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

On 4/26/25 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

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 and can't find out.
Or maybe you believe he did not say so but don't want to admit.
>

 Quine is most famous for rejecting the analytic/synthetic
distinction like Einstein is most famous for E=MC²
 

Right, but you don't understand his argument, and express what he says incorrctly, showing your ignorance of what you say.
Your problem is your knowledge of what he is talking about seems to be totally inadiquite for you to understand what he is saying.