you emerged from the conventional figment of a 'physical world' view and
elevated into the concept of "mind" (what I don't know where, what and how
to define...) - anyway, to think in mental terms instead of the conventional
Then you use the complacent terms of the abandoned physical sciences to
include into your better ideas. The 'definitely' human restrictions into the
Space, objects, human logics, (in first line: a Bayesian probability as we,
humans, imagine how the 'next' will arrive in an unlimited openness) even
'geometry of mind', the forces, - all the human restrictions into the
unlimited in which we humans are only a tiny part?
I think your ideas are acceptable as a step forward from the conventional
(reductionistic) human thinking, but I would see a more distinct
'possibility' of free ways, which - alas - are not yet available, not even
the words are there to apply when going into them.
(The worst thing is a reference to 'cognitive science' which established
this unknowable domain as fully explained (as of today) in our so far
learned (misunderstood?)physical/physiologica/behavioral figments and their
Please, excuse my critical (negative?) attitude without proposing a better
mousetrap. I developed my 'scientific agnosticism' pertinent to the totality
(wholeness) of which we (in our epistemic enrichment) so far got hold of a
tiny fraction and feel 'so smart'. I jumped onto your idea: it is a try in
the right direction and I am for every step forward. Please think about it,
your startup is commendable.
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 5:51 AM, marc.geddes <marc.ged...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I came up with this metaphor which hopefully indicates the
> relationship between the three main types of inference (Symbolic,
> Bayesian and Analogical).
> Picture a mind as a space, and 'the laws of mind' are analogous to the
> principles of cognitive science.
> Now in this 'mind space' picture the 'mind objects' - I suggest these
> are logical predicates - symbolic representions of real objects. How
> do these 'mind objects' interact? I suggest picturing 'mind forces'
> as analogous to the 'strengths of relationships' between the mind
> objects (predicates or variables) so 'mind forces' are probability
> distributions. But what about the background geometry of mind space?
> I suggest picturing 'curvatures' in the geometry of mind space as
> analogous to concepts (categories or analogies).
> Then Symbolic logic is the laws governing the mind objects (rules for
> manipulating predicates). Bayes (Probability Theory) is the laws
> govering the mind forces (rules about probability distributions), and
> Analogical inference (categorizaton) is the laws governing the
> geometry of mind space itself (concept learning and manipulation).
> If my metaphor is valid, the radical implication is that analogical
> inference is the true foundation of logic, and Bayes is merely a
> special case of it. Why? Consider that *apparent* Newtonian forces
> operating across physical space are actually just special cases of
> curvatures in the geometry of space-time itself. What I'm suggesting
> is *exactly* analogous to that physical picture. I'm suggesting that
> *apparent* probabilistic operations in mind space are actually just
> special cases of 'curvatures' in the 'geometry' of mind space
> (categorization and analogy formation).
> The question of course is whether my metaphor is valid. I'm very
> confident, but I could be wrong. Comments or thoughts welcome.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at