Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: RE: Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

“Black” can serve as an adjective or it can be part of a proper noun that happens to involve two glyphs (or three if you count the icon of the dog). It could be convenient to ground the referent of “black dog” either earlier or later in a logic program or constraint solving procedure or NLP

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Thanks Nick, Yes, I understand the distinctions below. I am glad I opened with “Some how I imagine that…”, giving me enough wiggle room to have been wrong in the imagination to almost any degree. Small larding below, because I too have been under the gun to do something I don’t want to do,

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

On 09/21/2017 08:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > */[NST==> Is there any logic in which, “Let X be Y; therefore X is Y” is not > entailed. If a belief is defined as that upon which one is prepared to act, > is there any logic in which acting does not imply belief? <==nst] /* Of course. E.g.

Re: [FRIAM] visualization of logic(s)

"Given the discussion of logic(s), I imagine a visualization where we take a language, maybe ZFC, come up with a set of sentences, maybe 100 or so, and place them on a 2D grid, where each grid point shows their truth value. So, you'd have a 10x10 grid of T's and F's based on how those

[FRIAM] visualization of logic(s)

Given the discussion of logic(s), I imagine a visualization where we take a language, maybe ZFC, come up with a set of sentences, maybe 100 or so, and place them on a 2D grid, where each grid point shows their truth value. So, you'd have a 10x10 grid of T's and F's based on how those

Re: [FRIAM] visualization of logic(s)

Check out John Baez's recent work on Azimuth blog C On Sep 22, 2017 17:50, "gⅼеɳ ☣" wrote: > > Given the discussion of logic(s), I imagine a visualization where we take > a language, maybe ZFC, come up with a set of sentences, maybe 100 or so, > and place them on a

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Eric writes: "But at least one of the reasons to have a mind is to simulate many more actions than one can take. I guess I would say that concepts like belief refer to very materially instantiated patterns in those contexts of simulation. But again, that is a topic that has been raised and

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Simulation, hmm. As I read a cover article in Nature several years ago, a study of tennis players established that their nervous systems implemented a Bayesian model of where the tennis ball was going in order to prepare for the possible return actions that might be necessary. This reminds me of

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

On 09/22/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > All right. I admit it. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about logic. And that's not true, either. 8^) You know more about logic than an overwhelming majority of people. The trick is you're convinced of the unitarity and hegemony of some particular

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

All right. I admit it. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about logic. Frank, can you help me out here? My concession here was that in Peirce's world, the relation of belief to action is analytical i.e. arises directly from the definitions of terms. I thought this was a big concession,

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

You should read my erstwhile boss's book. It goes beyond tennis players: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/minds-arrows Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sep 22, 2017 7:51 AM, "Roger Critchlow" wrote: > Simulation, hmm. As I read a cover article in Nature several years ago,

[FRIAM] Fwd: RE: Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 -- Forwarded message -- From: "Frank Wimberly" Date: Sep 22, 2017 8:55 AM Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia To: "Thompson, Nicholas" Cc: OK, more seriously. If "is" means "=" then

[FRIAM] Fwd: RE: Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 -- Forwarded message -- From: "Frank Wimberly" Date: Sep 22, 2017 8:25 AM Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia To: "Thompson, Nicholas" Cc: It depends on what the meaning of the word

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Yes, I agree. That IS the interesting question. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. So I leap across the chasm believing that I have a 70 percent chance of making the jump but knowing that I have a 30 percent chance of not making it. I think James would argue that to the extent that one

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Glen writes: < I'd be interested to hear how you (and others) answer Roger's question: "So when the actor believes in a probabilistic network of possible futures, updates those expectations according to each iota of evidence as it is received, and acts accordingly, is that belief or

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Glen writes: "Which course corrections can I make that still lead to a satisficing objective (like crashing my bike without brain damage), which lead to failure (brain damage), which lead to optimal outcome (dodging the left-turning old lady completely), etc." In one universe there's brain

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Ha! Yeah, the conference I went to a few months ago was _ripe_ (no, not rife, RIPE) with this stuff ... mostly in the context of automatic cars. I really appreciated one attendee trashing the Trolley Problem as so ideal as to be useless. I heard an interview with the creator of Wolverine the

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

My answer to Roger's question is "both", FWIW. But my concern seems slightly different from both Marcus' and Nick's answers. I'm more concerned with the granularity of the updates/iota. Nick's 70/30-clean/scramble is pretty fscking coarse. As I said early on, my beliefs/skepticism is

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: RE: Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: [ ... ] > Beyond that, there are problems with statements that are apparently > analytic. Every black dog is a dog but is every iron horse a horse? Even > "black dog" may mean something other than a dog in some

[FRIAM] works on several levels

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/arts/design/dogs-fighting-guggenheim.html FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe