Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:56:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d85353eb06b28934968b03124a3db247796aeca3@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me> <vu3cb7$95co$2@dont-email.me>
 <vu8nde$13jl5$4@dont-email.me> <vuab57$2n67r$1@dont-email.me>
 <vucc39$mukj$3@dont-email.me> <vufhrl$3jmnv$1@dont-email.me>
 <vugcvs$b21g$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:56:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1849676"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vugcvs$b21g$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 4/25/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/25/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-24 03:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/23/2025 4:16 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. I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
>>>>
>>>> Where did Quine disagree that analytic truth can be separately 
>>>> demarcated
>>>> and that there is no such thing as expressions of language that are 
>>>> true
>>>> entirely on their semantic meaning expressed in language?
>>>
>>> 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/
>>
>> Where exacly does he say what you claimed him saying?
>>
> 
> Just read the rest of the article.
> He is widely known and most famous for rejecting the
> analytic/synthetic distinction.
> 

In other words, you can't justify your conclusion, because you don't 
REALLY understand what you read, and thus you try to reduce his more 
neuanced statement to something simpler that isn't what he is actually 
saying.