Re: SUO: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
I would suggest that we make a distinction between consciousness (of
inference) and inference. I am not convinced that what we
introspect/reflect on as an inference process is the only kind. In fact,
I doubt it; I think that most inference is in fact unconscious (but
because "unconscious" is a loaded term, perhaps it's better to say
"unaware of"). I think in general that we (humans) are notoriously
deficient at describing on introspection our own mental processes except
in very general terms. Many of us will say "That's not how I do it" when
via reflection it doesn't seem that an inference process has taken
place. We remember the original "pattern" and our
action/response/conclusion. There is no formal sequence of modus ponens,
we think.
In another realm (but related), witness language. As fluent speakers of
a language, we think we understand language, but that is not generally
true -- at least if you believe linguists. Our naive understanding of
how we create and understand language is not necessarily very
insightful. It's not usually the best theory.
So then if logic and mathematics (and so, science) is always a
"description" after the fact of real-time processes or reality, and are
not "explanations", what constitutes an explanation or equivalently (I
would say), a theory? [Now, I don't want to discuss here Goedel/Chaitlin
foundations of math issues; they are important but in a different
context.]
What is the process the animal goes through? Is it hard-wired
"instinct", whatever that is? And even if it is, what does that mean? If
we say: oh, it's the firing of neurons in a certain way or flow across a
finite state network in a certain way, and we leave it at that, we are
not really interested in understanding what occurs. I would say, it *is*
the firing of neurons in a certain way, that that certain way is
responsive to the "truth" of real world situations, and that certain way
can be described, one can propose a theory of that certain way which is
better than other theories.
Leo
Seth Russell wrote:
>
> From: "Dickert, John" <JDickert@DTIC.MIL>
>
> > My view is that most animal behavior is logical, not that animals are
> being
> > logical in their behavioral decisions.
>
> Ok, so the logicalness of the behavior is just beauty in your eye.
>
> > It is logical that the animal would seek water when it is thirsty, but the
> > animal is not using logical reasoning to move from a sense of thirst to
> its
> > seeking of water. The same can be said for most animal survival patterns.
>
> I think you put your finger on the distinction that I am trying to draw.
> Behavior can be deemed logical by us, but our views of the matter are
> irrelevant to the processes the animals (or humans) goes through to trigger
> the behavior.
>
> > There are separate issues when we deal with the procedure of why certain
> > macaques started washing their rice.
>
> Well that's obvious ... they reasoned:
>
> pesticides kill (true reflection of reality)
> pesticides are on rice (true reflection of reality)
> I don't want to die (axiom)
> I want to eat rice (given)
> Wash the rice (modus ponens).
>
> ... works for me
>
> Seth
--
_____________________________________________
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