Mike Tintner wrote:
A tangential comment here. Looking at this and other related threads I
can't help thinking: jeez, here are you guys still endlessly arguing
about the simplest of syllogisms, seemingly unable to progress beyond
them. (Don't you ever have that feeling?) My impression is that the
fault lies with logic itself - as soon as you start to apply logic to
the real world, even only tangentially with talk of "forward" and
"backward" or "temporal" considerations, you fall into a quagmire of
ambiguity, and no one is really sure what they are talking about. Even
the simplest if p then q logical proposition is actually infinitely
ambiguous. No? (Is there a Godel's Theorem of logic?)
Well, now you have me in a cleft stick, methinks.
I *hate* logic as a way to understand cognition, because I think it is a
derivative process within a high-functional AGI system, not a foundation
process that sits underneath everything else.
But, on the other hand, I do understand how it works, and it seems a
shame for someone to trample on the concept of forward and backward
chaining when these are really quite clear and simple processes (at
least conceptually).
You are right that logic is as clear as mud outside the pristine
conceptual palace within which it was conceived, but if you're gonna
hang out inside the palace it is a bit of a shame to question its
elegance...
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
