Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

[Skepdick]

Think of it as the Prolog model with the only meaning of bachelor defined that pertains to marital status.

The Prolog model is the same as the LISP model. Both. languages are Homoiconic.

If the meaning of "bachelor" is "unmarried man" (which is how you are defining it), then you are agreeing with Quine, not contradicting him.

Do you even know the difference between agreement and disagreement?

[PeteOlcott]

Think of it as the Prolog model with the only meaning of bachelor defined that pertains to marital status.

The Prolog model is the same as the LISP model. Both. languages are Homoiconic.

If the meaning of "bachelor" is "unmarried man" (which is how you are defining it), then you are agreeing with Quine, not contradicting him.

Do you even know the difference between agreement and disagreement?

Quine said that the synonymity of Bachelor(X) and ~Married(X) cannot possibly be coherently defined, I defined thus proving him wrong. Anything beyond this is head games that I have zero patience for.

[Skepdick]

Quine said that the synonymity of Bachelor(X) and ~Married(X) cannot possibly be coherently defined, I defined thus proving him wrong. Anything beyond this is head games that I have zero patience for.

You did define it. Cyclically. Proving that you can't do it acyclically.

My whole point is that Quine was incorrect when he determined that the synomity of Bachelor(X) with ~Married(X) could not possibly be defined in an acyclic way.

You keep moving your own goal posts, then keep claiming you've scored a goal. Everybody can do that.

[PeteOlcott]

Quine said that the synonymity of Bachelor(X) and ~Married(X) cannot possibly be coherently defined, I defined thus proving him wrong. Anything beyond this is head games that I have zero patience for.

You did define it. Cyclically. Proving that you can't do it acyclically.

My whole point is that Quine was incorrect when he determined that the synomity of Bachelor(X) with ~Married(X) could not possibly be defined in an acyclic way.

You keep moving your own goal posts, then keep claiming you've scored a goal. Everybody can do that.

Bullshit.

[Skepdick]

Bullshit.

I suspect "bullshit" is precisely the reason why you refuse to implement the Human_Being class in C++

Code: Select all

class HumanBeing {      
  public:            
    bool Marital_Status(UH OH!!! WHAT GOES HERE?!?!?!?) { 
         return (.... AND HERE ?!?!? )
    };
};

It's because your are bullshitting us.

[PeteOlcott]

Bullshit.

I suspect "bullshit" is precisely the reason why you refuse to implement the Human_Being class in C++

Code: Select all

class HumanBeing {      
  public:            
    bool Marital_Status(UH OH!!! WHAT GOES HERE?!?!?!?) { 
         return (.... AND HERE ?!?!? )
    };
};

It's because your are bullshitting us.

I spent at least 18 months developing this other system:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

You don't seem sincere, however, I have decided to take the advice of one of my
respondents on another forum that eventually proved he was sincere. I will develop
a single formalism capable of fully expressing the underlying syntactic and semantic
aspects of what I have been saying.

My first guess of this formalism will be very slight enhancements to the syntax of Prolog.
I don't expect this to take very long.

[Skepdick]

My first guess of this formalism will be very slight enhancements to the syntax of Prolog.
I don't expect this to take very long.

It doesn't matter what language you write it in - it's all colourful syntax dancing around retrieving a boolean value.

[PeteOlcott]

My first guess of this formalism will be very slight enhancements to the syntax of Prolog.
I don't expect this to take very long.

It doesn't matter what language you write it in - it's all colourful syntax dancing around retrieving a boolean value.

If you have a religious conviction that natural language semantics cannot be formalized syntactically we might as well stop here.

[Skepdick]

If you have a religious conviction that natural language semantics cannot be formalized syntactically we might as well stop here.

Pete, you still don't understand the expression problem. Language is implicit not explicit. Syntax is not semantics - it never will be.

If you have a religious conviction that it can be done, carry on wasting your time.

[PeteOlcott]

If you have a religious conviction that natural language semantics cannot be formalized syntactically we might as well stop here.

Pete, you still don't understand the expression problem. Language is implicit not explicit. Syntax is not semantics - it never will be.

If you have a religious conviction that it can be done, carry on wasting your time.

I have a full comprehension that all of semantics can be exhaustively encoded as syntactic relations between finite strings.

If you have a religious conviction against this then every possible proof and explanation will necessarily fall on totally deaf ears.

There is an isomorphism between every possible concept that can be held in the mind and its finite string encoding.

Since this is the ultimate foundation of my whole system we might as well stop now.

[Skepdick]

I have a full comprehension that all of semantics can be exhaustively encoded as syntactic relations between finite strings.

Since this is the ultimate foundation of my whole system we might as well stop now.

The expression problem addresses EXACTLY why that's not true.

It's no foundation...

If you have a religious conviction against this then every possible proof and explanation will necessarily fall on totally deaf ears.

The irony in this statement is that you aren't using a programming language in which proofs are first-class citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-cla ... n#Examples

[Skepdick]

There is an isomorphism between every possible concept that can be held in the mind and its finite string encoding.

Obviously. You are speaking English right now. It's made up of finite strings.

There is no need to re-invent it.

[PeteOlcott]

I have a full comprehension that all of semantics can be exhaustively encoded as syntactic relations between finite strings.

Since this is the ultimate foundation of my whole system we might as well stop now.

The expression problem addresses EXACTLY why that's not true.

It's no foundation...

If you have a religious conviction against this then every possible proof and explanation will necessarily fall on totally deaf ears.

The irony in this statement is that you aren't using a programming language in which proofs are first-class citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-cla ... n#Examples

It is like you are telling me that you are sure that there is no such thing as liquid water.
The entire set of knowledge that can be represented using language CAN BE WRITTEN DOWN.
The set of physical sensations that cannot be encoded using language is excluded.

[Skepdick]

The entire set of knowledge that can be represented using language CAN BE WRITTEN DOWN.

You can't express the entire body of human knowledge it in normal form, Which is what you are trying to do.
And if you can't express it in normal form, then you can't query it.

Learn a thing or 10000 about databases maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_algebra

[PeteOlcott]

The entire set of knowledge that can be represented using language CAN BE WRITTEN DOWN.

You can't express the entire body of human knowledge it in normal form, Which is what you are trying to do.
And if you can't express it in normal form, then you can't query it.

Learn a thing or 10000 about databases maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_algebra

As it turns out to actually be the process for defining an optimal knowledge ontology is very similar to database normalization.
It accomplishes the same end goals as normalization yet is an enormously more rigorous process.

I was not going to even begin to try to explain how an optimal knowledge ontology is defined before the gist of the idea of a knowledge ontology itself is first sufficiently understood.