Fuck you, 3017. — tim wood

Just wondering, please don't take this the wrong way, but have you guys thought about an anger management course?

I mean, it does seem contradictory that an atheist would get so angry about something he/she thinks doesn't exist.

Abandon hope of reason — tim wood

I agree for once, imagine that! Even angry atheists, every once in awhile, get lucky LOL

cannot make myself think in a way that is not what i'm now. — substantivalism

Indeed, sounds like another mystery associated with time and change.

apply further aspects of your worldview without elaboration as to how they do apply to me lest a straw-man is created. — substantivalism

I would never consider such nonsense :blush:

no i've just seen later examples of William Lane Craig in his arguments or snippets of debates along with external knowledge as to his character that haven't exactly made me appreciate him as much. Perhaps in years previous he wasn't as much so. — substantivalism

Okay, Aristotle too?

Alternatively, here's another interesting one for you:

Back when I wasn't alive and William Lane Craig didn't seem as much of a dunce. — substantivalism

Are you reincarnated?

It's arbitrary what axioms you accept and the conclusions you draw given a previous system within which to do so. — substantivalism

But math itself is an objective truth, just like Platonism and abstract ideas. How does that square your circle?

I was talking generally about the categories of our experiences, the nature of them, and the abstractions covering them in which perhaps a contradiction does reveal itself to one but not to all nor pervades an entire category. Though, it isn't too far a stretch to say that other conscious experiences could be so distinct to the point that even the logical structure of them was different (different axioms are accepted). — substantivalism

But those logical structures seem illogical once axioms are applied to them.

Okay. — substantivalism

Great God exists then. Or did I get that wrong?

All right. Assuming that time is in nature, how is it a paradox? — tim wood

Gosh, are you assuming Time is not in nature? Jeez, you atheists not only like to drop F-bombs (are angry), you're really unsophisticated too LOL!

Might as well, it's all you seem to want or understand: Fuck you, 3017. — tim wood

Yes, descriptions of our reality and further arbitrary abstractions to model its behvaior. — substantivalism

In all cases IF a true paradox exists in one that may not mean that it exists in another. — substantivalism

But mathematics is an objective truth. I don't understand how they can be arbitrary? Please explain!!

In all cases IF a true paradox exists in one that may not mean that it exists in another. — substantivalism

Does that mean consciousness may be explained in one person's mind, but not in another person's mind?

Ahem, are we on repeat now? — substantivalism

Well, not sure what your argument is then, or do you have one?

state it and believe what i've stated so it's objective. . . what would make it subjective? — substantivalism

Yourself perceiving it's objectiveness.

Experiences are what they are. . . recall the mirage of palm trees out in the distance with a pool of water. Whether or not our abstract models makes such an experience consistent with previous ones and the meanings of the words involved the experience of said mirage is as real as you'll get. What gives rise to experiences is truly unknown but the experiences themselves and the relationships they have to each other are not. It's just as real to experience an imaginary friend as your actual friend but while they are just as "real" it would be a rather large lapse in judgement to designate them as the same experiences simpliciter. — substantivalism

Ok, great!

Non-sequitor, fool. No one asked you about time. — tim wood

Challenge: Paradox and uncertainty are not the same thing. What is an example of a paradox in nature? (Noun, not adjective.) — tim wood

My answer was Time. And time is a noun. I don't understand, I answered your question, how is that a non sequitur...or did I box you into the corner , again?

Or, maybe you're trolling, again. Oh well, maybe sequit this:



LOL You angry atheists are more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

Might as well, it's all you seem to want or understand: Fuck you, 3017. Glad to engage at your level. LOL. — tim wood

Hahahahahaha

Time is noun, no? LOL Gosh, trolling, trolling trolling...are you angry too?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=time+definition&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR3A

Hey 180, come join the party! Or, are you another one of those angry atheists that Einstein talked about LOL. Gee, what a paradox, an atheist who doesn't believe in God sure seems upset about these things...or is it an irony, or contradiction?

I'd also preface that you do not seem to note the difference between that which is merely undecidable and that which is paradoxical with both being rather distinguished ideas. — substantivalism

Oh, well let's also then add to Gödel, Heisenberg (uncertainty principle). LOL

What laws of nature? You mean the regularities or patterns in our experience because if that is what we value to navigate our experiences then contradictions explicitly would put a wrench in doing anything if we didn't pay attention to what predictably occurs or is. — substantivalism

Mathematics. You know, mathematical abstracts, Platonism, etc..

The model would be contradictory or incomplete but to say consciousness is paradoxical or doesn't abide by formal laws of logic would be childishly over the top nearly violating the explicit wall there is between our experiences and the nature of what gives rise to them. — substantivalism

Great. we agree! Logic can't help us!!! Does that mean super-natural is an alternative?

What have I been saying this whole time? That our experiences are the only data we can use and speculate about the experience of the unexperienced (skeptical scenarios) will result in arbitrariness. Only that which informs us of what may happen next or what happens in the case of this collection of experiences or questions about or within our abstract models themselves are all that seems to matter here — substantivalism

Sounds like existential angst of some sort. No exceptions taken.

It seems that way but we're (especially you) asking meta-questions about our system and we can only remain within this system to ask questions with the system — substantivalism

In other words, you don't know the nature of your own existence. I gotcha.

Why you would add anything as such is up to you and your arbitrary/restricted preferences. — substantivalism

Is that another form of a subjective truth or objective truth?

It's right now (however we've defined it to be) and if I didn't give rise to them then what isn't me did. — substantivalism

Okay?

Only what I experience as all that gives rise to our experiences or is those experiences I consider natural. — substantivalism

But if what is natural is an experience that is unknown, how do you know that experiences are real?

Paradox and uncertainty are not the same thing. What is an example of a paradox in nature? (Noun, not adjective.) — tim wood

Time. Do your homework Timmy!! LOL

And nothing natural about Godel's undecidability proof. He described systems that meet certain criteria and proved that within that (those) systems it is possible to create a proposition, often called G, that from within the system neither it nor its negation are provable, thus undecidable from within the system. This is, however, far from being undecidable, and indeed G is easily decided, from outside - it's true. — tim wood

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you may want to study him a bit more. I'd recommend the book The Mind of God by physicist Paul Davies.

Godel's ideas, then, or those that make it to public awareness, are for the ignorant, apparently yourself, a kind of snake oil/voodoo in the same sense that many other difficult ideas are for people who cannot or will not understand them but like to ignorantly use them to attempt to prove nonsense.

So, no. I am not trolling, but rather calling out the ignorant troll, you! Lol. — tim wood

Hiding behind ad hominem again? Are you going to drop the F-bomb too? This topic seems to be really emotional for you, LOL

You persist in mentioning Godel (among other things). However, caveat-warning, based on what you say, you do not understand him or his argument. — tim wood

Hi Timmy! Please enlighten us!! Oh wait, you're just trolling again. LOL

I stand corrected, you're back for more punishment!!!!!

ask yourself why hold onto this model if it contradicts it or postulates the existence of experiences not yet had (nor presently capable of being shown possible). — substantivalism

That explanation doesn't seem to square with the laws of nature themselves, nor does it square with the existence of a conscious being known from history as Jesus. For instance, we've already agreed that the laws of nature are paradoxical, contradictory and incomplete. And we also know that the nature of consciousness is outside the parameters of formal logic, thus also paradoxical, contradictory and incomplete (unconsciousness, consciousness and subconsciousness all working together).

And so either Platonism, mathematics, or something that transcends the natural laws of existence must be considered. Otherwise, we are back to simple wonderment, and the physicists questions that help him discover things from asking: 'all events must have a cause' as a means to his end. Accordingly, you said that a similar sense of wonderment is in itself, from consciousness, and thus is mysteriously unknown. So why and how did we get here? Everything seems mysterious or unknown(?). And from what you are telling me, all we have are metaphysical abstracts and ideas (mathematics) which in turn are incomplete and paradoxical.

If you are to fudge a model to allow for your Jesus then you most be truthful about the application of said model to other similar entities while respecting core meanings. Further, it's a wonder of mine of whether what you could say ontologically/metaphysically through your christian existentialism I or anyone else could just as easily translate (language wise or theory wise) into a form of physicalism/panpsychism/objective idealism/subjective idealism/process philosophy/etc. Is metaphysics so conventional? — substantivalism

It's pretty much as conventional as our consciousness would allow. The model would consist of the historical account of Jesus, the mystery of Love and consciousness, and inductive reasoning (the religious experience) to say the least. Most of which includes metaphysics and phenomenology. And of course all of which exists/existed.

Only that it does and correlates with certain experiences (there is no reason to postulate its independency from external factors or its dependency but there are strong correlations). — substantivalism

Okay, you don't know some features or attributes from your own conscious existence. Is self-awarenss something that just is? What about Love and other sentient/metaphysical attributes from consciousness, how do they confer any biological advantages?

Don't know the true nature of these experiences — substantivalism

There seems to be a lot that you don't know that is seemingly natural.

Abstract models merely are further combinations of concepts that we possess now and continue to learn formulated in such a way that they are implied to be certain aspects of our experience. Giving the three letter word red to the experience of seeing such a color. — substantivalism

So abstract models are natural then, from experience? No exceptions taken, since in our context; Jesus, Platonism, etc. etc. can be abstract models about some other form of consciousness from which the ideas themselves also come from consciousness. Does that sound right?

isn't platonism and it was never meant to be deductive but inductively/abductively strong. — substantivalism

No exceptions. Can you translate that into Revelation in Christianity, as well as the religious experience phenomenon that uses induction?

You experience wonderment but I do not have a feeling of creating it directly only one of passive interaction when the right set of experiences arise. — substantivalism

So you really don't know how, and why, wonder exists, correct?

fact that I don't know means there is something beyond me that gives rise to such experiences. — substantivalism

Okay, so you don't know.

You're welcome. One thing it didn't mention (among other's) is the idea that time itself, is not as illusionary as the change in time, itself. A distinction that's interesting. Of course the simple paradox of time zones and time travel via infamous twins bear this out... .

The idea of constructing better abstract models of reality and waiting for them to break. Acknowledging their success but aware that they merely describe a black box and that their time could be up at anytime.

Going back to the actual reply the first thing covered was an explication of semantics. We can or could define natural in such a way that it precludes such supernatural distinctions. The second was just me clarifying the other common philosophical position on natural laws. Not sure you got this or not. — substantivalism

And how would you define it then? What are 'abstract models' in themselves? Is that some form of Platonism? Or is it some incomplete mathematical axiom?

Did you create your knowledge or gave rise to these foundations? If the answer is more or less univocally no or probably no then it had to come from that which isn't "you". From outside. . . from experience. . . from the reality's interactions with itself or what was to become "you". — substantivalism

Is that like the mysterious/metaphysical sense of wonderment? In other words, does consciousness and self-awareness cause higher life forms of life to wonder about things? Or, as you say, does wonderment come from experience?

I've given rise to myself so what is likely is that the nature of my existence comes from outside (not me). — substantivalism

Okay. so something outside yourself caused your self to come into Being. Is that a form of super-natural causation, or something that just is. If it's something that just is, then we're back to where we started.

I still await to see a full conclusion that it isn't our concepts or abstract models which confuse us (give rise to contradictions) and it's the nature (the thing that's inaccessible) is fundamentally contradictory. — substantivalism

As do physicists: ToE.

God bless Frank. I think he meant well, it's just that more often than not, he seemed like a fish out of water. Not to mention his emotions (which are a good thing) may have gotten the best of him....

You might find this interesting, in thinking about 'unity of opposites' when it comes to such dialectic reasoning here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites

I was talking about how some may define natural differently in such a manner that they wouldn't require the label supernatural. There I was clarifying that experiences alone aren't what's natural but what is natural is an umbrella term covering those experiences and what gives rise to them. It's just different ways of approaching the definition of the terms here.

For natural laws here or laws of nature i'd take a regulative stance and merely state that certain features of cognitive awareness/connection to insinuating experiences/having said experiences retain many numerous experiential correlations. — substantivalism

...not exactly sure what all that means. I would say to you, don't be afraid to embrace the concept of super-natural. As I said, (in our context) it's just a consequence of temporal-ness and finitude that exists in the world of physics and logic/reason.

You can only use your own experiences; what else would there be? — substantivalism

The concept of super-natural. In the alternative, one could always parse the notion of synthetic a priori knowledge :chin:

I can only conclude to holding a form of epistemological idealism with pragmatic/scientific methodology to guide me from general experiences to other general/abstract conclusions made from them. — substantivalism

What would be an example of that sense of scientific pragmatism relating to (explaining) the nature of your conscious existence?

Again, as i've said numerous times before, we CANNOT know the true nature of our experiences (this includes a sort of Berkley idealism in which experiences in of themselves are all that they are) as we are only aware of the affects that such experiences have on "us" and the abstract conclusions made thereafter. — substantivalism

No exceptions taken.

In summary, looks like we still have paradox and uncertainty, inconsistency and incompleteness.

For example, the implication is often that the concept of nothing existing is somehow self-inconsistent, and therefore a physical universe must necessarily exist. — Mijin

No exceptions taken! (The concept of nothing is logically necessary, for there to be something.)

Sticking with the sports theme (and not to stray off topic), Dallas Cowboy owner Jerry Jones should be applauded for his ability to go beyond his wasp upbringing. He didn't dichotomize: he knelt with the team and stood with the team. He did both. And the message was, 'gee there's something wrong here that I have to protest during a sports event... But in this case common sense overruled: he must have thought, most of my players are African-American and they're suffering emotionally and physically... ?

But back to systemic racism. Perhaps too idealistic but I don't understand why the EEOC and human resources don't develop policies that screen cop's as appropriate to determine their psychological health. Most cops are considered good cops, but it seems that the few who 'ruin it for everybody' are either in the closet wife beaters, or have axes to grind and are just angry...

natural experiences but what gives rise to and are experiences (what they do or how they do it) are what is natural. — substantivalism

I'm not following that... . How does that explain the inherent flaws from our natural laws of the universe and your conscious existence ? You're not addressing the questions; are you simply not able to, using your experiences?

Not to mention this experience would have to be replicated and investigated to rule out other possible factors as well as whether it was entirely "psychological". In that if we replicate it with numerous bystanders would he be the sole one experiencing it and all others at a loss? — substantivalism

In the end, that sounds like George Berkeley's metaphysical theory of Subjective Idealism. No real exceptions taken there... . :up:

Natural is what exists and either is or gives rise to our experiences. — substantivalism

Which is full of paradox and uncertainty, and are provably incomplete and inconsistent (Godel). And so how does your natural experiences help you in your argument?

Let's go full circle and explain your consciousness, shall we? Are the laws of logic outside of a complete explanation of your own existence? The nswer to the question is unequivocally yes.

What argument do you have there, that supports the use of the natural laws of the universe? I anxiously await your response.

Historical figures (assuming were talking about real ones here) = "potential" encounters not unlike other people we've experienced. — substantivalism

I agree. Think of it this way, if someone came to you and said I saw someone performing a miracle, would you believe them? Whose truth is that?

Though, others have defined natural in such a manner that dealing in the supernatural (using such a term) would be redundant or useless as a distinction. — substantivalism

Explain why it's redundant or useless as a distinction (?). I look forward to your response.

you saying that a person talking to another person is equivalent to imagining they are talking to a person? What is that you are trying to say here. . . was Jesus a "real" person or not (not purely a fictional one but a potential "human" experience the same as talking to a friend of yours). — substantivalism

Are you saying that all historical figures were fictional characters?

Today dumper-Trumper suggested that the NBA is a political organization. OMG, how absurd is that coming from the president of the United States?

He has no clue what it's like to grow up as an African American. What he is not, he apparently cannot perceive to understand; it obviously cannot communicate itself to him.

A good president is supposed to go beyond his/her political and so-called implicit biases towards race relationships. Claiming that the NBA is political just proves his bias.

As a WASP myself, this is simply common sense. What happened to the old GOP of President Lincoln!?

We are stuck to our pragmatic empirical methodologies however and thusly cannot answer said question as only questions about experiences themselves as well as their relations can then be taken seriously. — substantivalism

Yes and no. We know that the laws of the universe are full of paradox and uncertainty. Godel's theorem warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from given assumptions cannot in general provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent.

It doesn't mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless only that an understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought. And so if the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense (through empirical observation), something beyond the natural laws governing existence is the so-called logical consequence. Hence the concept of super-natural.

So can you argue through a pragmatic scientific investigation of your experiences that there was a potential possibility in the past of having held an experience of a human being called Jesus? Imagining talking to an acquaintance and "actually" talking to an acquaintance are two different experiences which we can distinguish. . . which one is Jesus (the purely imagined or the purely "real"). — substantivalism

I suppose another thought there would be relative to Subjective Idealism. If the concept of consciousness viz Christianity, includes parcing the nature of both mind and God (God's suppose-ed son Jesus), then reading a historical accounting of a historical figure or person wouldn't be a starkly opposing process compared with apperception of anything from our conscious existence.

It is humanistic values coupled with advances in knowledge that makes people's lives better.
6m — JerseyFlight

Are you making a mutually exclusive declaration?

Have you read the old testament wisdom books?

True purpose. — TheLeviathanKing

You might embrace:

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know--John Keats

Welcome!!

) zero is useful, but nothing — Gregory

A wonderful paradox! Nicely said.

A zero IS something...even though it is nothing. — Frank Apisa

:up:

Nothing’ is only meaningful as the negation of ‘something’. If nothing existed, then ‘nothing’ would be meaningless. — Wayfarer

Agreed! Yet another paradox for the Atheist to resolve!! The irony there is, that 'nothing' then becomes just a Platonic ideal; an abstract mathematical concept. And so the concept of nothing is just a concept in itself. In nature and reality, nothing doesn't really exist.

For instance, nothing would be something that consists of no space at all, and no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature, etc.. Using laws of nature (or any mathematical laws) the number 0 exists as an abstract metaphysical concept that is actually something, not nothing. ( In fact, me describing nothing is still something.)

To the OP, why is 'nothing is still something'' wrong?

Perceptions of reality. phenomenon seems to fit the bill. — TheMadFool

I didn't see anyone mention the paradox/illusion of time, so I thought I would add this to your notion of our "perceptions of reality" statement.

is that systems of this kind will be either incomplete or inconsistent. — Janus

Correct; hence:

Amen: What Janus is about to say is false.
Janus: Amen has just spoken truly.

Yet, the sentences, in themselves, are coherent and complete. In other words, they are not sentence fragments lacking both subject/predicate.

And so there will always exist certain true statements that cannot be proved to be true.

Yet another mystery in life :snicker:

for racism in varying circles of Trump supporters, I cannot find any connection, ideological or otherwise, to Trump’s agenda, and I think that’s the reason many of the racist activist types are disillusioned with Trump. In the end they’ve been duped by the Dems and their media wing. — NOS4A2

Surely you're joking! I thought the guy was found guilty of discriminating against African-Americans in his rental properties? Any current efforts to disguise his racism won't last long, it's just a political smokescreen to get elected.

Oh, and by the way, just one of many problems with dumper-trumper; did Mexico ever directly pay for the wall and isn't he part of the swamp now? After all, he pardoned his buddy Rodger Stone didn't he... LOL

I was never concerned about the alt-right. I was more concerned about the free press they and other such groups were given. — NOS4A2

What does that mean? If it wasn't for the press pointing out some of dumper-trumper's misgivings (either lies about someone or something, or say's 'that's the first I heard of that, thank you for bringing it too my attention), not to mention his much needed advisers (if you want to phrase it as such) then
he'd be down even more so in the poles.

Remember, he's the guy who said ingest bleach, and then by April everything (COVID) will go away. If the press didn't hound him, who knows what he would try to tell folks. Dude, the guy's way underqualified to say the least... .

Have you checked the national debt lately? Hardly an old-school GOP ideology! Just like his casino's and fake university, I worry he's gonna run the country into the ground. Remember, it was dumper-trumper who said " I'm the king of debt'! And seemed to be proud of it. Go figure. What a fake. LOL














So without the object being apperceived, it’s not that nothing happens, rather it’s that nothing is understood to happen - except perhaps an unexplained feeling or emotion. — Possibility

I spent a little time reading about her theory concerning 'emotions are concepts', and frankly, have not been too terribly convinced (particularly if one believes the will precedes the intellect). Not to disparage her entirely, but I think the book relates more to pop-psychology and self help. It's really not germane to the apperception of a subjectively beautiful object. Dr. Barrett apparently parses emotions like “fear,” “sadness,” and “disappointment” etc. and how it impacts our physiology to the extent of sickness and pathology. While she's correct that feelings can effect our physiology, and that past experience helps identify that which we see, we still have to appreciate the object first for what it is (its physiology).

Be that as it may, your forgoing quote misses that very basic existential phenomenon, that without the object itself being apperceived, nothing happens. I think you are speaking in terms of cart before the horse. Emotions as concepts first, must rely on the apperception of the object itself. Thus, the subjective object known as you yourself, is being subjectively perceived, analyzed, sensed, etc. etc..

And simply, without the subjective-object existing and being apperceived, the phenomenon and feelings from aesthetics' doesn't exist. How could it?

The question for her or you would be, if the perception of the object/concept known as woman is apperceived upon seeing the/her physical appearance (physiology/aesthetics), what from experience determines whether one should engage in a romance with the object known as woman?

Further, your foregoing comment only substantiates my argument, in that your 'unexplained feeling' is that very phenomenon that is mysteriously known as Love. While you can love the person's intellect, you can also love their subjective-object, their subjective beauty. For some reason, you deny such wonderful experiences. Romance (the desire for men/women who want to see and be with each other) for you, seems like an irrelevant, indifferent and even stoic, consequential relationship between man and woman, seemingly tantamount to a need that is ancillary at best. In fact, I don't think 'need' is on your radar there.

and the imagination of a possible aesthetic idea is not contingent upon understanding of any determinable concept. — Possibility

That's not correct. Barret maintains that things perceived are always analyzed into concepts, not feelings themselves. Take the Will for example. Have you reconciled the metaphysical will from consciousness? The will to have romantic love? Is that an intrinsic need or some intellectual concept that is lower down on the 'food chain'?

For example, she thinks:
◾What is that rectangular source of light with changing patterns of color? A window!
◾What is this intermittent pattern of small, cold spots sweeping across my body? Rain!
◾What is that rhythmic pattern of air pressure changes? A song

While the brain is constantly trying to make sense of the data it is receiving, one of the easiest ways for it to do that is to use past experience as a guide. If it can match the current experience with a past memory, it can save a lot of time and energy. But here's the thing, that's not what we're talking about! (When I hear a song I don't consciously worry about the concept of a song; instead, I feel the music.)

I don't see a woman and simply say 'yep she's a woman' because in concept she fits the definition. Instead I also perceive her subjective-object (aesthetics) and have feelings about whether she is attractive enough to have romance with (Eros). I don't' worry about concepts of whether she's a woman or not, and her innate beauty or ugliness. The existential need to be with someone who I find attractive enough (to procreate with, etc.) has little to do with concepts. Again, much like the Will.

Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. ( I.E., He/she does not like tall/short men/women just because, period.)

You’re applying Kant’s theory of aesthetics to a human subject reduced first to appearance, to the status of mere object, which then becomes the concrete form in which this ‘something abstract’ is expressed. — Possibility

Yes. The feeling that is abstract. The feeling of romantic love that just is. The unexplained phenomena between man/woman that involves the aesthetical object. The touching, caressing, admiration, the respect of one's body as the temple for intrinsic beauty as so required (as part of) for passionate romance.

When you recognise that this initial judgement of ‘beauty’ has nothing at all to do with realising a human potentiality for Love, then get back to me. — Possibility

It has everything to do with it. It's essential to the physical aspects of Love (admiration of a new-born, etc.). In principle, if it wasn't ,we would search to find something appealing about the person's brain-object, or some other physical object. The world of matter actually does matter. (In physics, matter matters; in metaphysics, non-matter matters---together there exists a phenomenon called Love.)

(I'll be brutally honest and excruciatingly graphic; during passionate, romantic love-making, why does my partner like to look down at my junk going into her junk--my object in her object--do you think she's turned on by the object/objects? And a boner or excuse me, bonus question: while my partner is watching the object(s) during love-making, is she wondering about " Lisa Barrett's concepts" ?)

No empirical statements (propositions proper) can be proven to be true, but we can, in principle at least, check to see if they are.

Also I think you are misusing Gödel. His Incompleteness — Janus

The statements themselves are a priori just like mathematical truth's. That's why it's analogous to Gödel (Gödel did the same thing in his experiment). They are essentially a priori constructed sentences that reference themselves.