Synthetic expressions are expressions of language that also require sense data from the sense organs. Example: "I see a cat in my living room right now". — PL Olcott

Could it be the same meaning as
"There is a cat in my living room right now." or
"A cat is in my living room right now." or
"A cat exists in my living room right now."?
Above expressions don't require sense data?

Could it be the same meaning as
"There is a cat in my living room right now." or
"A cat is in my living room right now." or
"A cat exists in my living room right now."?
Above expressions don't require sense data? — Corvus

The only way that you can verify that a specific event is occurring at a specific location
right now generally requires that you are seeing this event occur.

The only way that you can verify that a specific event is occurring at a specific location
right now generally requires that you are seeing this event occur. — PL Olcott

Having seen the cat in the living room, I could come out of the living room, shut the door, and I can still say those statements from my memory without seeing the cat.
"A cat is in my living room right now." or "There is a cat in my living room right now."

Having seen the cat in the living room, I could come out of the living room, shut the door, and I can still say those statements from my memory without seeing the cat.
"A cat is in my living room right now." or "There is a cat in my living room right now." — Corvus

If we use Robert Heinlein's "fair witness" standard of truth you can not be sure that a cat is in the living room the moment after you have no sense data from the sense organs confirming this. You can correctly say that a cat was in the living room moments ago. The axioms of the model of the actual world only contain general knowledge. Having never seen a actual cat one can still say that cats are animals.

Having never seen a actual cat one can still say that cats are animals. — PL Olcott

Can one know what cat is without ever having seen an actual cat?

Can one know what cat is without ever having seen an actual cat? — Corvus

Blind people know that cats exist.
That cats exist is an axiom in the verbal model of the actual world.

you may be correct in that the reliance upon sense data to configure the meaning of a statement renders the statement synthetic. But the truth value of either analytic or synthetic statements is irrelevant to that point.

"Cats are plants" may be an incorrect analytic statement but it is still an analytic statement. Similarly, the statement "there is a cat in my living room" when there is no cat in my living room may be an incorrect synthetic statement but it is still a synthetic statement.

The truth value regarding analytic/synthetic statements detracts from your central point. It is a classic red herring that only illustrates what is already known, i.e., synthetic statements are more fraught with ambiguity.

The truth value regarding analytic/synthetic statements detracts from your central point. It is a classic red herring that only illustrates what is already known, i.e., synthetic statements are more fraught with ambiguity. — Arne

We can call this the analytic(olcott) / empirical(olcott) distinction meaning that any expression of language that can be verified as true on the basis of the axioms of the verbal model of the actual world is analytical(olcott). Whereas empirical(olcott) cannot be verified as true on this basis and additionally requires sense data from the sense organs.

The truth value regarding analytic/synthetic statements detracts from your central point. It is a classic red herring that only illustrates what is already known, i.e., synthetic statements are more fraught with ambiguity. — Arne

We cannot have vagueness and ambiguity in the key terms that are being defined.
We must stipulate their precise definitions.

We cannot have vagueness and ambiguity in the key terms that are being defined.
We must stipulate their precise definitions. — PL Olcott

You misunderstand. I am not saying your "definition" of either the analytic statement or the synthetic statement is ambiguous. Instead, "tokens" of the statement "type" synthetic are more prone to ambiguity than "tokens" of the statement "type" analytic.

A precise definition of "synthetic statement" will not render synthetic statements less prone to ambiguity than analytic statements. The world to which synthetic statements refer is more ambiguous than the world to which analytic statements refer. And you cannot define that difference away. You can try to account for it.

And besides, I think the definitions implicit in your original post are precise enough.

You misunderstand. I am not saying your "definition" of either the analytic statement or the synthetic statement is ambiguous. Instead, "tokens" of the statement "type" synthetic are more prone to ambiguity than "tokens" of the statement "type" analytic. — Arne

That is one reason why I am making sure to exclude them. The criterion measure for excluding them seems to have no boundary cases. The purpose of this post (of my several related posts) is to unequivocally divide analytic from synthetic even of this means that I am referring to analytic(olcott) and synthetic(olcott).

that can be verified as true — PL Olcott

or verified as not true. Cats are rocks. An analytical statement that is verified false is still an analytical statement. And the same can be said of synthetic statements. So again, whether a statement is true/false does not determine whether it is analytic/synthetic. Instead and consistent with your original post, the true difference between analytic or synthetic statements is the need for sense data.

or verified as not true. Cats are rocks. An analytical statement that is verified false is still an analytical statement. And the same can be said of synthetic statements. So again, whether a statement is true/false does not determine whether it is analytic/synthetic. Instead and consistent with your original post, the true difference between analytic or synthetic statements is the need for sense data. — Arne

If its truth value cannot possibly be determined entirely on the basis of its meaning then it is not analytic.

That is one reason why I am making sure to exclude them — PL Olcott

My bad.

I mistakenly presumed your post was about "Overcoming all objections to the Analytic / Synthetic distinction."

Good luck with that.

That is one reason why I am making sure to exclude them
— PL Olcott

My bad.

I mistakenly presumed your post was about "Overcoming all objections to the Analytic / Synthetic distinction."

Good luck with that. — Arne

I have three different related posts. The purpose of this post is to unequivocally establish that the analytic / synthetic distinction definitely exists. People like Quine seem to simply "not believe in" this distinction.

I don't want to go into every subtle nuance of detail of synthetic, I merely want to unequivocally divide it from analytic. Too many people simply "do not believe in" analytic and this prevents me from even starting a conversation about the foundations of analytic truth.

Instead and consistent with your original post, the true difference between analytic or synthetic statements is the need for sense data. — Arne

Yes that is my key point, hence I cannot begin to understand how anyone could possibly disbelieve in the analytic/synthetic distinction. Quine seemed to disbelieve that words have meaning yet to even say this he had to use the meaning of words.

Quine seemed to disbelieve that words have meaning yet to even say this he had to use the meaning of words. — PL Olcott

I suspect Quine would consider the process by which words are attached to meaning is far more organic than people prefer.

I suspect Quine would consider the process by which words are attached to meaning is far more organic than people prefer. — Arne

The meaning of the words of a specific human language simply assigns meanings to finite strings. When these meanings are analytic then it merely assigns a set of finite strings to a finite string. It gets much more complicated when the meanings are experiential.

Analytic(olcott) means all the things that a computer can possibly understand entirely on the basis of the relation of finite strings to other finite strings. A computer never need taste an actual strawberry to explain all of the details of strawberries that can be explained using language.

Analytic expressions are expressions of language that can be verified as completely true entirely on the basis of their connection to the semantic meanings that make them true. Example: "Cats are animals". — PL Olcott

We can call this the analytic(olcott) / empirical(olcott) distinction meaning that any expression of language that can be verified as true on the basis of the axioms of the verbal model of the actual world is analytical(olcott). — PL Olcott

Starting with the expression "X is Y", let the meaning of X be the same as the meaning of Y. The expression "X is Y" is then an analytic expression as it can be verified true .

As long as it is known that two words have the same meaning, analytic expressions are possible, meaning there is a distinction between the analytic and synthetic.

However, in order to know that two words have the same meaning, the meaning of each word must be known.

A computer could invent a language from scratch that was purely self-referential.

Stage one

For example, a simple language could consist of the proposition "X is Y", where X has the properties a and b and Y has the properties c and d.

So far, X and Y have been fully specified, but the properties a, b, c and d haven't. This means that it is impossible to know whether the expression "X is Y" is true or false, in which case it cannot be analytic.

Stage two

Let the property a be named A, the property b be named B, the property c be named C and the property d be named D

But as we still don't know what the names A, B, C and D refer to, we still don't know whether the expression is true or false, in which case it is still not analytic.

Fundamental problem

The fundamental problem is that at the end of the day properties cannot be described in words. How can the sensation of pain be described, the smell of a rose, the colour red, the feeling of missing an important appointment?

Therefore, even within a computer generated language, there will be some words whose meanings cannot be described using other words. The inevitable consequence will be that it is impossible to know whether expressions such as "X is Y" are true or false. IE, even a computer generated language will not be analytic.

If we use Robert Heinlein's "fair witness" standard of truth you can not be sure that a cat is in the living room the moment after you have no sense data from the sense organs confirming this. — PL Olcott

Does he disregard justified "belief" as a ground for truth?

Blind people know that cats exist. — PL Olcott

Do they know how cats look like?

That cats exist is an axiom in the verbal model of the actual world. — PL Olcott

"That cats exist." is a statement, which needs verification to be true. It is only true if and only if the cats exist in the actual world of some place (in your living room, or your kitchen) at certain time duration T1 - Tn.

If you meant "Cats exist." in general terms, then it would be a tautology. The word "Cats" contain the concept "exist* as a property already.

"That cats exist." is a statement, which needs verification to be true. — Corvus

No it is an axiom forming the foundation of the body of analytical knowledge.
Unless and until finite strings are assigned meaning they remain meaningless gibberish.
The assignment of meaning to finite strings <is> the foundation of analytical knowledge.

The fundamental problem is that at the end of the day properties cannot be described in words. How can the sensation of pain be described, the smell of a rose, the colour red, the feeling of missing an important appointment? — RussellA

It is not at all that properties cannot be described using words. It is that some properties
require first-hand direct experience of sense data from the sense organs to be fully described.

The actual smell of a rose cannot be completely put into words, thus is not an element of
the body of analytic knowledge. We can still know that some {roses} are {red} even though
we lack the sense data from the sense organs showing exactly what {red} is.

Does he disregard justified "belief" as a ground for truth? — Corvus

I already corrected the gettier problem cases of the error of "justified true belief".
knowledge is a justified true belief such that the justification necessitates the truth of the belief.

Heinlein's "fair witness" merely refrains for forming conclusions based on sense data when
there is a pause in the continuity of the sense data.

It is not at all that properties cannot be described using words. It is that some properties require first-hand direct experience of sense data from the sense organs to be fully described. The actual smell of a rose cannot be completely put into words, thus is not an element of
the body of analytic knowledge. We can still know that some {roses} are {red} even though
we lack the sense data from the sense organs showing exactly what {red} is. — PL Olcott

Consider a computer generated language that does not depend on any external information. Rather than the expression "cats are animals", consider the more general case "X is Y". If it is possible to verify the expression as true, then the expression is analytic.

To know whether "X is Y" means knowing the meaning of "X" and the meaning of "Y".

It is impossible to discover the meaning of "X" just from knowing the name "X", similarly for "Y"

Suppose "X" can be described as "a, b, c"

It is impossible to discover the meaning of "a" just from knowing the name "a", similarly for "b" and "c".

Suppose "a" can be described as "d, e, f"

It is impossible to discover the meaning of "d" just from knowing the name "d", similarly for "e" and "f".

Suppose "d" can be described as "g, h, i"

But this ends up as an infinite regression, in that there is no name whose meaning is contained within the name itself .

IE, within a computer generated language that does not depend on any external information, as the meanings of X and Y cannot be established with absolute certainty, as the language would have to be of infinite length, it becomes impossible to determine whether "X is Y". The consequence is that it becomes impossible to know whether any expression within such a language independent of the senses is analytic or not.

Synthetic expressions are expressions of language that also require sense data from the sense organs. — PL Olcott

"A triangle in Euclidean space has its angle sum up 180º degrees" is a synthetic expression that does not require sense data.

It seems you are conflating the synthetic analytic distinction with a priopri a posteriori one.

Consider a computer generated language that does not depend on any external information. Rather than the expression "cats are animals", consider the more general case "X is Y". If it is possible to verify the expression as true, then the expression is analytic. — RussellA

Every element of the body of analytic knowledge can be verified as true in that it is either an axiom of {BOAK} or is deduced from the axioms of {BOAK}. The BOAK excludes photographs, videos, tape recordings, and the first hand direct experience of sense data from the sense organs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL Is a language that can formalize the semantic meaning of any natural language expression. CycL uses 128-bit GUIDs instead of words so that every unique sense meaning of every natural language word has a unique identifier. The reasoning provided by CycL is basically sound deductive inference on the basis of the semantics of formalized natural language axioms.

It seems you are conflating the synthetic analytic distinction with a priopri a posteriori one. — Lionino

I am defining Analytic(Olcott) and Synthetic(Olcott) so that they can be unequivocally divided.
Analytic(Olcott) is anything that can be explained using language.
Synthetic(Olcott) is anything that requires sense data from the sense organs:
photographs, videos, tape recordings, or the first hand direct experience of sense data from the sense organs.

Unless and until finite strings are assigned meaning they remain meaningless gibberish. — PL Olcott

Why did you write down a meaningless gibberish?

Heinlein's "fair witness" merely refrains for forming conclusions based on sense data when
there is a pause in the continuity of the sense data. — PL Olcott

Heinlein's "fair witness"?? Is it a Philosophical term or idea of something? I did some google search on it, but it came up with some pop arty gibberish.