On 05 Dec 2012, at 18:48, Roger Clough wrote:



Hi Bruno,

Another quote I can't find is one to the effect that

"For every complex problem one can usually find simple
solutions that are almost always wrong."

This is the case with modern cognitive science:

1)  It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain)
solution to the mind/brain problem in favor of treating
both substances as material.

?

"modern" is not a clear reference, and "substance" or "primitive (assumed) substance" does not make sense in comp, even if current cognitivist ignore this.



Hence we have a number
of of mind/brain theories that dance aournd accept these
two subjstances as being the same.

Which does not make sense either. In physics "substance" does not make much more sense, imo.



Descartes, oddly enough, seems to
have ignored this problem.

I totally disagree on this. Descartes has gone very far, but express himself in some way to avoid (in vain) some troubles with the local authorities. I am not even sure Descartes is a dualist. That is debatable, but is also another topics.


Leibniz treated both mind and brain as mind
(Idealism), which correctly allowed unity of mind and brain, but
he has been ignored.

OK. (We are in the Aristotelian era).



2) Modern cognitive science does not allow introspection,

? (it really depends what you mean by "modern").
Obviously the approach I describe gives introspection the key role. Indeed you can sum up it by "the truth is in the head of the machine".


because
it isn't rational.

Introspection leads to something beyond justifiability. OK.


Kant does give a rational interpretation of
synthesis, which requires  introspection, through adopting an
alternate (nonintrospective) path, a rational prodecure which is very
complicated and hard to understand, if it indeed works at all.
A semiotic approach would seem to be- at least  in principle -
much better, because it includes 1p, (in the form of relations)
although I have not seen how this works yet. Leibniz
in his monads attempts to deal with this problem through
a third party  (the Supreme Monad), but the details are
unspecified.

Computer's semiotics is handled by mathematical logic semantic, model theory, etc.

Bruno






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Roger Clough
Receiver: Roger Clough
Time: 2012-12-05, 07:47:47
Subject: Introspection (internal 1p) has been dropped by cognitive science

Hi Bruno,

I found the quote I had been searching for:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/
"Kant thought that transcendental arguments were a priori or
yielded the a priori in all three ways. Nonetheless, at the heart of
this method is inference to the best explanation. When introspection
[the empirical, not logical method of synthesis]
fell out of favour about 100 years ago, the alternative approach
[Kant's method of synthesis] adopted was exactly this approach.

Its nonempirical roots in Kant notwithstanding, it is now the major method
used by experimental cognitive scientists.

Other things equally central to Kant's approach to the mind have not been taken up by cognitive science, as we will see near the end, a key part of his doctrine of synthesis and most of what he had to say about consciousness
of self in particular. Far from his model having been superseded
by cognitive science, some important things have not even been
assimilated by it. "


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-05, 05:05:38
Subject: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind


Hi Bruno Marchal

Indeed, we can not code for [1p].  But we need not abandon
itr entirely, as you seem to have done, and as cognitive
theory has done.   We can replace [1p] by its actions -
those of perception,  in which terms are relational (subject: object).
You seem to deal with everything from the 3p perspective.

That is my argument for using semiotics, which includes 1p (or
interprant) as a necessary and natural part of its triad of relations.
Your responses seem to leave out such relations.  I cannot find
again the quote I should have bookmarked, but in an argument
for using semiotics on the web, it was said that modern cognitive
theory has abandoned the self in an effort to depersonalize
cognition.  While this is a valid scientific reason, it doesn't work
when living breathing humans are concerned.

IMHO leaving out [1p ] in such a way will forever prevent
computer calculations from emulating the mind.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-03, 13:03:12
Subject: Re: Semantic vs logical truth




On 03 Dec 2012, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p- truth is not codable. The 1p truth are more related to the relation between belief and reality (not necessarily physical reality, except for observation and sensation).


Even the simple, and apparently formal Bp & p is NOT codable.
Most truth about machine, including some that they can know, are not codable.
Many things true about us is not codable either.

Let me see if I understand that. I think you are saying that p, i.e. that "p" describes a fact about the world, a meta-level above the coding of a machine.


No, p is for some statement at the base level, like 1+1 = 2.










That the Mars Rover believes it is south of it's landing point is implicit in its state and might be inferred from its behavior, but there is no part of the state corresponding to "I *believe* I am south of my landing point."


Then Mars Rover is not L?ian. But I am not even sure that Mars Rover is Turing universal, or that it exploits its Turing universality.


But PA and ZF can represent "I believe". So we can study the logic of a new 'knowledge" operator defined (at the meta level, for each arithmetical proposition) by Bp & p. For example if p is "1+1=2", it is


Believe"("1+1=2") & 1+1 = 2.


We cannot define such operator in arithmetic. We would need something like Believe"("1+1=2") & True("1+1 = 2"), but True, in general cannot defined in arithmetic. Yet, we can metadefine it and study its logic, which obeys a soprt of temporal intuionistic logic (interpreting the S4Grz logic obtained).










One could include such second-level states (which one might want to communicate to Pasadena) but then that state would be just another first-level state. Right?



Not sure I see what you mean. The meta, available by the machine is in the "I believe". It is the 3-I. The presentation of myself to myself. The 1-I will be the non definable operator above. We connect the believer to the truth. It is easy to do for the sound correct machine.


Bruno









Brent



-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to