I am observing.
I am observing myself.
I am observing myself observing myself.
I am observing myself observing myself observing myself.
. . . and so on and so forth . . .
I am observing myself observing myself … being lazy.
I am observing myself observing myself … being lazy observing myself.
. . .
[X]
This fascinating illustration, a variation of the Ouroboros theme, I luckily found at the Good Winter Tumblr blog. (Click the picture to see the original version.)
If someone tells you, about whatever you had in mind, that it might just be your body making a fool of you, deceiving you, enslaving your mind,
this is not obviously a lie but a lie nonetheless.
How can we explain explanation? Of course, dictionaries explain explanation. With ease, and without a word about self-reference. Though, implicitly (they explain a lot).
I wonder whether they have to in order to sell. Like scientists need to stick to objectivity in order to get funded. (This explains a hell of a lot.)
So, we can explain explanation (like we can think about thinking). Imagine we cannot. — I can’t. Now explain that you cannot!
I cannot explain why I cannot explain that I cannot explain. This is my explanation.
This sentence does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
— Robert Boeninger
A wonderful example of a not so obvious self-contradictory sentence. It is discussed in Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Some more examples of paradoxical statements, a great illustration of troublesome self-reference, and why it simply is all about this and that may be found in the h2g2‘s entry on “self-reference“.
