True.
~PM.

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [agi] Logical vs Real World Reasoning
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:32:14 +0100







Let me expand 
on my post to PM.
 
In logic if 
there is an effect, then there must be a specific cause or set of 
causes.
 
In the real 
world, there are infinite causes and sets of causes for any effect – or, one 
might say loosely, infinite web[s] of causation.
 
Why/how did you 
start the car?
 
The logical 
mind may conclude: because you turned the car key.  But every part of the 
car and the engine also contributed to the car starting. And your motives for 
starting the car contributed. And every part of your body and brain contributed 
to your action of turning the key, making it possible. And from there one can 
go 
backwards to  - ultimately – every part of the universe, including 
inventors and designers of the car, the car market, the road and transport 
networks and much else.
 
Turning the key 
was a “key factor” but only one.  If you wanted to stop s.o. starting a 
car, there are a vast number of points at which you could interfere with the 
web, not just the key, and not just the brain of the key-turner. ANd you have 
to 
know this in order to be a real world reasoner.
 
The real world 
reasoner has a concept implicit or explicit of the “world-wide-web of 
causation”. The logical reasoner has only an implicit concept of a very narrow 
logical network of causation in a vacuum an infinitesimal slice at best of the 
world-wide-web.
 
The real world 
reasoner focuses on the LOCUS/LOCI of cause and effect in the real world. 
Logical reasoners reason in an abstract realm.
 
IT WAS PRECISELY TO PUT AN END TO LOGICAL 
REASONING ABOUT THE WORLD THAT SCIENCE BEGAN.  Logical reasoning – playing 
around with words and definitions to a great extent – is the resort of the 
simple-minded reasoner who does not want to get dirty and look at and 
investigate the complications of the real world.
 
As Deutsch points out in his article, induction 
(and with it the whole of logic, one can add) simply doesn’t work for AGI – 
neither does Bayesian reasoning. Logical reasoning is intellectually mad – 
completely divorced from the real world, and the messy web of 
causation.
 
What is needed is a totally different form of 
reasoning – neither induction, deduction or abduction. To recognize it, we have 
to put aside two thousand years of logical conditioning which has totally 
corrupted our metacognitive ideas of reasoning.
 
That reasoning (and the corruption of logic) is 
exemplified by Sherlock Holmes. When he says: “I deduce, Watson...” he is 
actually doing no such thing. He is doing the most important form of reasoning 
there is... the foundation of all real world reasoning.
 
Which is...?
 
More another time.
 
 
 


  
    
      
      AGI | Archives

 | Modify
 Your Subscription


      
    
  

                                          


-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to