Jim: I do not realise that [“maths and logic are forms of reasoning which do
not and cannot use evidence “.]
Then Jim you [along with most AGI-ers in my experience] are very profoundly
ignorant - and profoundly and totally ignorant [metacognitively] about real
world reasoning - the foundational reasoning of AGI . For you to talk about
“empirical/evidential reasoning” is like a virgin closeted for life talking
about real world sex and orgies.
Some warm-up quotes from two who understood both logic, maths and science
pretty well:
I like mathematics because it is not human and has nothing particular to do
with this planet or with the whole accidental universe
Bertrand Russell
Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are
talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.
Bertrand Russell
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and
as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Einstein
And now a standard definition of logic:
“:Logic is the science of correct reasoning. What then is reasoning? According
to Aristotle [13, Topics, 100a25], reasoning is any argument in which certain
assumptions or premises are laid down and then something other than these
necessarily follows. Thus logic is the science of necessary inference. However,
when logic is applied to specific subject matter, it is important to note that
not all logical inference constitutes a scientifically valid demonstration.
This is because a piece of formally correct reasoning is not scientifically
valid unless it is based on a true and primary starting point. Furthermore, any
decisions about what is true and primary do not pertain to logic but rather to
the specific subject matter under consideration. In this way we limit the scope
of logic, maintaining a sharp distinction between logic and the other sciences.
All reasoning, both scientific and non-scientific, must take place within the
logical framework, but it is only a framework, nothing more. This is what is
meant by saying that logic is a formal science.
For example, consider the following inference:
Some real estate will increase in value.
Anything that will increase in value is a good investment.
Therefore, some real estate is a good investment.
This inference is logically correct, because the conclusion ``some real estate
is a good investment'' necessarily follows once we accept the premises ``some
real estate will increase in value'' and ``anything that will increase in value
is a good investment''. Yet this same inference may not be a demonstration of
its conclusion, because one or both of the premises may be faulty. Thus logic
can help us to clarify our reasoning, but it can only go so far. The real issue
in this particular inference is ultimately one of finance and economics, not
logic.”
So the PREMISES of all logical reasoning have nothing to do with logic – they
are GIVENS - given AS THE RESULT OF REAL WORLD REASONING – which is a
TOTALLY DIFFERENT kind of reasoning . How do you know that “real estate will
increase in value” or that “Aristotle is a man” ?. NOT by logic.
Ditto for maths. How do you know that the fundamental elements of maths – like
triangles and squares etc. - have relevance or not to real world objects? NOT
by mathematical reasoning.
[And, in fact, contrary to the above definition of logic, logical reasoning
itself is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED TOO in terms of the real world.
“Anything that will increase in value is a good investment” is also a
fundamentally real world inference/statement, which is not always true in the
real world - logical “truths”/inferences are NOT real world truths. Logic is
an artificial world of perfect truths [including perfect numerical
probabilities and “fuzziness”] and perfect inferences – that do not exist in
the real world.]
Your profound theoretical ignorance, Jim, is reflected in how you PRACTICE
reasoning. Because you are a principally logical thinker, you think it’s OK to
produce endless arguments without any evidence or examples for your claims at
all. It is absolutely APPALLING. You should be deeply ashamed. If you had any
sense of how science and technology – real world/evidential reasoning - works,
you would always try to back up your arguments with evidence. But you almost
never do.
And your practice is commonplace here. Ben thinks it’s just dandy to claim that
AGI is about pattern recognition – a foundational claim of his work – with ZERO
evidence anywhere. That too is absolutely APPALLING. Totally shameful. But not
to Ben, because he’s mainly a logicomathematical thinker, and doesn’t care
about evidence. A total lack of concern for evidence is rife here. How else
could you have such a “rapture of the nerds”?
Real world reasoning is always EVIDENTIAL. You have to produce evidence for
your claims - whether about real estate or maths or AGI or programs. You can’t
just waffle on about programs’ magical powers (as you endlessly do) – you have
to produce EVIDENCE of actual programs that do what you say they can.
Evidential reasoning is “IMAGE-INATIVE”. You (or s.o. in a chain) must have had
SENSORY IMAGES of what you claim to be the case – must have SEEN [evidence =
video = see] the relevant events.
So real world reasoning is always imaginative – and imaginative reasoning is of
a totally different kind to logical and maths reasoning. How do you know that
that is a flower or a dandelion or a “torn” dandelion or a dandelion about to
die? How do you know that “Ben isn’t [doesnt look like] himself today”? Not by
logic. Everything you know, everything, (including logic), proceeds from
imaginative REASONING. From imaginative OBSERVATIONS.
But one needs to say much, much more about the nature of real world reasoning –
wh. I will do elsewhere.
For the moment, you and others really need to understand that
logicomathematical reasoning has sweet f.a. to do with real world reasoning –
or with the foundations of AGI.
You & others think that an AGI computer is going to be wise about the world by
sifting through textual documents, and working out logically whether “JOHN
LOVES MARY”.
“Oooh look – it says in this text that “JOHN IS DEEPLY PASSIONATE ABOUT MARY”
“PASSIONATE ABOUT” can be taken as being equivalent to “LOVE”. Therefore John
does love Mary, yes it’s true.”
That is an almost cosmic joke. That is reasoning for real world infants. It may
be great for logical databases, but it has sweet fa to do with real world
reasoning.
To know whether real world subjects behave in certain ways – whether John
really does love Mary, or whether Ben Goertzel loves his partner, - you have to
OBSERVE the subjects, gather EVIDENCE about the subjects. You can’t just deal
with textual propositions about the subjects. You have to go and observe them
directly. And engage in IMAGINATIVE REASONING.
“Well, Ben, did look rather amorously towards his wife. But how can I be sure
that that was a loving expression, and not an expression of profound
indigestion?”.
Logic can’t help you with IMAGINATIVE inference.
There is nothing in logic or maths about gathering evidence or observation or
imaginative inference. Nothing about the real world. Logic and maths are, by
definition, FORMAL sciences and not SUBSTANTIVE sciences.
And serious logicians and mathematicians – like Russell – understand that. Most
AGI-ers don’t, and are consequently wasting their lives.
From: Jim Bromer
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 3:12 AM
To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] Experimental Predictions and a Plan for the Fundamental
Acceptance of the Results of Experiments
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote:
P.S. You do realise BTW that maths and logic are forms of reasoning which do
not and cannot use evidence – are abstract/artificial forms of reasoning?
Logicomathematical “proofs”, for example, do not constitute *evidence*..
I do not realize that.
Jim Bromer
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote:
Jim: I believe that an empirical evidentiary-based method is absolutely
necessary for AGI.
Great. Excellent.And true. So show us you mean what you say, and let’s have
some evidence that complexity is involved in a single AGI problem – or a single
real world problem.. [And no evasive BS about how much evidence you’ve given in
the past – give us some now – or give us links to this imaginary past].
P.S. You do realise BTW that maths and logic are forms of reasoning which do
not and cannot use evidence – are abstract/artificial forms of reasoning?
Logicomathematical “proofs”, for example, do not constitute *evidence*..
You have IOW committed yourself to finding an altogether new, metacognitively
revolutionary, form of reasoning for AGI – wh. is just the sort of thing one
would expect a revolutionary new realm of technology/intelligence would
require. I hope you can keep up the good work.
AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
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-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
