Re: "Inductive intelligence" or a "generalist" cognitive bias in

cognomad@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Most work in AI is based on a HUGE assumption, i.e., the
assumption that rationality can be reduced to logic. This runs counter
to Godel's logical discovery that mathematical rationality can never
be found in its entirety with a formal (e.g., logical) system.

Logic in general is consistency,
there's no virtue in being
inconsistent.

I think of logic as simply the order we have
cognized in the manner in which we cognize order.
But for me, this process is itself largely
ANA-logical in nature, which is why it's so
hard to computationalize.

But I find conventional formal logic irrelevant, my logic is Bayesian
beyond Bayesian.


Bayesian logic isn't formal?


My unorthodox definition of conditioning as ?the cognition of
obvious similarity and difference? stems from my unorthodox
definition of reasoning as ?the cognition of abstruse similarity
and difference?

"Abstruse" is a matter of degree, not of a kind.
"Conditioning" refers to reflexes, not cognition.
The difference is that reflexes work in isolation,
they shortcut the cortical generalization hierarchy
& produce an immediate "value judgement".


Yes. Like similarity and difference themselves, abstruse
and obvious are pretty much in the eye of the beholder.
And yet, this something that is pretty much in the eye
of the beholder is at the very heart of most ampliative
inference, don't you agree?

"All forms of reasoning are nothing but comparing". (Hume)


3. It allows for a naturalistic indeterminism in that one can
surmise that once an event sequence or feature has become cognized
it is easy to appreciate how one might then have the option of
following the sequence or conforming to the feature or not, and
thereby becoming less determined by it, i.e., aware of more options
than prior to the cognition. Another way of saying this is that
it lends itself to the suspicion that there might well be an
inverse correlation between ?being cognizant? or ?being rational?
and ?being determined?.


If you don't like determinism, tough.

Perhaps. But that hardly constitutes a counter to the rationale
I have offered for why I suspect there might be a *** in your
metaphysical armor.

PR




.

Loading