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

On 4/28/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-27 18:18:42 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/27/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-26 16:28:16 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/25/2025 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/25/25 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:

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
>

>
Yes, but not in the way you try to imply, because you just don't understand what he says. Your problem is he is talking about your knowledge and intelegence level, as you have seriouse problems with some of the basic concepts of language theory.

>
He does not have a clue how words acquire meaning as proved
by his failing to understand how Bachelor(x) gets its meaning.

>
As he says a lot about how words acquire meaning he obviously had at
least a clue. You can't quote even one sentence that you could argue
against.

>
   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/

>
The problem is that in order to define anything you need words with
known meanings. But the meanings of undefined words are fuzzy and
ambiguous, and those meanings can only be known empirically. No
analytic knowledge can be expressed without empirical knowledge of
meanings of words.
>

 The otherwise meaningless term Bachelor(x) is stipulated
to mean the predefined terms of Male(x) & ~Married(x) & Adult(x).
This is just like BASIC
100 let x = 5

No, it isn't.
The term Bachelor has multiple possible meanings. We are talking about the NATURAL LANUAGE, not a formalize variant of it. A Bachelor is also an undergraduate degree
Note, also, even in the sense you are trying to use, there are some variations, as it also normally implies NEVER married, as a widow or divorcee are often not included in the class "Bachelor" of that sense.

 

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)

>
A directed graph tree only relates terms to other terms. It does not
give them any other meaning.
>

 Relating terms to other terms is all that is required
to give all of the terms all of their meaning that can
be expressed in words.

And in Natural Language this is an actually impossible job to do completely and unambiguously in many cases.

 We need not go into the philosophy of language theories
of how the first words acquired their original meaning.

But that does affect the current meaningS of the words.

 We simply plug the detailed meanings into a knowledge
ontology inheritance hierarchy. This is all encoded using
extensions to Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates. Richard
Montague already greatly extended these.
 

Which can't be done, as the words don't have an unambiguous meaning.
That is part of the problem that Quine was pointing out.
Much of the previous work incorrectly presumes a somewhat fomralize Natural Lanugage, which make itself a contradiction, as the Natural Language is exactly what is used in practice, without the added formalization.