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 of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite
 string transformations --- Quine
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 16:37:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2ef97b0a38f7029cf89e88e01310ab2a0d04d1f7@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <0be671e6df95f8a3c55e1ad89036f941592315d9@i2pn2.org>
 <vu3jm0$c1to$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:37:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1179599"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vu3jm0$c1to$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4238
Lines: 80

On 4/20/25 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2025 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> You still have no idea what Quine's paper says and are
> trying to get away with claiming that you even looked at it.
> 

I think I can say the same thing about you.

But you have shown a history of such problems, while I haven't.

The fact that you dodged the question shows you don't have an answer.

Sorry, but you are just showing your ignorance of what you talk about.