Re: All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine

On 4/21/25 12:06 AM, olcott wrote:

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 <is> 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.
 

In other words, you are admitting to just being a liar by misquoting someone, and not reading what they are saying,
Sorry, I guess your problem with Quine was that you "stopped at his first error" and didn't read the rest of the paper, so your claim that you know what it says are based on that same error.
That isn't how laguage works, but then, you never understood how language works as you think language is just finite operations of finite symbols, when Natural Language is so much more. A point that Quine uses, which you can't understand.