Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: All computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string
 transformations --- Quine
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 21:58:32 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <127b67c1ce02a01921d087cf43bd94c69d7d3174@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me>
 <fbe82c2374d539fb658a8f5569af102b713ecd01@i2pn2.org>
 <vu3cb7$95co$2@dont-email.me> <vu5494$1urcb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu6amj$2vn05$4@dont-email.me> <vu7m8j$956h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8nde$13jl5$4@dont-email.me> <vucthk$17en3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vue3dr$28iho$1@dont-email.me> <vufh49$3j05o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vugtvm$pke9$4@dont-email.me>
 <cbac79909cd10c912558a45e93f9b72c53e294a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj1j0$2lf64$7@dont-email.me> <vuks28$f9ur$1@dont-email.me>
 <vulse2$1bf1j$5@dont-email.me> <vundm8$2s577$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuo71n$3jn5n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:07:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2331913"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vuo71n$3jn5n$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8993
Lines: 190

On 4/28/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-27 18:18:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 18:33:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-21 20:44:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2025 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-20 17:53:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Quine says that there is no such thing as expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that are true entirely on their semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning expressed in language Quine is stupidly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did Quine say that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When he disagrees that analytic truth can be separately
>>>>>>>>>>> demarcated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “...he is best known for his rejection of the
>>>>>>>>>   analytic/synthetic distinction.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about 
>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely
>>>>>>>>> on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are>
>>>>>>>>> the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
>>>>>>>>>>> proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where does he say that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “...he is best known for his rejection of the
>>>>>>>>> analytic/synthetic distinction.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title
>>>>>>>> "The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you
>>>>>>>> claim he said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
>>>>>>> It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
>>>>>>> rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
>>>>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't 
>>>>>> understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your 
>>>>>> knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems 
>>>>>> with some of the basic concepts of language theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
>>>>> by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
>>>>
>>>> As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
>>>> least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
>>>> against.
>>>
>>>    Quine argues that all attempts to define and
>>>    understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
>>>    the notion of analyticity should be rejected
>>>    https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
>>
>> The problem is that in order to define anything you need words with
>> known meanings. But the meanings of undefined words are fuzzy and
>> ambiguous, and those meanings can only be known empirically. No
>> analytic knowledge can be expressed without empirical knowledge of
>> meanings of words.
>>
> 
> The otherwise meaningless term Bachelor(x) is stipulated
> to mean the predefined terms of Male(x) & ~Married(x) & Adult(x).
> This is just like BASIC
> 100 let x = 5

No, it isn't.

The term Bachelor has multiple possible meanings. We are talking about 
the NATURAL LANUAGE, not a formalize variant of it. A Bachelor is also 
an undergraduate degree

Note, also, even in the sense you are trying to use, there are some 
variations, as it also normally implies NEVER married, as a widow or 
divorcee are often not included in the class "Bachelor" of that sense.


> 
>>> He is stupidly wrong a about this. Analytic knowledge
>>> exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of knowledge.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>
>> A directed graph tree only relates terms to other terms. It does not
>> give them any other meaning.
>>
> 
> Relating terms to other terms is all that is required
> to give all of the terms all of their meaning that can
> be expressed in words.

And in Natural Language this is an actually impossible job to do 
completely and unambiguously in many cases.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========