Path: ...!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: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 19:04:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <acf648e2247ec4c940b0d2c0ff41fd85d51522c1@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 23:09:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1333713"; 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: <vu6amj$2vn05$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2655
Lines: 43

On 4/21/25 4:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 does he say that EXACT statement?

You are known to misquote.

It seems you may be the one that is just stupidly wrong.