Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite
 string transformations --- Quine
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 11:24:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <vugcvs$b21g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me> <vu3cb7$95co$2@dont-email.me>
 <vu8nde$13jl5$4@dont-email.me> <vuab57$2n67r$1@dont-email.me>
 <vucc39$mukj$3@dont-email.me> <vufhrl$3jmnv$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 18:24:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="79e8f0b4632dd720f927e42de4e950b0";
	logging-data="362544"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UmllAmYQds8XuDiwsrd5m"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WroFmL9wrQS7Z5tqQnZYbr1D0dY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250425-4, 4/25/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vufhrl$3jmnv$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

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.

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