Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 23:06:53 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 98 Message-ID: References:

<57fb4080f3b2783cb49a1aacdb43f02343fe9038@i2pn2.org>

<0be671e6df95f8a3c55e1ad89036f941592315d9@i2pn2.org> <2ef97b0a38f7029cf89e88e01310ab2a0d04d1f7@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 06:06:54 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25473e8e647d879b4facffe8e49faa1f"; logging-data="1471730"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CnMxpiH6wEDXoz/rWsSMM" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:yjsuSSqzP1Q8cdHY+eaobSLaYzw= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250420-6, 4/20/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5230 On 4/20/2025 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/20/25 6:24 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/20/2025 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/20/25 3:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 4/20/2025 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 4/20/25 3:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Except that I ALWAYS start with the actual refutation, and thus you >>>>> claim is just a LIE. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but you don't seem to understand how logic works. >>>>> >>>>> Care to show how my refutation was incorrect? >>>> >>>> You still have no idea what Quine's paper says and are >>>> trying to get away with claiming that you even looked at it. >>>> >>> >>> I think I can say the same thing about you. >>> >> >> PUT UP OR SHUT UP BITCH !!! >> Correctly sum up the gist of Quine's whole paper in one sentence. >> > > What makes you think that is POSSIBLE? > > If he could have said it in one sentence he would have. > In other words you have no idea about anything that he said or you have already stated these ideas that you do have. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer