AI and argument
Locked
 
|
The computers being trained to beat you in an argument
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41010848 > At the University of Dundee we have recently even been using 2,000-year-old theories of rhetoric as a way of spotting the structures of real-life arguments. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
Glen ‘n all, The article relates to a project I dreamed of ... helping people who disagree have a fair argument. In my notion, a team of philosophy students, masquerading as a program, directed discussants toward fair argument with a view, perhaps, ultimately, in my dreams, teaching a program to step in for the students. But keeping people talking is not the problem. Therapy programs have been good at it for years. And three-year-olds. The three year old has mastered the fact that conversation has both a procedural and a content dimension and the procedural dimension is sufficient to maintain a conversation with a sufficiently naïve adult. As soon as the adult masters the same fact, the conversation ends immediately. Why? Because! Why? Because! No child I have ever known is dumb enough to carry on such a conversation. Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- The computers being trained to beat you in an argument http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41010848 > At the University of Dundee we have recently even been using 2,000-year-old theories of rhetoric as a way of spotting the structures of real-life arguments. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Ha. I can imagine putting candidates in booths. The computer could parse the outputs and decide whether to repeat them to the audience. Bzzt. Rhetoric. Bzzt. False statements. Bzzt. Ad hominem. Bing.
Extended neutral elaboration [by the computer]. Keeping people talking, that’s all fine and good. But how to shut them up with they go off the rails? From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Nick Thompson Glen ‘n all, The article relates to a project I dreamed of ... helping people who disagree have a fair argument. In my notion, a team of philosophy students, masquerading as a program, directed discussants toward fair argument with a view, perhaps,
ultimately, in my dreams, teaching a program to step in for the students. But keeping people talking is not the problem. Therapy programs have been good at it for years. And three-year-olds. The three year old has mastered the fact that conversation has both a procedural and a content dimension and the
procedural dimension is sufficient to maintain a conversation with a sufficiently naïve adult. As soon as the adult masters the same fact, the conversation ends immediately.
Why? Because! Why? Because!
No child I have ever known is dumb enough to carry on such a conversation.
Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- The computers being trained to beat you in an argument http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41010848 > At the University of Dundee we have recently even been using 2,000-year-old theories of rhetoric as a way of spotting the structures of real-life arguments. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Well, keeping people talking *can* be the problem. And we don't really want to shut them up when they go off the rails. Boring story: At a recent beer festival, a friend of mine was ranting about their neighbor and how _crazy_ she is, for any of a number of meanings of the word "crazy". My friend has reached out to our government funded, volunteer-driven program: https://resolutionsnorthwest.org/community/neighborhood-mediation-2/.
During our conversation, however, me and my friend disagreed (fundamentally) on the differences between judges, arbitrators, mediators, and facilitators. During the exchange, my friend committed https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. I tried to stop them by calling out the fallacy. That didn't work. They accused me of condescension. [sigh] So, I asserted that I would counter-argue by *also* appealing to authority. And it worked! My friend acquiesced. As usual, the meta-ness of the discussion (appealing to authority while arguing about methods of arguing) was lost on everyone. On 10/03/2017 10:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Ha. I can imagine putting candidates in booths. The computer could parse the outputs and decide whether to repeat them to the audience. Bzzt. Rhetoric. Bzzt. False statements. Bzzt. Ad hominem. Bing. Extended neutral elaboration [by the computer]. Keeping people talking, that’s all fine and good. But how to shut them up with they go off the rails? > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] *On Behalf Of *Nick Thompson > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 3, 2017 11:42 AM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]> > *Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' <[hidden email]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument > > > The article relates to a project I dreamed of ... helping people who disagree have a fair argument. In my notion, a team of philosophy students, masquerading as a program, directed discussants toward fair argument with a view, perhaps, ultimately, in my dreams, teaching a program to step in for the students. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
"During the exchange, my friend committed https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. I tried to stop them by calling out the fallacy. That didn't work. They accused me of condescension. [sigh] So, I asserted that I would counter-argue by *also* appealing to authority. And it worked! My friend acquiesced. As usual, the meta-ness of the discussion (appealing to authority while arguing about methods of arguing) was lost on everyone." But if they must appeal to authority, and so many people on all sides so often and so desperately want to, that authority could be a computer. At least there is some hope of persuading a computer a proposition is wrong and why. I can live with giving them what they want. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Wait a minute, guys. Isn't it difficult to have an argument for more than a
few seconds without appealing to authority. After all: where did you get that statistic? Did you do the research yourself? An argument of the following form is an explicit appeal to authority, yet it is not a fallacy, is it? All statements by Donald Trump are true, Donald trump believes a great many immigrants are rapists and murderers, therefore a great many immigrants are rapists and murderers. The argument valid but wrong, only because it starts from a false premise. So, if all arguments must eventually be based on premises derived from authorities, what separates appropriate and inappropriate appeals to authority? In adequate citation? Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 5:24 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument "During the exchange, my friend committed https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. I tried to stop them by calling out the fallacy. That didn't work. They accused me of condescension. [sigh] So, I asserted that I would counter-argue by *also* appealing to authority. And it worked! My friend acquiesced. As usual, the meta-ness of the discussion (appealing to authority while arguing about methods of arguing) was lost on everyone." But if they must appeal to authority, and so many people on all sides so often and so desperately want to, that authority could be a computer. At least there is some hope of persuading a computer a proposition is wrong and why. I can live with giving them what they want. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
No, I think the fallacy is about transparency, for the most part. Perhaps we could call it "appeal to an oracle" instead. If you rely on an expert in building your argument, then presumably, if we tracked down that expert, she could delineate all the reasoning she used to arrive at her conclusion. (Her conclusion being an axiom in your argument.)
If, however, you appeal to a non-expert in the subject and rely on her non-expert conclusion, then if you wanted to avoid the fallacy, you'd have to peel apart the non-expert's reasoning. The non-expert's conclusion can't stand as an axiom. This is, essentially, the argument for open-source. On 10/03/2017 04:36 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Wait a minute, guys. Isn't it difficult to have an argument for more than a > few seconds without appealing to authority. After all: where did you get > that statistic? Did you do the research yourself? An argument of the > following form is an explicit appeal to authority, yet it is not a fallacy, > is it? All statements by Donald Trump are true, Donald trump believes a > great many immigrants are rapists and murderers, therefore a great many > immigrants are rapists and murderers. The argument valid but wrong, only > because it starts from a false premise. > > So, if all arguments must eventually be based on premises derived from > authorities, what separates appropriate and inappropriate appeals to > authority? In adequate citation? -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
So, for instance, lay out an argument for the principle below as an argument that you would approve of. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- No, I think the fallacy is about transparency, for the most part. Perhaps we could call it "appeal to an oracle" instead. If you rely on an expert in building your argument, then presumably, if we tracked down that expert, she could delineate all the reasoning she used to arrive at her conclusion. (Her conclusion being an axiom in your argument.) If, however, you appeal to a non-expert in the subject and rely on her non-expert conclusion, then if you wanted to avoid the fallacy, you'd have to peel apart the non-expert's reasoning. The non-expert's conclusion can't stand as an axiom. This is, essentially, the argument for open-source. On 10/03/2017 04:36 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Wait a minute, guys. Isn't it difficult to have an argument for more than a > few seconds without appealing to authority. After all: where did you get > that statistic? Did you do the research yourself? An argument of the > following form is an explicit appeal to authority, yet it is not a > fallacy, is it? All statements by Donald Trump are true, Donald trump > believes a great many immigrants are rapists and murderers, therefore > a great many immigrants are rapists and murderers. The argument valid > but wrong, only because it starts from a false premise. > > So, if all arguments must eventually be based on premises derived from > authorities, what separates appropriate and inappropriate appeals to > authority? In adequate citation? -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Hm. How about: Albert Einstein understands general relativity and has predicted the existence of gravitational waves. Therefore, I claim we will find evidence for the existence of gravitational waves.
On 10/03/2017 05:02 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > So, for instance, lay out an argument for the principle below as an argument that you would approve of. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Aren't you missing a premise, if you are seeking a valid deductive argument?
What connects Albert's thought with your conclusion? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ? Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:08 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument Hm. How about: Albert Einstein understands general relativity and has predicted the existence of gravitational waves. Therefore, I claim we will find evidence for the existence of gravitational waves. On 10/03/2017 05:02 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > So, for instance, lay out an argument for the principle below as an argument that you would approve of. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Hm. My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that fallacy. Einstein is a reliable, but not completely unchallengeable, authority. And if he is challenged, we can dig into the theory to find our own reasoning.
I'm curious if you believe all argument/reasoning can be *accurately* formalized? Worse yet, do you believe that all argument can be reduced to deduction? On 10/03/2017 05:13 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Aren't you missing a premise, if you are seeking a valid deductive argument? > > What connects Albert's thought with your conclusion? -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
A useful distinction? When I was working in the philosophy Dept at CMU my boss was a logician. I asked him if he had heard the story that Bertrand Russell had fallen off his bike on the Cambridge campus when he realized that Anselm's proof of the existence of God was valid (argument from authority). He looked puzzled but then said, "Ah, valid but not sound". Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Oct 3, 2017 6:30 PM, "gⅼеɳ ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote: Hm. My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that fallacy. Einstein is a reliable, but not completely unchallengeable, authority. And if he is challenged, we can dig into the theory to find our own reasoning. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Well, as a Peircean, I am certainly NOT allowed to believe that all valid logic is deductive, so Got Me There!
But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the formalization of good thought? So, then, it behooves one who would claim that an argument is logic to formalize it. So, in which logical world (if not deductive logic) does the statement that Einstein is usually right lead directly, without an intervening premise, to the conclusion that I should provisionally believe him. I think the argument IS deductive (in this case) and that the suppressed premise is that I should treat all people who are usually right provisionally as authorities. (i.e., as people to be believed until contrary evidence teaches us otherwise. ) n Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ? Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:30 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument Hm. My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that fallacy. Einstein is a reliable, but not completely unchallengeable, authority. And if he is challenged, we can dig into the theory to find our own reasoning. I'm curious if you believe all argument/reasoning can be *accurately* formalized? Worse yet, do you believe that all argument can be reduced to deduction? On 10/03/2017 05:13 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Aren't you missing a premise, if you are seeking a valid deductive argument? > > What connects Albert's thought with your conclusion? -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
>But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the formalization of good thought? Not necessarily. For instance: "If A then B implies A" is logically valid but most people would feel that it's stupid thinking. "Every statement implies a true statement" is true if you look at the truth table but this illustrates the difference between propositional calculus and natural language. I suspect you mean sound reasoning by "good thought". Is that responsive to your question? Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Oct 3, 2017 8:52 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote: Well, as a Peircean, I am certainly NOT allowed to believe that all valid logic is deductive, so Got Me There! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
Frank writes:
"A useful distinction? When I was working in the philosophy Dept at CMU my boss was a logician. I asked him if he had heard the story that Bertrand Russell had fallen off his bike on the Cambridge campus when he realized that Anselm's proof of the existence of God was valid (argument from authority). He looked puzzled but then said, "Ah, valid but not sound".
To change the subject a bit, the rapid proliferation of machine learning creates the potential of society becoming dependent on machine predictions that can be validated but cannot be verified. For example, cars that are better drivers than the best humans, or personalized medical protocols that arise out from thousands of nested polynomials -- but in neither case is not known exactly how or why the control/predictive mechanisms actually work. Maybe not just a thought experiment that we should worry (or not) about opaque oracles?
Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:21:32 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument A useful distinction? When I was working in the philosophy Dept at CMU my boss was a logician. I asked him if he had heard the story that Bertrand Russell had fallen off his bike on the Cambridge campus when he realized that Anselm's proof
of the existence of God was valid (argument from authority). He looked puzzled but then said, "Ah, valid but not sound".
Frank
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918 On Oct 3, 2017 6:30 PM, "gⅼеɳ ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hm. My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that fallacy. Einstein is a reliable, but not completely unchallengeable, authority. And if he is challenged, we can dig into the theory to find our own reasoning. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
Yes, well. I guess with respect to what you write below, it is time for me to retire in disorder from the conversation, as I always seem to when logic is under discussion. I do think that Peirce believed that, in the fullness of time, sound reasoning should lead more often than its alternative to expectations that are confirmed by experience. And I also thought I had been taught that deductive reasoning can be valid, even when none of its premises is true. But I seem to be putting these two ideas together wrong. [sigh] I hate when that happens. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the formalization of good thought? Not necessarily. For instance: "If A then B implies A" is logically valid but most people would feel that it's stupid thinking. "Every statement implies a true statement" is true if you look at the truth table but this illustrates the difference between propositional calculus and natural language. I suspect you mean sound reasoning by "good thought". Is that responsive to your question? Frank Frank Wimberly On Oct 3, 2017 8:52 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Don't be discouraged. I think what I said is incorrect. What I should have said is that in logic a false premise implies everything so for instance F -> F is true. Which puzzles people. Although it is used ironically as in "If Trump is a genius then I'll go fly a kite". Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Oct 3, 2017 11:11 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On 10/03/2017 07:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Well, as a Peircean, I am certainly NOT allowed to believe that all valid logic is deductive, so Got Me There! Heh, I'm not playing "gotcha". What's important to me about my question is whether you think abduction can be formalized. > But to the extent that we were talking about logic, is not logic the formalization of good thought? So, then, it behooves one who would claim that an argument is logic to formalize it. So, in which logical world (if not deductive logic) does the statement that Einstein is usually right lead directly, without an intervening premise, to the conclusion that I should provisionally believe him. I think the argument IS deductive (in this case) and that the suppressed premise is that I should treat all people who are usually right provisionally as authorities. (i.e., as people to be believed until contrary evidence teaches us otherwise. ) 1) My argument held Einstein up as an authority on relativity (or physics), *not* in any other sense. For me, the following argument would be fallacious for appealing to an unqualified authority: Einstein believes in God. Therefore, we will find evidence God exists. It's fallacious because Einstein is not an expert on God, as far as I'm concerned. And even if he were, his reasoning (like all metaphysics) is at least somewhat opaque. 2) We weren't really talking about logic. We were talking about reasoning and argument. I find it interesting that you (and lots of others) conflate the two. As we've discussed recently, there are many types of logic, including those that reject the rule Frank raised (that a false premise implies every/anything). The attempt of these different logics (PLURAL, damnit) is to find one or more that *better* formalizes the reasoning/argument we know works in different circumstances. So, while you'd be right to say we were talking about logics (PLURAL), we were definitely NOT talking about your own particular pet logic. We were talking about the entire breadth of argument/reasoning used by both humans and computers (and dogs and honey bees ...). FWIW, I would answer "yes" to my own question: I do believe (without much evidence) that all reasoning can be accurately formalized (sound or not). But I don't see evidence of formalisms that capture huge swaths of (human) reasoning, including abduction. (John Woods comes close with abduction, though, I think.) That should make it obvious that I wasn't playing "gotcha" ... methinks the lady doth protest too much. 8^) -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
The notion that thought (especially "expert" thought),discourse, even conversation can be formalized in some sense is an old idea. It can be found in Vedic writings (oldest extant) and probably every body of philosophy. Perhaps because so many have been frustrated with every day thinking/communication and share some form of Nick's dream of genteel productive discussion leading to Provisional Truth.
In relatively modern times Ramon Lull, followed by Descartes, Leibniz, Boole, etc. the 'formalization' of choice became mathematics grounded logic. This choice offered the potential of a implementing "correct" thought via mechanical means. Computers, being mere machines, albeit faster and more precise that Descartes mechanical thinking machine, would seem to be the ideal implementation tool. Thus, the age of AI and myriad efforts to formalize thought and communication.
A necessary presupposition — if any of these program are to come to fruition — is: what a human exhibits is nothing more than what a computer CAN exhibit; i.e., that a human can be nothing more than a machine.
I am curious if any of the participants in this discussion are willing to accept the presupposition? Especially if Nick, whose monist "behavior," strong agreement with Pierce's three forms of logic. and equally strong denial of "mind" might be so inclined?
dave west
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017, at 06:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
It depends on how you define "computer". If it's a CPU-in-a-vat, like a brain in a vat, then I disagree. That kind of computer is impoverished compared to a human. But if it's an android or somesuch, then I agree. On 10/04/2017 07:47 AM, Prof David West wrote: > A necessary presupposition — if any of these program are to come to fruition — is: what a human exhibits is nothing more than what a computer CAN exhibit; i.e., that a human can be nothing more than a machine. > > I am curious if any of the participants in this discussion are willing to accept the presupposition? Especially if Nick, whose monist "behavior," strong agreement with Pierce's three forms of logic. and equally strong denial of "mind" might be so inclined? -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |