[FRIAM] AI and argument

Wed Oct 4 10:47:24 EDT 2017

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:
> 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"
> <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:>> 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:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
>> Wimberly *Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2017 9:07 PM *To:* The Friday
>> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument____>> __ __

>> >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[1]____

>> __ __

>> On Oct 3, 2017 8:52 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:____>>> 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:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:30 PM
>>> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
>>> 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____>> 
>> ============================================================
>>  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

Links:

  1. tel:(505)%20670-9918
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171004/ec0fceba/attachment.html>