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: sci.logic
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite
 string transformations --- Quine
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 22:44:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vucc39$mukj$3@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 05:44:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fb36b2488cb56e027582f4b64683c043";
	logging-data="752275"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YVd3EYTe1tpBI5WqHpku/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:raiRH13Tcpr3A58vu7+pGm5lfrM=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vuab57$2n67r$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250423-4, 4/23/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 3560

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/


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