Re: All computation & human reasoning encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine

On 4/27/25 2:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/26/25 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/26/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-25 21:14:30 +0000, olcott said:

>
[ .... ]
>

It is common knowledge that Quine is most famous for
rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction by this paper:

>

Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

>

Be specific:

>

- Which sentence of that opus contains the mistake you ment
   when you said "I uniquely made his mistake more clear" ?
- Which sentence of that opus expresses a disagreement that there are
   any expressions that are proven completely true entirely on the basis
   of their meaning ?

>
>

That he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.

>
I suspect Quine's statements were much more nuanced than your
understanding (or misunderstanding) of them would suggest.  Since you
can't cite Quine's original text to back up your assertions, it seems
more likely that these assertions are falsehoods.
>

>
Two Dogmas of Empiricism --- Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>
I am not going to wade through his double talk and weasel
words any more deeply that his issue with how the term Bachelor(x)
gets its meaning. He totally screwed that up proving that
he is clueless about how words get their meaning.

>
But he doesn't use double talk and weasel words.
>

    Quine argues that all attempts to define and
   understand analyticity are circular. Therefore,
   the notion of analyticity should be rejected
   https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/

So, can you define any word fully without using an undefined word or getting into a circular definition?

 He is stupidly wrong a about this. Analytic knowledge
exists in an acyclic directed graph tree of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

And how do you get those base facts to build you tree in a system of Natural Language

 *A type hierarchy is a knowledge tree acyclic graph*
   By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine
   which says that the objects of thought (or, in another
   interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided
   into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals,
   relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
 

Which can't be unambigously done in a pure Natural Language.
Simple Types are based on using a Formalized System, not Natural Language Systems which Quine is talking about.