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

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.