I'm not questioning logic's elegance, merely its relevance - the intention
is at some point to apply it to the real world in your various systems, no?
Yet there seems to be such a lot of argument and confusion about the most
basic of terms, when you begin to do that. That elegance seems to come at a
big price.
RL: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...
-------------------------------------------
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
