SUO: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Seth Russell wrote:
>
> From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
>
> > One of the problems that Peirceans have in explaining
> > how semiotics is a broader, more general subject than
> > logic is that the receiver of its avowal is naturally
> > prompted to ask: But how can I reason, or think well,
> > about anything at all, much less signs, without using
> > logic? But that is like asking: How can I speak or
> > write at all without having a formal grammar of my
> > native tongue within my utter grip and quick grasp?
>
> Hmmm ... I was just thinking about that.
> But are you saying that thinking and what
> passes for human reasoning has anything to
> do with (is perhaps some kind of subclass of)
> logic? Well I think not.
Me, neither.
It means that we use logic, more and less, long before we formalize it.
What it takes to pass from casual to formal use is critical reflection
on one's own thinking process, and whether it is meeting its own goals.
Logic is a normative science. Psychology, in general, and cognitive psychology,
in particular, which includes the study of 'how we think', to coin a phrase, is
a descriptive science. The two sciences have very distinct aims and are pretty
much as independent of each other as anythings can be under a brief life's suns.
The way that you appear to be using the word "logic" here is in the sense of
a mental process, an object of cognitive psychology, that exhibits a quality
of being 'logical', which means that it manifests or obeys the norms of the
normative science logic. Only via such a mixed metaphor, might one be able
to say that 'logic' is a special way of thinking. But that is almost bound
to cause confusion in time, and certaintly in the end.
> Rather it seems to me that logic is just what happens of necessity.
> To the extent we are free, we are aLogical. A computer, on the other
> hand is quite logical, regardless of what task it is performing, in that
> its actions are determined by necessity. Therefore whatever instructions
> the computer executes *are* logical expressions. This, me thinks, tracks
> Sowa's thesis closely.
In my way of hearing this you are claiming that a specified brand of process,
a 'sort of process' (SOP) that abides by laws that qualify it as a 'machine',
is apt or fit to embody a norm, a hint of what it 'ought' to do, for a' that.
I cannot see it making sense if the poor SOP is not free to do as SOP's will.
> Logic is Great ... survival is better.
> http://robustai.net/ai/notnota.htm
> Seth Russell
Let me know how that works out.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤