Steve,
I'm not sure I did miss your point. Mine is the same as Descartes:
As for Logic, its syllogisms and the majority of its other precepts are of
avail rather in the communication of what we already know, or... even in
speaking without judgment of things of which we are ignorant, than in the
investigation of the unknown.
Descartes
It's finding out new stuff, not logically reworking old stuff, that is key to
the solution of most real world problems - & conflicts.
Steve:
Mike,
MT:Steve: 1) This is EXACTLY where reverse reductio ad absurdum logic
enters the picture.Most (all?) persistent conflicts reduced to some absurd and
apparently irresolvable argument. ...2) simply drill down into EXACTLY what
they think
Statement 1 is almost ridiculous. How many conflicts did logic ever
resolve? Even Descartes had contempt for logic.
You ***COMPLETELY*** missed my point! Reverse reductio ad absurdum logic is
only ~8 years old and has yet to be tried on any persistent conflict.
Science is full of conflicts. Evolution happened by a) natural selection b)
Lamarckism c)... Intelligence is a matter of a) genes b) nurture c)
practice. Cancer is due to etc. etc. Use logic to resolve any of science's
conflicts... Puh-lease.
The problem here and elsewhere is the use of forward-only reasoning. Perhaps
you remember your differential equations class (that I almost flunked)? There,
you had to propose a solution that there was no direct way to derive, and then
prove that you had indeed found the correct solution. I used a (early analog)
computer to plot these out so I could better guess the solutions. This sort of
inductive logic is MISSING from most people and AGI proposals.
There are some logic principles that transcend tractable proof or the ability
to acquire in a reasonable-length lifetime. Certainly, any of the unsolved math
problems fall into this category. Reverse reductio ad absurdum is one such
principle. The verbal "proof" is relatively simple, but this still defies
formulaic proof. Note in passing that professional negotiators believe that
there is always a "win-win solution" in every conflict. Reverse reductio ad
absurdum simply supports this and guides the way to finding those win-sin
solutions.
Statement 2 though has promise...
Yes - once you drill down into religious disputes, they pretty much fall
apart.
Steve Richfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
