So the objections that you point to in the title of this thread - what exactly are they? — Banno

My approach was to categorically address every possible objection that anyone could ever have thus addressing any objection that Quine had. Since Quine is the thought leader of the majority view I referred to his view. I read his paper and he extensively elaborated over a hundred times that he did not understand how we could know that bachelors are unmarried.

SUre, all that.

So what were his objections? The ones you refer to in the title of this thread?

So what were his objections? The ones you refer to in the title of this thread? — Banno

Two Dogmas of Empiricism Willard Van Orman Quine (1951)
https://michaelreno.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/QuineTwoDogmas.pdf

Yeah, I'm quite familiar with the paper.

What are his objections, specifically, and how does your account address them?

What are his objections, specifically, and how does your account address them? — Banno

When I address every possible objection that anyone can possibly have I have addressed his objections.

An analytic expression of language can be totally proved true or false entirely on the basis of other expressions of language.

That {dogs} <are> {animals} is proven true entirely on the basis of the meaning of those terms as expressed in other expressions of language. As far as I can tell my definition of analytical is perfectly unequivocal. That Quine could not begin to understand that the term Bachelor(x) is defined in terms of Male(x) & Adult(x) & ~Married(x) proved to me that he was mostly clueless.

When I address every possible objection that anyone can possibly have I have address his objections. — PL Olcott

Sure, good, wonderful.

Now, can you set out the objections raised by Quine, and how it is that you address them?

Otherwise, it seems to me that your definition of analyticity is just the first one that Quine sets out -

If we suppose a prior inventory of logical particles, com-
prising 'no', 'un-', 'not', 'if', 'then', 'and', etc., then in general a logical
truth is a statement which is true and remains true under all reinter-
pretations of its components other than the logical particles. — p.23, your reference

Now, can you set out the objections raised by Quine, and how it is that you address them? — Banno

No I cannot. Once I understood that he didn't understand that bachelors are unmarried I wrote him off as a nitwit. Do you know of any objections that are not already addressed by my definition?

I am assuming that a correct model of the actual world already exists in formalized natural language. How does anyone know that {dogs} <are> {animals} ? It is an axiom in this model of the world.

An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html

Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

This stipulates the semantic meaning of expressions of language by assigning semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.

No I cannot. — PL Olcott

Yeah, didn't think so.

Yeah, didn't think so. — Banno

I find that categorically exhaustive reasoning finds the optimal answer in minimal steps. Try bringing up any specific objection and I will address it. I have been using {categorically exhaustive reasoning} for two decades now it is quite effective.

My definition unequivocally divides analytic from synthetic. I have been going over it again and again for many years. It was reverse-engineered on the basis of several undecidable decision problems, the key one being the Tarski Undefinability Theorem.

Only in the sense that facts can be looked up in an encyclopedia and encyclopedias can be updated with new facts. Actual interaction with the world that requires sense input from the sense organs is specifically excluded from the body of analytic knowledge. That dogs exist is analytic. That there is a small black dog in my living room right now is synthetic. — PL Olcott

Analytic sentences are known to be superfluous for the meanings are already in the sentence, and it is just repeating what is in it.

A bachelor is a man who is not married.
A bachelor = a man who is not married
A bachelor is a bachelor, or a man who is not married is a man who is not married.

It also creates some grammar confusions.
No bachelor is married.
No man who is not married is married.
A man who is not married is married.

That dogs exist is analytic. — PL Olcott

That dogs exist is ambiguous. It doesn't say where and when that dogs exist.
It only makes sense if that dogs exist in the real world, and if the sentence has been denoting for the info and also the evidence of the existence.

That dogs exist is analytic is ambiguous in another way that, it sounds like you are claiming that that dogs are analytic. I have not seen or heard analytic dogs. What breed are they? Or do you mean the dogs analyse something? Do the synthetic dogs exist too?

Analytic sentences are known to be superfluous for the meanings are already in the sentence, and it is just repeating what is in it. — Corvus

That is not the definition that I provided. I redefined {analytic} to eliminate all equivocation.

An analytic expression of language can be totally proved true or false entirely on the basis of other expressions of language. — PL Olcott

That dogs exist is ambiguous. It doesn't say where and when that dogs exist. — Corvus

The class {dog} is stipulated to be a subset of the class {animal}. The other details about {dogs} and {animals} are referenced in the axiomatic model of the actual world knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.

In information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of terms and relational expressions that represent the entities in that subject area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

That dogs exist is analytic is ambiguous in another way that, it sounds like you are claiming that that dogs are analytic. — Corvus

The formal semantic class {dogs} is a node in the above inheritance hierarchy.

The class {dog} is stipulated to be a subset of the class {animal}. The other details about {dogs} and {animals} are referenced in the axiomatic model of the actual world knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. — PL Olcott

Isn't axiomatic model for formalizing various branches of mathematical theory, including geometry, algebra, set theory? Applying that concept to linguistic topic sounds incorrect.

In information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all domains of discourse. — PL Olcott

How does your system deal with the same words of the different meanings in the real world identification?
For example, a dog is an animal. But you also get a dog which has the following meanings.
1. A dog as a workbench tool.
2. A dog as a worthless or contemptible person.
3. Any of various usually simple mechanical devices.
4. The astronomical constellations - Canis Major or Canis Minor.
5. An an inferior one of its kind.

Isn't axiomatic model for formalizing various branches of mathematical theory, including geometry, algebra, set theory? Applying that concept to linguistic topic sounds incorrect. — Corvus

An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html

An axiomatic model of the world is the only way that an AI mind can be created that is the functional equivalent to a human mind. It must be told that {cats} <are> {animals}.

How does your system deal with the same words of the different meanings in the real world identification?
For example, a dog is an animal. But you also get a dog which has the following meanings. — Corvus

The Cyc Project uses 128-bit GUID integers to identify unique sense meanings.

Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works. Hoping to capture common sense knowledge, Cyc focuses on implicit knowledge that other AI platforms may take for granted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc

No I cannot.
— PL Olcott

Yeah, didn't think so. — Banno

When one definition simultaneously addresses every possible objection
then it also addresses any and all objections that Quine could possibly
have. I updated my OP to reflect this.

That Quine could not possibly understand that the term Bachelor(x) derives all of its semantic meaning from (Male(x) & Adult(x) & ~Married(x)) seems so ridiculous that accusing Quine of simply lying seems reasonably plausible. This definition is clearly acyclic.

So, a bachelor's degree is equivalent to an "unmarried man's degree?" But then how do married men and women have bachelor's degrees? It seems like the semantic meaning of the term bachelor is modified by the context here.

I would just consider that the question of analyticity was more focused on if facts could be analytic simpliciter. The fact that, if something is defined as true, then given that definition it is true, is trivial.

So, a bachelor's degree is equivalent to an "unmarried man's degree?" But then how do married men and women have bachelor's degrees? It seems like the semantic meaning of the term bachelor is modified by the context here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Cyc project addresses this by providing a unique 128-bit integer (GUID) for each unique sense meaning in the world. 6ae8d0b5-be3e-4f0d-aaea-d37395ba4207 for {unmarried male adult} and
23abe8b5-4df1-4d63-a3ca-b436472a6e0e for a {bachelors degree} cannot be mistaken for the same thing.

But then all the semantic meaning of the word bachelor isn't derived from (Male(x) & Adult(x) & ~Married(x)). If it were, you wouldn't need multiple unique integers to encode its multiple distinct meanings.

Made me think of an interesting question though. The unique encoding for each meaning seems like it would resolve the need to distinguish between equivocal and univocal predication. But how would it deal with analogical predication? E.g. "Jake is a snake," meaning "Jake is slippery and devious." Trying to reduce analogy to unique encodings seems like it might be a limit, rather than a benefit for intelligence.

When one definition simultaneously addresses every possible objection... — PL Olcott

...one should proceed with extreme scepticism.

You have not understood Quine. I don't think you have understood the analytic/synthetic distinction. And I don't think that on this topic you are "open to learning", as teachers sometimes say. You have produced the answer without first making sense of the question - something you already did in your previous threads.

But then all the semantic meaning of the word bachelor isn't derived from (Male(x) & Adult(x) & ~Married(x)). If it were, you wouldn't need multiple unique integers to encode its multiple distinct meanings. — Count Timothy von Icarus

{Male, Adult and Married} have their own unique GUIDs.

But how would it deal with analogical predication? E.g. "Jake is a snake," meaning "Jake is slippery and devious." — Count Timothy von Icarus

We can assign sets of meanings to arbitrary finite strings idiomatically.

You have not understood Quine. I don't think you have understood the analytic/synthetic distinction. And I don't think that on this topic you are "open to learning", as teachers sometimes say. You have produced the answer without first making sense of the question - something you already did in your previous threads. — Banno

I have spent five full time years carefully thinking through how an analytic distinction could over-ride, replace and supersede the current one such that this new one has the full spirit of the original {true entirely on the basis of its meaning} yet would be 100% unequivocal.

The set of expressions of language that can be verified as completely true (or false) entirely on the basis of other expressions of language that are stipulated to be true meets this unequivocal requirement.

Most people have a problem with the {stipulated to be true part} because they have no idea how humans know that "cats are animals" is true, so they simply disbelieve what I say entirely on the basis of their own ignorance.

Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html — PL Olcott

Isn't it exactly the point Quine disagrees with? Some self-evident knowledge without proof can be also self-deceiving too.

An axiomatic model of the world is the only way that an AI mind can be created that is the functional equivalent to a human mind. It must be told that {cats} <are> {animals}. — PL Olcott

What if {cats} was someone's nick name, or name of a rock band? They are also cats too, no? In that case , the AI would fail to tell the truth, wouldn't it?

Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works. Hoping to capture common sense knowledge, Cyc focuses on implicit knowledge that other AI platforms may take for granted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc — PL Olcott

Not sure how the AI could know anything about the world, if they are locked up in the analytic cave. Doesn't sound very convincing in the system operandi.

What if {cats} was someone's nick name, or name of a rock band? They are also cats too, no? In that case , the AI would fail to tell the truth, wouldn't it? — Corvus

As I told you before, because I have carefully studied all of these things in my mind for five years full-time I really can address and possible objection that anyone (including Quine) can possibly have. {cats} means the unique concept of the living animal and has an associated 128-bit GUID integer. Any other usage has its own different 12-bit GUID integer. "cats" may or may not be associated with {cats}.

Not sure how the AI could know anything about the world, if they are locked up in the analytic cave. Doesn't sound very convincing in the system operandi. — Corvus

It is told that {cats} <are> {animals} and billions of other things about {cats}. Most of these other things are inherited from the {animal} element of the knowledge ontology tree of knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

As I told you before, because I have carefully studied all of these things in my mind for five years full-time I really can address and possible objection that anyone (including Quine) can possibly have. {cats} means the unique concept of the living animal and has an associated 128-bit GUID integer. Any other usage has its own different 12-bit GUID integer. "cats" may or may not be associated with {cats}. — PL Olcott

What can the system tell us about the cat next door? The grey coloured cat keeps coming into our garden looking for something often.

What can the system tell us about the cat next door? The grey coloured cat keeps coming into our garden looking for something often. — Corvus

The sum total of all of the general knowledge of the world is finite.
Every detail about every atom of the cat next door's location at
every point in time is infinite.

The relevant details of the cat next door could be stored in a temporary
discourse ontology.

If we have this sort of nearly infinite database that corresponds to all facts about the world, why even bother with genus and species? What is the value of encoding "cats are contained in animals?" and in virtue of what does the database decide that a given entity should be contained in a given category? Questions like: "are 'pet rocks' really 'pets?'" would seem to need to be answered to allow for a full categorization of all "facts."

In scholastic philosophy genus and difference are predicated of things as known by us, as conceptualized or as present “in the mind.” They arise when the intellect reflects on itself and on what it contains. But it seems like the system you are envisioning:

A. Has no mind.
B. Could simply contain all the facts uniquely specifying each individual cat, or each atom in each cat, etc.

Getting into species and genus seems difficult because people disagree about them and they disagree about how they relate to actual ontological differences. For example, "do species actually exist?" is a topic of debate in the philosophy of biology. What it means to be "living" is itself contested. Do viruses fall under the category of "living?"

Amorphous terms like "post-modern," "fascism," etc. don't seem to clearly map to entities in any sort of definitive fashion. Rather, it would seem that the database would need to incorporate each individual's beliefs and judgements vis-á-vis species and genus across time as independent facts. Facts like "Mount Washington is the tallest mountain in the Presidential Range," are based on evolving social conventions, and even what constitutes a distinct mountain and not just another peak on the same mountain is not based on firm criteria.

Yet without categorical distinctions, the database seems to turn into nothing but a phase-space map of the universe, or a Le Place's Demon, in which case it seems hard to see how it is easier to get facts out of it than simply observing the world (unless we also envision a computer of unlimited computational power attached to it).

Secondly, essences appear to be able to evolve over time. "Communism," today is not the same concept/category that it was in 1848. "Essences" are not what they were for Aristotle. Would the database need to have time/culture dependent categorization?

Further, we can consider the problem of defining superveniance relations. In virtue of what will a given subatomic particle be said to be "part of" a given candle flame or cat, and won't this change moment to moment?

I am trying to specify a definition of the term {analytic expression of language} that matches the spirit of the conventional definition {verified as true entirely on the basis of its meaning} that simultaneously overcomes any objection that anyone can possibly have.