No counter-example to the above statement exists for all
computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed
in language.
Double-talk, weasel words and ad hominem attacks count as
pure foolishness and zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
Finding an example of a computation that cannot be
expressed as finite string transformation rules is
the only possible valid rebuttal to the above.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of the C
language (the correct finite string transformation rules)
cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final
halt state.
Imagining what the simulated DD should do stupidly ignores
what this DD actually does. This may be dishonest instead
of stupid.
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)
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible
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)
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.
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible
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)
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
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible
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)
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.
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible
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)
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.
On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
Like his statement:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried
man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
On 4/20/2025 3:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
Like his statement:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried
man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
But it is enough to show that the simple definition does not work.
Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
On 4/20/2025 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible >>>>>>> meaning of Bachelor.
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)
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.
I think I can say the same thing about you.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP BITCH !!!
Correctly sum up the gist of Quine's whole paper in one sentence.
No counter-example to the above statement exists for all
computation and all human reasoning that can be expressed
in language.
Double-talk, weasel words and ad hominem attacks count as
pure foolishness and zero rebuttal what-so-ever.
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)
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible
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)
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.
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible
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)
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.
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
Like his statement:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried
man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
On 4/20/25 11:33 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?
On 4/20/2025 3:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
Like his statement:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried
man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
But it is enough to show that the simple definition does not work.
Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
On 4/20/2025 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
No counter-example to the above statement exists for all >>>>>>>>>>>> computationBut can all Human reasoning be actually expressed in language? >>>>>>>>>>>
and all human reasoning that can be 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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible >>>>>>>>> meaning of Bachelor.
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)
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.
I think I can say the same thing about you.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP BITCH !!!
Correctly sum up the gist of Quine's whole paper in one sentence.
What makes you think that is POSSIBLE?
If he could have said it in one sentence he would have.
In other words you have no idea about anything that he said
or you have already stated these ideas that you do have.
The body of human knowledge that is proven true entirely
on the basis of the connection from an expression of
language to its meaning also expressed in language is the
kind of analytic that I have always been referring to.
I just found the right words this year. The basic facts
(cannot be derived from other facts) are the axioms of
this system. The only rule-of-inference is semantic
logical entailment.
With such a simple and powerful system anything can be
expressed as the formalized semantics of natural language
and undecidability becomes impossible.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/21/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 19:27:08 +0000, olcott said:
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible
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)
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.
No, he isn't. His motivation is different from yours.
He is an intelligent and knowledgeable troll.
On 4/21/2025 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 22:21:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 3:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But it is enough to show that the simple definition does not work.
On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>> AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
Like his statement:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and
'unmarried man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST. >>>>
Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
What justification you have for your claim that most everyone believes
that analytic truth does not exist?
Speaking with two dozen people about this.
What justification you have for your claim that most of those who
believe that analytic truth does not exist got that belief from Quine?
Speaking with two dozen people about this.
On 4/21/2025 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 19:56:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
Like his statement:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried
man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
He did not claim that. He said that there are truths that are neither
fully analytic nor fully synthetic so the often assumed boundary between
the two does not exist.
The body of human knowledge that is proven true entirely
on the basis of the connection from an expression of
language to its meaning also expressed in language is the
kind of analytic that I have always been referring to.
I just found the right words this year. The basic facts
(cannot be derived from other facts) are the axioms of
this system. The only rule-of-inference is semantic
logical entailment.
With such a simple and powerful system anything can be
expressed as the formalized semantics of natural language
and undecidability becomes impossible.
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.
On 4/21/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 19:27:08 +0000, olcott said:
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:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
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?
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 QuineNo, the point he was making was that this is NOT the only possible
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)
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.
No, he isn't. His motivation is different from yours.
He is an intelligent and knowledgeable troll.
On 4/21/2025 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 22:21:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 3:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But it is enough to show that the simple definition does not work.
On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>> AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
Like his statement:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried >>>>>> man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST. >>>>
Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
What justification you have for your claim that most everyone believes
that analytic truth does not exist?
Speaking with two dozen people about this.
What justification you have for your claim that most of those who
believe that analytic truth does not exist got that belief from Quine?
Speaking with two dozen people about this.
On 4/20/2025 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 3:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>> AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
Like his statement:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried >>>>>> man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST. >>>>>
But it is enough to show that the simple definition does not work.
Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
Maybe that is what you think, but I don't think that is actually true.
The fact that discussion still occur about it seems to say you don't
understand what you are saying, but then it seems you never did.
Everyone that I have spoken with about the analytic/synthetic
distinction told me that Quine convinced them that this
distinction does not actually exist.
Because the notion of analytic truth is the foundation
of all of my systems of reasoning, I could not just let
this go.
Expressions of language that are provably true entirely
on basis of their meaning expressed in language are
Analytic(Olcott 2024) expressions.
On 4/21/2025 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 19:56:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/20/2025 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/20/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
Try reading his paper before you stupidly assume what he says.
Quine was (on this issue) stupidly confused the whole rest of
world on the analytic/synthetic distinction so most everyone
totally lost track of expressions of language that are proven
true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language.
AKA analytic(Olcott 2024)
Like his statement:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried
man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate.
It is not the trivial minutiae such as that. Glancing
at one sentence of a whole paper does not count as carefully
studying the paper. The salient detail about the paper is
that Quine convinced most everyone that analytic truth DOES NOT EXIST.
He did not claim that. He said that there are truths that are neither
fully analytic nor fully synthetic so the often assumed boundary between
the two does not exist.
The body of human knowledge that is proven true entirely
on the basis of the connection from an expression of
language to its meaning also expressed in language is the
kind of analytic that I have always been referring to.
I just found the right words this year. The basic facts
(cannot be derived from other facts) are the axioms of
this system. The only rule-of-inference is semantic
logical entailment.
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.
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.
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.
HERE IS HOW HE IS WRONG
Truth is a necessary consequence of applying the truth
preserving operation of semantic entailment to the set
of basic facts (cannot be derived from other facts)
expressed in language.
Truth expressed in language <is> analytic truth.
Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> empirical truth.
On 4/22/2025 5:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/22/25 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
In other words, he didn't use the words you "quoted", but this is just
another of your normal misinterpreation of someone smarter than you.
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.
No, he says there are statements that are not provable true on the
basis of their words.
We aren't talking about that set. We are talking about statements
that are provable on the basis of the meaning of their words.
More technically expressions of language have semantic connections
to their meaning that prove them true.
He doesn't deny that SOME statements can be proven true, only that a
system that is based on natural language can not use that as a sole
basis of operation.
You just don't understand the intracacies of the words being used,
which is why you keep on twisting the meanings.
HERE IS HOW HE IS WRONG
Truth is a necessary consequence of applying the truth
preserving operation of semantic entailment to the set
of basic facts (cannot be derived from other facts)
expressed in language.
Except truth is more than that,
Truth that can be expressed in language is <exactly>
Truth that can be expressed in language.
and less, since you keep on wanting to include natural language in
your meanings, and natural language is by its nature fussy and has
holes in it.
Truth expressed in language <is> analytic truth.
Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> empirical truth.
And what about Truth expressed in language that needs idea from
physical sensations to fully understand?
The concepts of physical sensations are fully elaborated verbally.
Or context?
Situation context can be encoded verbally.
The problem is "language" (as in Natural Language) isn't well enough
defined to fully specify truth.
Montague Grammar shows the way
All of computation and human reasoning can be encoded as finite string transformations --- Quine
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.
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.
HERE IS HOW HE IS WRONG
Truth is a necessary consequence of applying the truth
preserving operation of semantic entailment to the set
of basic facts (cannot be derived from other facts)
expressed in language.
Truth expressed in language <is> analytic truth.
Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> empirical truth.
On 4/23/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/22/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/22/2025 5:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/22/25 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
In other words, he didn't use the words you "quoted", but this is
just another of your normal misinterpreation of someone smarter than
you.
He disagrees that there are any expressions that are
proven completely true entirely on the basis of their
meaning.
No, he says there are statements that are not provable true on the
basis of their words.
We aren't talking about that set. We are talking about statements
that are provable on the basis of the meaning of their words.
More technically expressions of language have semantic connections
to their meaning that prove them true.
He doesn't deny that SOME statements can be proven true, only that a
system that is based on natural language can not use that as a sole
basis of operation.
You just don't understand the intracacies of the words being used,
which is why you keep on twisting the meanings.
HERE IS HOW HE IS WRONG
Truth is a necessary consequence of applying the truth
preserving operation of semantic entailment to the set
of basic facts (cannot be derived from other facts)
expressed in language.
Except truth is more than that,
Truth that can be expressed in language is <exactly>
Truth that can be expressed in language.
But not all Truth is expressable in language, and thus you aren't
talking about the same thing.
X = "Truth that can be expressed in language"
I say that all X <are> X and you disagree?
and less, since you keep on wanting to include natural language in
your meanings, and natural language is by its nature fussy and has
holes in it.
Truth expressed in language <is> analytic truth.
Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> empirical truth.
And what about Truth expressed in language that needs idea from
physical sensations to fully understand?
The concepts of physical sensations are fully elaborated verbally.
Ok, then what is the smell of a rose.
The actual smell of an actual rose is outside the scope
of analytical truth. Everything else about a rose can
be written down as Basic Facts.
Or the color red.
EXACT elaborations please.
The color red is already associated with a wavelength
of light. The actual first-hand direct experience of
seeing Red is outside the scope of analytic truth.
Everything else can be written down as a Basic Fact.
Or context?
Situation context can be encoded verbally.
But often isn't, and that is the problem with trying to use natural
language as your base.
That people do not typically write down the details of
discourse context place no limits.
The problem is "language" (as in Natural Language) isn't well enough
defined to fully specify truth.
Montague Grammar shows the way
Nope, it does some of it, providing a standardized way of trying to
interprete a natural language, but it doesn't fully succeed.
It was merely too big to complete at the time.
It can be easily extended to become complete.
For example Questions are merely Statements
with a piece missing.
The statementes correctly processed by the Montague Grammer are only a
sub-set of the full domain of Natural Langague.
In part because Natuaral Language is not restricted to expressing
statements with precise meaning, and thus any attempt to claim a
precise meaning for the statement must be incorrect, or at least
incomplete (which is incorrect if it claims to be THE MEANING)
Montage Grammar can eliminate all ambiguity of natural language.
It can also retain any degree of vagueness that is needed.
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: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.
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/
HERE IS HOW HE IS WRONG
Truth is a necessary consequence of applying the truth
preserving operation of semantic entailment to the set
of basic facts (cannot be derived from other facts)
expressed in language.
Where does he say that truth is a necessary consequence of applying
the truth preserving operation of semantic entailment to the set of
basic facts (cannot be derived from other facts) expressed in
language?
That is what he totally gets wrong when he rejects the
analytic/synthetic distinction.
Truth expressed in language <is> analytic truth.
No, not always. An empirical truth expressed in a language is an
empirical truth. But which is a truth that is inferred from two
premises, one analytic and one empirical?
The set of basic (indivisible) facts are the axioms for
the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language.
Truth expressed by physical sensations <is> empirical truth.
I don't think a set of physical sensations can express a truth.
"I saw a cat walk across my living room floor."
Requires seeing a cat.
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: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.
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/
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.
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: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.
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
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: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.
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
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.
On 4/26/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-25 21:14:30 +0000, olcott said:
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 he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/26/2025 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-25 16:24:28 +0000, olcott said:
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.
So you don't know and can't find out.
Or maybe you believe he did not say so but don't want to admit.
Quine is most famous for rejecting the analytic/synthetic
distinction like Einstein is most famous for E=MC²
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: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.
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 he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
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: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.
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 he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
On 4/26/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
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: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.
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 he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
And how does it get its meaning that excludes the other option he
points out for it?
This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
But he is right, as true Natural Language DOES have the pointed out ambiquity.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
Try to do it.
The problem is you are STARTING with the imprecision of Natual
Language, and are stuck with it.
On 4/27/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-26 20:52:24 +0000, Richard Damon said:
On 4/26/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
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 he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
And how does it get its meaning that excludes the other option he
points out for it?
This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
But he is right, as true Natural Language DOES have the pointed out
ambiquity.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
Try to do it.
The problem is you are STARTING with the imprecision of Natual
Language, and are stuck with it.
The solution is simple: create a new language and don't use any other.
Define every word and don't use any word before you have defined it.
State basic facts after you have defined all words to state them but
before you infer anything about them. Likwise, state the rules of
inference only after you have defined the words needed to state them
but before using them in any inference.
Yes that seems to be exactly what I have been proposing
for years. The "new" language is Rudolf Carnap Meaning
Postulates / Montague Grammar extended to cover all
natural language semantics.
This is organized into a knowledge ontology type hierarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
The Cyc project uses GUIDs instead of finite strings to label
unique sense meanings.
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: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.
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.
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: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.
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.
On 4/27/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-26 20:52:24 +0000, Richard Damon said:
On 4/26/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
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 he disagrees that the analytic synthetic distinction
distinction exists. His key mistake is failing to understand
the details of how bachelor(x) gets its semantic meanings.
And how does it get its meaning that excludes the other option he
points out for it?
This leads him to failing to understand how words generally get
their meaning. This leads him to fail to understand which
expressions are true entirely based on their meaning. This leads
him to reject the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
But he is right, as true Natural Language DOES have the pointed out ambiquity.
The entire body of human knowledge that can be expressed in language
is an axiomatic system beginning with a finite list of basic facts.
From this list the rest of general knowledge that can be expressed
in language is derived through semantic logical entailment.
Try to do it.
The problem is you are STARTING with the imprecision of Natual
Language, and are stuck with it.
The solution is simple: create a new language and don't use any other.
Define every word and don't use any word before you have defined it.
State basic facts after you have defined all words to state them but
before you infer anything about them. Likwise, state the rules of
inference only after you have defined the words needed to state them
but before using them in any inference.
Yes that seems to be exactly what I have been proposing
for years.
The "new" language is Rudolf Carnap Meaning
Postulates / Montague Grammar extended to cover all
natural language semantics.
This is organized into a knowledge ontology type hierarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
The Cyc project uses GUIDs instead of finite strings to label
unique sense meanings.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 169:49:00 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,555 |