Re: SUO: RE: X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.7f, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm
Chris,
You are confusing the question of logic as a normative science vs. the
psychological and neurological issues of how people actually think.
As a normative science, logic explains how any form of intelligence
would think when its thinking is correct -- i.e., generating true
conclusions
from true premises. Correct thinking has absolutely nothing to do with the
mode of implementation -- in neurons, silicon, or ectoplasm. People
sometimes
think correctly (i.e., logically) and sometimes not. But correct
conclusions
are correct independently of how they were derived -- by human neurons, by
computers, by Martians, or by some collaboration of different kinds of
implementations.
Humans and other animals do not always think correctly. They also use
heuristics to reach certain kinds of answers more quickly than any known
algorithms that run on computers. But the criteria of logic can be used
to evaluate the results independent of their means of derivation.
CL> yes it does - read more (some of the general articles off
> http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting and then there is also the ref list/further
> reading etc http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html ) Our culture is
> at a level where we can identify/model the general roots of logic,
> mathematics, language and the processing/recognition of signs etc etc There
> is even the suggestion of identifying our source of our method of argument
> stemming from the manner in which our brains deal with sensory paradox
> http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html)
I am quite familiar with the current work on psychology and neurophysiology.
Studying it can provide us with some very useful insights into heuristics,
the importance of emotion, and many other important features of human thinking
processes.
But none of that can ever validate or invalidate anything about what makes
logic logical or mathematics mathematical. The method of derivation cannot
in any way invalidate a valid conclusion or validate an invalid one.
CL> Not if you read more. [;-)] you seem to demonstrate in your prose a lack of
> knowledge outside of your specialisation and that is a problem; the
> reluctance to move out of the box to see things from the species perspective
> and then step back into the box to gain 'new' insights will slow you down.
> (see the article on idealism/materialism ;-))
Please read my books, in particular, Chapter 2 of my 1984 book, which many
psychologists considered an excellent review of the state of the art of that
time in relating what was known about psychology and neurophysiology to the
issues of artificial intelligence. Some, in fact, were surpised that I did
not have a degree in psychology.
Despite (or more accurately because of) the amount of study that I did in
those days, I have not continued pursued the problem of linking psych. to AI
because there are more fruitful avenues to pursue the study of language
and logic.
CL> I have been reading all of this sort of material for decades (including
> James - he was de rigour in psych 101) - please dont try to teach me to suck
> eggs [;-)]
I have no interest in what you suck. But your understanding of the
relationships between logic and language on the one hand and psychology
and neurophysiology on the other hand are woefully misguided.
You have a great deal to learn, and until you recognize that you are a student
who is desperately in need of enlightenment, I don't believe that any further
discussion between us will be fruitful.
John Sowa