Re: SUO: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
From: "Leo Obrst" <lobrst@mitre.org>
> I tend to agree with John, as far as I can discern your original issues.
> Much (most?) of what humans and other animals do are based on logical
> inferential processes, it seems to me (although this is disfavored in
> many literatures).
Well me thinks you and John are playing fast and loose with this word
'logical'. I don't think what happens when we flee from danger is anything
even remotely akin to an inferential process. Going down that path is a
slippery slope the bottom of which is just the assertion "Anything that
happens is logical." ... which isn't a very useful notion in my book.
>Have these been compiled down to very quick
> responses? Yes. So one doesn't have to infer at run-time: jump from the
> set of premises to the conclusion (through the long intermediate chains,
> which have been compiled away) and run from the tiger.
Again i doubt that a habitual (or conditioned) respons is anything like
being logical ... nor was the original response on which the habit was
formed logical.
> By the way, I am very interested in these knowledge compilation issues.
>
> I view logic and math (anecdotally) as the self-organized spikes in our
> neural nets. If they are real, that really does tell us something about
> our universe.
I think logic is a game of rules for describing what happens after the fact.
It seldom if ever is utilized a priori in the process of creating the fact.
Seth
> "John F. Sowa" wrote:
> >
> > Seth,
> >
> > I would like to give an answer to your closing statement:
> >
> > > Logic is Great ... survival is better.
> >
> > But no animal can survive without being logical. When a bird or a mouse
> > flees from a cat, it is being logical. When a dog begs for food when
> > it is hungry, it is being logical. When a deer goes to a spring or
> > a river when it is thirsty, it is being logical.
> >
> > To survive, an animal must be logical.
> >
> > 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 ?
> >
> > What goes on in the brain is not likely to be predicate calculus
> > with variable substituions, modus ponens, etc. But to be correct
> > and to promote the survival of the individual, thinking must conform
> > to the standards of logic -- that means that useful, survival-promoting
> > thinking must lead from true statements to other true statements.
> > In so far as it generates false statements, it is counterproductive
> > and detrimental to survival -- in beasts as much as in humans.
> >
> > > Well I think not. Rather it seems to me
> > > that logic is just what happens of necessity. To the extent we are
free, we
> > > are aLogical.
> >
> > Those people (and other animals) who are illogical are weeded out by
> > natural selection. For examples, see the Darwin awards:
> >
> > http://www.darwinawards.com/
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > A computer computes logically because it was designed by humans
> > who were being paid to produce high-speed logical engines. It would
> > be very easy to design computers that were illogical, but nobody would
> > pay to have them built because they would have no survival value.
> >
> > > This, me thinks, tracks Sowa's thesis closely.
> >
> > I don't know what how you would relate your claims to anything I said,
> > but I don't agree with your conclusions.
> >
> > John Sowa
>
> --
> _____________________________________________
> Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
> mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
> Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
> Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>
>