Hmm, but the rules of a system like PLN are just predicate logic formulas themselves, so "reasoning about reasoning" is formally a sub-case of good old reasoning
The semantics is different for "reasoning about reasoning" ... but if one is using a sufficiently rich probabilistic logic for reasoning, then one is a fortiori doing probabilistic-reasoning-about-reasoning, right? ... which (if one uses <s,n> truth values) is richer than intuitionistic reasoning-about-reasoning, and inclusive of the former... I agree we are talking past each other in some way or another though... Sometimes email is not optimal. If will be fun to take this up F2F sometime, ideally after I've taken a day or so to review the relevant math, which exists in my brain at varying levels of recollection and fuzziness just now... On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> About Kripke frames etc. --- as I recall that was a model of the >> semantics of modal logic with a Possibly operator as well as a >> Necessarily operator.... But in PLN we have a richer notion of >> possibility than in a standard modal logic, > > > Hey, I'm guessing that you're tired from travel, as here you repeat the same > confusion from before. There is a difference between "reasoning" (which is > what PLN does) and "reasoning about reasoning" (which is what I am talking > about). > > What I am talking about applies to any rule-based system whatsoever, its not > specific to PLN. As long as you keep going back to PLN, you will have > trouble figuring out what I'm saying. This is why I keep trying to create > non-PLN examples. But every time I create a non-PLN example, you zip back to > PLN, and that misses the point of it all. > > -- linas > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > And so here is the blog post -- its a lightly reformatted version of >> > this >> > email, with lots of links to wikipedia and a few papers. >> > >> > >> > http://blog.opencog.org/2016/08/31/many-worlds-reasoning-about-reasoning/ >> > >> > I really really hope that this clarifies something that is often seen as >> > mysterious. >> > >> > --linas >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "opencog" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA340RO1zNghUpNsB5ij3m%3Dq2hxGdW_xZfFsGXC4JW9EpMQ%40mail.gmail.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org Super-benevolent super-intelligence is the thought the Global Brain is currently struggling to form... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CACYTDBdw16NP3qXob3ufu3z9FWDEmMXpbK96uvhBucakcK6ANg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
