## Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Skepdick wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:53 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:27 pm THING is not a meaningless string,, it is the root of the tree of Analytical_Knowledge.
^^^^ THAT is all gibberish. You said that the meaning of "thing" is....
PeteOlcott wrote: stipulated by its relation to other finite strings.
So is it stipulated by its relations to other strings; or is its meaning stipulated by its English definition?

Natural language is formalized such that GUIDs are place holders for the unique sense
meanings of natural language words.

I have been referring to relations between finite strings because it is easier for the human
mind to comprehend that a natural language word is defined using other natural language words.
Skepdick
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:03 pm Natural language is formalized such that GUIDs are place holders for the unique sense
meanings of natural language words.
Fine. Let the GUID of {THING} be 0.

What does that mean?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Skepdick wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:05 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:03 pm Natural language is formalized such that GUIDs are place holders for the unique sense
meanings of natural language words.
Fine. Let the GUID of {THING} be 0.

What does that mean?
It means that the direct graph nodes having the GUIDs of (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING}
can define their direct paths to {THING}.
Skepdick
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:38 pm It means that the direct graph nodes having the GUIDs of (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING}
can define their direct paths to {THING}.
So lets suppose (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} has GUID 1 and {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} has GUID 2.

What do (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} mean?

Also, what does {MEANING} mean?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Skepdick wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:46 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:38 pm It means that the direct graph nodes having the GUIDs of (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING}
can define their direct paths to {THING}.
So lets suppose (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} has GUID 1 and {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} has GUID 2.

What do (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} mean ?
The way that Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague meaning postulates work is that
the only meaning that is encoded is the relations to other meanings, thus at this
point (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} are merely sub-types
of {THING} and nothing more.
Skepdick
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:50 pm The way that Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague meaning postulates work is that
the only meaning that is encoded is the relations to other meanings, thus at this
point (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} are merely sub-types
of {THING} and nothing more.
So {THING} is defined by its subtypes? OK...

What's {MEANING} defined by?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Skepdick wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:56 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:50 pm The way that Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague meaning postulates work is that
the only meaning that is encoded is the relations to other meanings, thus at this
point (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} are merely sub-types
of {THING} and nothing more.
So {THING} is defined by its subtypes? OK...

What's {MEANING} defined by?
Only the directed paths in the acyclic graph.
Skepdick
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:02 pm Only the directed paths in the acyclic graph.
I am asking you to relate {MEANING} to other finite strings.

While you are at it, also relate {SEMANTICS}
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Skepdick wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:22 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:02 pm Only the directed paths in the acyclic graph.
I am asking you to relate {MEANING} to other finite strings.

While you are at it, also relate {SEMANTICS}
Every aspect of all semantic meaning that is encoded in this system is encoded
entirely as the directed paths of a directed graph.

When we think of this as the semantic meaning finite string words being comprised
entirely of their definition using other finite string words then this then this becomes
much easier to understand.

Then we elaborate on this basis and say that these definitions are not specified in
English, instead they have their own formal language that is carefully optimized for
machine processing, that still uses the English word finite strings as their basis.

"I am going to the store"
becomes something like:
Event Transport(What:Self, From:Here, Destination:Retail-Location, When:Now).

It can be understood that such a system would create the actual equivalent of human
comprehension for its knowledge domain because it can be understood how questions

All that it would take to provide generic human level of comprehension is sufficiently
populating the knowledge domain using this same kind of formalism.
Skepdick
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:50 am Every aspect of all semantic meaning that is encoded in this system is encoded
entirely as the directed paths of a directed graph.
Yes. I get that. Which is why I am asking you to encode {MEANING} in your system.
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:50 am All that it would take to provide generic human level of comprehension is sufficiently
populating the knowledge domain using this same kind of formalism.

Explain to your computer what it means to comprehend.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Skepdick wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:37 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:50 am Every aspect of all semantic meaning that is encoded in this system is encoded
entirely as the directed paths of a directed graph.
Yes. I get that. Which is why I am asking you to encode {MEANING} in your system.
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:50 am All that it would take to provide generic human level of comprehension is sufficiently
populating the knowledge domain using this same kind of formalism.

Explain to your computer what it means to comprehend.
In the short run it will mean that the machine can answer questions about its subject domain.
In the longer run it will mean that it can accomplish anything that a human mind can accomplish.
In the longest run it will do the above two and be utterly indistinguishable from a human mind.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Skepdick wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:37 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:50 am Every aspect of all semantic meaning that is encoded in this system is encoded
entirely as the directed paths of a directed graph.
Yes. I get that. Which is why I am asking you to encode {MEANING} in your system.
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:50 am All that it would take to provide generic human level of comprehension is sufficiently
populating the knowledge domain using this same kind of formalism.

Explain to your computer what it means to comprehend.
Talking to the computer:
What does it mean to comprehend ?
Comprehension means that correct questions within my subject domain of knowledge can be answered correctly.

Internally (after natural language translation into Prolog) this means that Prolog Queries are successful.
Skepdick
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:29 pm In the short run it will mean that the machine can answer questions about its subject domain.
In the longer run it will mean that it can accomplish anything that a human mind can accomplish.
In the longest run it will do the above two and be utterly indistinguishable from a human mind.
You are dodging the question. I am not looking for verbiage, I am looking for an encoding of the semantics of {MEANING} and {COMPREHENSION} in your proposed system.
Skepdick
Posts: 5712
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:14 pm Talking to the computer:
What does it mean to comprehend ?
The computer doesn't speak English. It's the very task at hand: Use Prolog to teach the computer how to comprehend English.
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:14 pm Comprehension means that correct questions within my subject domain of knowledge can be answered correctly.

Internally (after natural language translation into Prolog) this means that Prolog Queries are successful.
Don't explain it to me in English. Explain it to your computer in Prolog.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

Skepdick wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:31 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:14 pm Talking to the computer:
What does it mean to comprehend ?
The computer doesn't speak English. It's the very task at hand: Use Prolog to teach the computer how to comprehend English.
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:14 pm Comprehension means that correct questions within my subject domain of knowledge can be answered correctly.

Internally (after natural language translation into Prolog) this means that Prolog Queries are successful.
Don't explain it to me in English. Explain it to your computer in Prolog.
Comprehension means successful queries. I am not focusing on the rat's nest of complexity
of translating between natural language and the internal structure, I am only focusing on
the internal structure. The English word "comprehension" will probably mean gibberish
in the system for quite a while.