On 11/7/2012 10:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, by new I mean contingent. But Kant, although his examples
are debatable, at least sought a synthetic a priori,
which of course would be a gold mine, or perhaps a stairway
to the divine.
Pragmatism rejects the idea of there being any
such universals, but I think by abduction strives
to obtain completly new results (if actually new I can't say).
I think that's why Peirce came up with the concept of abduction.
The concept is very seductive to me for its possible
power of discovery of something unknown or new.
If comp could do this, I'd not spend a moment more on
simulating the brain. Such a program might be worth a lot of
money in venues such as AI, the defense industry, medicine
and criminal investigation a la Sherlocki Holmes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning%20>
"Abduction[1] is a form of logical inference that goes from data
description of something to a
hypothesis that accounts for the reliable data and seeks to explain
relevant evidence.
The term was first introduced by the American philosopher Charles
Sanders Peirce (1839?1914) as
"guessing".[2] Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation
from an observed surprising circumstance
is to surmise that may be true because then would be a matter of
course.[3] Thus, to abduce
from involves determining that is sufficient (or nearly sufficient),
but not necessary, for [b, unclear symbol].
For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it
would be
unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the
possibility that it rained last night is reasonable. (But note that
Peirce did
not remain convinced that a single logical form covers all abduction.)[4]
Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning from P to Q involves not
simply
a determination that, e.g., Q is sufficient for P, but also that Q is
among the
most economical explanations for P. Simplification and economy are
what call
for the 'leap' of abduction.[5] In abductive reasoning, unlike in
deductive
reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. Abductive
reasoning
can be understood as "inference to the best explanation".[6]
There has been renewed interest in the subject of abduction in the
fields of law,[7] computer science, and artificial intelligence
research.[8] "
Dear Roger,
I am a HUGE fan of Peirce. I hope to work with you and any one else
to elaborate on his ideas. I think that there are no ideal absolutes
except only those Hintikka decision games
<http://www.springerlink.com/content/k2727246n056x1lu/fulltext.pdf>converge
to Nash equilibria <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium> in
some finite number of steps.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
