence that 2) happens to be the same as 1).

1) has not determined 2).

This is not Possibility 3, as "this sentence" in 2) is referring to something outside itself, to something that physically exists in the word, ie, the words - this - sentence - has - five - words.

This is not a case of self-reference, as "this sentence" is neither referring to itself (possibility 2) nor to the sentence of which it is a part (possibility 3.)

"This sentence" in 2) is referring to something that exists outside itself.

As I understand it, an expression in language can only have a meaning if it refers to something outside itself.

For example "cat" in language has a meaning because it refers to a cat in the world.

Also, "cat" in language has a meaning because it can be defined as "a carnivorous mammal long domesticated as a pet and for catching rats and mice"

In both of these examples, the word "cat" has a meaning because it refers to something outside itself.

If I said "this sentence" is "this sentence". this would be meaningless.

If I said "this sentence has five words" is "this sentence has five words", this would also be meaningless.

As possibilities two and three are about the instances where an expression in language is self-referential, it would follow such self-referential expressions cannot have any meaning.

But are there any examples in language where a linguistic expression that refers to itself has a meaning?

As regards usage, as more than one Pentastring exists in the world, the expression "The Pentastring" is not referring to one particular Pentastring, but is being used to refer to a general class of objects. — RussellA

Why do you ignore what is actually posted?

When I first introduced the term "The Pentastring", I used it as a name not an adjective.

I said that The Pentastring is "This string has five words". ("The Pentastring" is a name for the expression "This string has five words".)

I didn't say that a Pentrastring is a string with five words. (I didn't say "The Pentastring" is an adjective for the property: is a string with five words.)

And I recently wrote:

No, I didn't define a predicate "is a Pentastring". Rather, I defined a name "The Pentastring". — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is bizarre foolishness that you tried to falsely twist my naming a particular string into an adjective. Either you're hopelessly confused or hopelessly dishonest.

Said another way:

I could have used any phrase, whether "The Pentastring" or "ForumFinExample" or whatever to name the expression "This string has five words". That's not an adjective for the property of being a string with five words.

I would have thought that the formula E=MC^2 shouldn't be in quotation marks. For example, science is culturally important, and "science" has seven letters. Similarly, E=MC^2 is famous, and "E=MC^2" has six characters. — RussellA

Wrong. You still don't understand use-mention and quote marks.

I am referring to the literal string of symbols. The formula is a string of symbols. The string of symbols expresses a scientific principle, but the string of symbols is itself a linguistic entity.

Go back to the examples:

Define "Einstein's famous formula" as "E=MC^2". So Einstein's famous formula is "E-MC^2".

Define "The EqualityClause" as "All men are created equal". The EqualityClause" is "All men are created equal".

Define "JFK's'IconicMaxim" as "Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". JFK'sIconicUtterance is "Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country".

Define "The Pentastring" as "This string has five words". The Pentastring is "This string has five words".

Pentastring is "This string has five words."
— TonesInDeepFreeze

This is grammatically incorrect, as an object in the world is not an expression in language. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Expressions exist. The expression, "All men are created equal" exists.

Consider:

Jefferson's most famous quote is "All men are created equal".

"Jefferson's most famous quote" refers to "All men are created equal".

Those are grammatical.

/

Meanwhile, one after another of your arguments have been refuted. Your replies are yet more straw-grasping, foolishly specious, smoke blowing confusions that are refuted.

You don't understand use-mention, quote marks, pronouns, the difference between a name and an adjective. And you show that you don't read the posts to which you reply and that you don't know to refrain from obvious speciousness.

Akshualy, the formula is $E=\sqrt{m^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}}$, not $E=mc^{2}$. You can also see Pythagoras' there.

If I said "this sentence" is "this sentence". this would be meaningless. — RussellA

It's meaningful and true.

"this sentence" is a phrase. It is the same as itself.

I said "this sentence has five words" is "this sentence has five words", this would also be meaningless. — RussellA

It's meaningful and true.

"this sentence has five words" is a phrase. It is the same as itself.

such self-referential expressions cannot have any meaning. — RussellA

Ding ding ding ding ding! RussellA gets the prize! RussellA gets the prize for the most times arguing by repetition of an assertion. Congratulations, RussellA! Enjoy your all expenses paid trip to the luxurious Rabbit Hole Hotel.

are there any examples in language where a linguistic expression that refers to itself has a meaning? — RussellA

The Pentastring?

When I first introduced the term "The Pentastring", I used it as a name not an adjective. — TonesInDeepFreeze

("The Pentastring" is a name for the expression "This string has five words".) — TonesInDeepFreeze

"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city) — TonesInDeepFreeze

OK so far.

I said that The Pentastring is "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is critical to your argument, but this is where I get lost.

As we're not going to agree, I'm moving on.

You said that this is okay:

"The Pentastring" is a name for the expression "This string has five words"

You say you get lost at:

The Pentastring is "This string has five words"

Why are you lost?

Use-mention:

(1)

"Mark Twain" is a name for the person Samuel Clemens.

Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.

Samuel Clemens is the person named by "Mark Twain".

Samuel Clemens is Mark Twain.

(2)

"Dangerfield's catchphrase" is a name for the expression "No respect".

Dangerfield's catchphrase is "No respect".

"No respect" is the expression named by "Dangerfield's catchphrase".

"No respect" is Dangerfield catchphrase.

(3)

"The Pentastring" is a name for the expression "This string has five words".

The Pentastring is "This string has words".

"This string has five words" is the expression named by "The Pentastring".

"This string has five words" is the Pentastring.

"Mark Twain" is a name for the person Samuel Clemens. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Function of quotation marks
My assumption has been that because "Mark Twain" is in quotation marks, this means that "Mark Twain" is an expression in language, and because Samuel Clemens is not in quotation marks, this means that Samuel Clemens is a person who exists in the world.

"Snow is white" is true IFF snow is white.

Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Open to doubt.

The word "is" can have different meanings
In the predicate sense, "the apple is red"
In the identity sense, "the apple is a fruit"
In the existential sense, "there is an apple on the table"

Do apples exist in the world
It is said that "an apple" is the name in language of an apple in the world.
But do apples exist in the world?
There is something in the world that has been named "an apple"
For convenience, we say that in the world are apples, but this is shorthand for what we really mean, which is that there is something in the world that has been named "an apple"
In fact, as an Indirect Realist, I don't believe that apples exist in the world, but only exist in the mind as a concept.

Do Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens exist in the world?
I agree that "Mark Twain" is a name of something X in the world. Something X is referred to by the name "Mark Twain". I agree that "Samuel Clemens" is a name of the same something X in the world. The same something X is also referred to by the name "Samuel Clemens".

The question is, is this something X in the world Samuel Clemens, or has the something X in the world been named "Samuel Clemens"?

As naming something in the world "a cat" doesn't make that something a cat, in that I could name a horse "a cat", naming something in the world "Samuel Clemens" doesn't make that something Samuel Clemens.

My naming that tall tower in Paris in the 7th Arr of Champs de Mars "a kangaroo" doesn't make that something in the world a kangaroo.

Giving something in the world a name doesn't make that something into what has been named.

Just because something in the world has been named "Samuel Clemens", that doesn't mean that Samuel Clemens exists in the world. Just because something in the world has been named "Mark Twain", that doesn't mean that Mark Twain exists in the world.

Although "Samuel Clemens" and "Mark Twain" exist in language, as neither Samuel Clemens nor Mark Twain exist in the world, then it is not correct to to say that Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens.

"The Pentastring" is a name for the expression "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

No problem, setting aside what "this string has five words" means, and treating it as a set of words such as "a b c d e", and ignoring any meaning that it may or may not have.

The Pentastring is "This string has words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Open to doubt.

As before, my assumption has been that because "This string has five words" is in quotation marks, this means that "This string has five words" is an expression in language, and because the Pentastring is not in quotation marks, this means that the Pentastring is something that exists in the world.

The problem is, you are not saying that "this string has five words" is the name of the Pentastring, you are saying that "this string of five words" is the Pentastring.

If A is B then B is A. If "this string has five words" is the Pentastring, then the Pentastring is "this string has five words".

How can an expression in language be something in the world?

How can "London" be a city?

This is not a side issue, as crucial to your argument that a self-referencing expression can be 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?

You said previously that "This sentence has five words" is true. Do you still hold that position. Yes or no? — EricH

I agree that I could have been clearer in my reply.

My assumption is that if a set of words is in quotation marks, such as - "snow is white" -
then this means it is an expression in language, and if a set of words is not in quotation marks, such as - snow is white - then this is about something that exists in the world.

"Snow is white" is true IFF snow is white

Looking back, on page 2, the question was about the truth of the words - this sentence has five words.

The question was not about the truth of the words - "this sentence has five words".

As regards "this sentence has five words", it all depends on what "this sentence" is referring to. If it is self-referential, then it is meaningless, but if it is not self-referential and refers to something outside itself, then it is meaningful.

As regards - this sentence has five words - because not being in quotation marks, I took them as being something that exists in the world, such as on a computer screen.

I agree that something that exists in the world cannot be said to be either true or false, in that a mountain cannot be said to be either true or false, although it is true that the words - this sentence has five words - exist on the screen, otherwise I wouldn't be able to see them.

Whether "this sentence has five words" (which exists in language) is true or not depends on what "this sentence" refers to. The set of words - this sentence has five words - (which I take to exist in the world) cannot be said to be either true or false, although it is true that they exist in the world.