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

On 4/27/2025 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-26 15:38:18 +0000, olcott said:
 

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

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

On 4/25/2025 3:28 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-24 19:28:57 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/24/2025 3:42 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.

>
Where?
>

>
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/
>
>

 I uniquely made his mistake more clear.

>
No, you didn't. You only made a more clear mistake but about another
topic.
>

>
All expressions of language that can be proven true entirely
on the basis of basic facts also expressed in language <are>
the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.
>

He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.

>
Where does he say that?

>
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/

>
That page refers to many Quine's works, none of which has the title
"The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction".
>
Apparently you don't kone where or evene whther Quine said what you
claim he said.
>

>
Apparently you prefer to remain ignorant.
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 you don't answer above question is sufficient to determine that
you are trying a straw man deception.
 

   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/
I am not going to dig into the weeds and see
where Quine says that, it is sufficient to know
that he says that.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer