Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: All computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 11:10:02 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <vv1ukq$mf5a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vu343r$20gn$2@dont-email.me> <fbe82c2374d539fb658a8f5569af102b713ecd01@i2pn2.org> <vu3cb7$95co$2@dont-email.me> <vu5494$1urcb$1@dont-email.me> <vu6amj$2vn05$4@dont-email.me> <vu7m8j$956h$1@dont-email.me> <vu8nde$13jl5$4@dont-email.me> <vucthk$17en3$1@dont-email.me> <vue3dr$28iho$1@dont-email.me> <vufh49$3j05o$1@dont-email.me> <vugtvm$pke9$4@dont-email.me> <cbac79909cd10c912558a45e93f9b72c53e294a7@i2pn2.org> <vuj1j0$2lf64$7@dont-email.me> <vuks28$f9ur$1@dont-email.me> <vulse2$1bf1j$5@dont-email.me> <vundm8$2s577$1@dont-email.me> <vuo71n$3jn5n$1@dont-email.me> <vuq5e9$1f6cm$1@dont-email.me> <vutgv6$gmbi$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 02 May 2025 10:10:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cb793c8c3b892b6beb6c2827261db101";
	logging-data="736426"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19nziKEiY2/AvTyTGG9K8OX"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9y4kzt6gL6ImzKn/sz6NVhGHB2U=

On 2025-04-30 15:52:06 +0000, olcott said:

> On 4/29/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-28 15:32:05 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 4/28/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-27 18:18:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2025 3:42 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about another
>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely
>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are>
>>>>>>>>>>> the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where does he say that?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title
>>>>>>>>>> "The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you
>>>>>>>>>> claim he said.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
>>>>>>>>> It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
>>>>>>>>> rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't 
>>>>>>>> understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your 
>>>>>>>> knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with 
>>>>>>>> some of the basic concepts of language theory.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
>>>>>>> by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
>>>>>> least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
>>>>>> against.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Quine argues that all attempts to define and
>>>>>    understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
>>>>>    the notion of analyticity should be rejected
>>>>>    https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
>>>> 
>>>> The problem is that in order to define anything you need words with
>>>> known meanings. But the meanings of undefined words are fuzzy and
>>>> ambiguous, and those meanings can only be known empirically. No
>>>> analytic knowledge can be expressed without empirical knowledge of
>>>> meanings of words.
>>> 
>>> The otherwise meaningless term Bachelor(x) is stipulated
>>> to mean the predefined terms of Male(x) & ~Married(x) & Adult(x).
>> 
>> The word "bachelor" is a word of a natural language and has a meaning.
>> A definition can relate the otherwise meaningless symbol "Bachelor" to
>> the meaningless symbols "Male", "Married", and "Adult" but leaves it
>> otherwise meaningless.
> 
> Until the knowledge ontology is fully populated with
> Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates.

In order to attach meaning to any meaning postulates you need meaningful
expessions of a natural language. Otherwilse the "meaning postulates"
are only meaningless strings.

-- 
Mikko