Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite
 string transformations --- Quine
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 14:25:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <vu3hmh$c1to$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me>
 <fbe82c2374d539fb658a8f5569af102b713ecd01@i2pn2.org>
 <vu3cb7$95co$2@dont-email.me>
 <57fb4080f3b2783cb49a1aacdb43f02343fe9038@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 21:25:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a034244d83f09ecbfab02b9bdb773a5";
	logging-data="395192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZHX9M5rJJGU1gTYh+NHjI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oEImHtMs24tU6Ogop88kjpddn00=
In-Reply-To: <57fb4080f3b2783cb49a1aacdb43f02343fe9038@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250420-4, 4/20/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 3378

On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
> 

Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.

Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer