Re: SUO: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
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). 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.
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.
Leo
"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