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

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.

Yes, the Induction process, formalized by Bayesian (probabilistic)
logic, although I add a whole new dimension to it by considering
"partial" occurence, or the degree of match (similarity &
difference): http://scalable-intelligence.blogspot.com/2008/04/intelligence-pattern-discovery.html
It's only hard till you know how to do it.

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?

Not the way I treat it, my definitions of both similarity & complexity
(order of generalization) are perfectly formal, see the link above.
You do need intelligence to recognize intelligence, but this doesn't
make the process of recognition any less formal.

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

I'd add projection :).

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.

Just because Reaction is separated from Action by many levels of
generalization doesn't make the process any less deterministic.
The only "metaphysical armor" I have is my concept of Meta-Evolution:
http://scalable-intelligence.blogspot.com/2008/04/entropy-evolution.html
I consider Cognition itself a higher form of evolution in this
framework.
Boris.


.