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

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?