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: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 15:44:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <vu6amj$2vn05$4@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 22:44:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a425555c6648d84fc534c8ef87321189";
	logging-data="3136517"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JjAoaO9qB7Abz8rGnTsgk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Hme55eJloEkFPOiMK6gCfyD5PjE=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vu5494$1urcb$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250421-6, 4/21/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 2714

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.

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