Pei:
Charles Hixson wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the "logical" argument. What's wrong is that
you
are presuming a purely declarative logic approach can work...which it can
in
extremely simple situations, where you can specify all necessary facts.
My belief about this is that the proper solution is to have a model of
the
world, and how interactions happen in it separate from the logical
statements. The logical statements are then seen as focusing techniques.
[ ... ]
Pei: The key word here is "model". If you can reason with mental models,
then of course you can resolve a lot of paradoxes in logic. This
boils down to: how can you represent mental models? And they seem to
boil down further to logical statements themselves. In other words,
we can use logic to represent "rich" mental models.
Pei,
Can you identify a single metalogical dispute - about how to resolve
paradoxes in logic, or,say, which form of logic to use for a given type of
problem - that has been resolved by formally LOGICAL means? Can you give
one actual example of what you have just asserted above - one such
paradox-resolving mental model that really was logical?
My contention would be that metalogical reasoning - depends on a totally
different kind of reasoning to that of logic itself. And you cannot
*logically* derive any new kind of logic - nonmotonic, fuzzy etc - from any
previous kind. Nor can you derive any new branch of mathematics
*mathematically* from any previous kind. The foundations of logic, maths and
rational systems generally do not lie in themselves - which, if true, is
rather important for General Intelligence.
But by all means disprove me.
-------------------------------------------
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
