Hi Stephen P. King Glad to have a fellow enthusiast.
Roger Clough, [email protected] 11/7/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-07, 12:02:52 Subject: Re: Peirce's concept of logical abduction-- a possible moneymaker 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 "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 converge to Nash equilibria 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.
