Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite
 string transformations --- Quine
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:36:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0be671e6df95f8a3c55e1ad89036f941592315d9@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me>
 <fbe82c2374d539fb658a8f5569af102b713ecd01@i2pn2.org>
 <vu3cb7$95co$2@dont-email.me>
 <57fb4080f3b2783cb49a1aacdb43f02343fe9038@i2pn2.org>
 <kNbNP.989393$C61.271641@fx03.ams4> <vu3hqc$c1to$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 19:36:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1173910"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vu3hqc$c1to$2@dont-email.me>

On 4/20/25 3:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2025 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 14:54:55 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/25 1:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2025 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/25 tic 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> No counter-example to the above statement exists for all computation
>>>>>> and all human reasoning that can be expressed in language.
>>>>>
>>>>> But can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in language?
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, how do you express the smell of a rose in a finite
>>>>> string so you can do reasoning with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>>
>>>> all human reasoning that can be expressed in language <is> the
>>>> {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction that humanity has
>>>> totally screwed up since
>>>
>>> But it isn't, and that is YOUR screw up. Part of the problem is that the
>>> phrase "True by the meaning of the words alone", doesn't actually have
>>> meaning in a Natural Language context, as words have vaired, imprecise,
>>> and even spectrums of meaning, perhaps even multiple meanings at once.
>>> (This is even a form of word play used to convey special meanings).
>>>
>>>
>>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism Willard Van Orman Quine
>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't even understand that the term Bachelor as stipulated to have
>>>> the semantic meaning of Bachelor(x) ≡ ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x)
>>>> ∧ Human(x)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible
>>> meaning of Bachelor.
>>>
>>> Sorry, you are just showing you don't understand the arguments that you
>>> read, because the go over your head, and then YOU just assume theny must
>>> be wrong.
>>>
>>> Sorry, all that shows is your stupidity and ignorance.
>>
>> Attack the argument not the person.
>>
>> /Flibble
> 
> Richard does this to try to get away with masking his own
> complete ignorance of any of the words that I just used.
> 

Except that I ALWAYS start with the actual refutation, and thus you 
claim is just a LIE.

Sorry, but you don't seem to understand how logic works.

Care to show how my refutation was incorrect?