Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 11:23:41 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <vui56d$20dpc$2@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$1@dont-email.me> <vugcvs$b21g$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 10:23:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3d8a8a0311041e2defa0db058368d25d";
	logging-data="2111276"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+NhPL2oeBRNpP3OfQ2LXR"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ywaqoJtJChfY8VTzQ8FLyaIL5wY=
Bytes: 3879

On 2025-04-25 16:24:28 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

So you don't know where or whether he said so.

-- 
Mikko