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. I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
On 4/23/2025 4:16 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:You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he does not know >>>>>> that thing?
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) >>>>>>
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. I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
Where did Quine disagree that analytic truth can be separately demarcated
and that there is no such thing as expressions of language that are true
entirely on their semantic meaning expressed in language?
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/
On 4/25/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-24 03:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/23/2025 4:16 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:You mean that if Quine says something that proves that he does not know
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) >>>>>>>>
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. I uniquely made his mistake more clear.
Where did Quine disagree that analytic truth can be separately demarcated >>>> and that there is no such thing as expressions of language that are true >>>> entirely on their semantic meaning expressed in language?
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/
Where exacly does he say what you claimed him saying?
Just read the rest of the article.
He is widely known and most famous for rejecting the
analytic/synthetic distinction.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:51:53 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,384 |