Re: SUO: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
Seth wrote:
> 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.
Neither does Leo, I suspect. Fleeing is not reasoning. Leo is talking
about the inferential process that leads to the fleeing. Action flows
from both belief and desire. The belief component at least -- e.g., "a
tiger is near", "tigers eat things like me", "if I run, the tiger won't
see me", "tiger bad", etc -- requires reasoning.
> Going down that path is a slippery slope the bottom of which is just
> the assertion "Anything that happens is logical."
No slope. There's reasoning, and there's fleeing. You do some
reasoning (very quickly) that leads to beliefs that, together with your
desires (not to be tiger lunch, for example), lead to action.
> > 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.
Granted, the inferential component no doubt becomes less prominent with
regard to habitual behavior, but reasoning will arguably still be
involved -- one needs at least to belief one is in the sort of situation
where a certain habitual response can kick in.
> I think logic is a game of rules for describing what happens after the
> fact.
Hm, where to start. Do you mean that we arrived at our logical "laws"
simply by obvserving how people reason? But people reason in all sorts
of ways, often bizarrely, as anyone can see by reading letters to the
Editor of your local paper or listening to Rush Limbaugh. Why is it we
only incorporate some of the things we observe and not others? And,
exactly who made up this game, and when? And why is it so hard to
change the rules?
-chris