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
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite
 string transformations --- Quine
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 14:27:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vu3hqc$c1to$2@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 21:27:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a034244d83f09ecbfab02b9bdb773a5";
	logging-data="395192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ZAWRRpwbALuGw11OblDP/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8Fg9b7UqJqy6RoitFzKxqthVC7k=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250420-4, 4/20/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <kNbNP.989393$C61.271641@fx03.ams4>
Bytes: 3479

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.

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