Re: Phenomenological Ontology
From: David Kogan (nomail_at_nomail.com)
Date: 06/01/04
- Next message: Greg Evans: "Re: What's the Best Logic of Relations Primer?"
- Previous message: ynotssor: "Re: What's the Best Logic of Relations Primer?"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:56:28 GMT
"|-|erc" <gotcha@beauty.com> wrote in message
news:wGQuc.20893$L.20591@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "David Kogan" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in
> > >
> >
> > Have you ever heard of "The Language of Thought Hypothesis" (LOTH)? It
> > covers propositional thought, which is what you are describing.
> >
> > Take a look at:
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/
> >
> > http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/fcummins/home/CogModels/cogpsych.html
> > The Language of Thought Hypothesis (LOTH) postulates that thought and
> > thinking take place in a mental language. This language consists of a
system
> > of representations that is physically realized in the brain of thinkers
and
> > has a combinatorial syntax (and semantics) such that operations on
> > representations are causally sensitive only to the syntactic properties
of
> > representations. According to LOTH, thought is, roughly, the tokening of
a
> > representation that has a syntactic (constituent) structure with an
> > appropriate semantics. Thinking thus consists in syntactic operations
> > defined over such representations. Most of the arguments for LOTH derive
> > their strength from their ability to explain certain empirical phenomena
> > like productivity and systematicity of thought and thinking.
> >
>
> news to me, sounds fine a computational approach, but there's terrabytes
of theory
> on the mind, what applications are being developed? what algorithm
coordinates
> all of these ideas? people fall short very fast on a simulation of their
hypothesies.
>
> "There are numerous thought processes happening in parallel", a common
conclusion,
> but who uses parallel computers for real? What theory do they operate on?
If
> the mind is a computer why are the mathematical models of computers
inadequate?
> Is there a "new" theory or is AI application of existing computer science,
in a way
> we don't know how to bring together? What's the smallest computer program
that
> can trigger a sentience into self programming? 10KB? 10,000,000,000 KB?
>
> Herc
>
Computation and mathematics are not the same. Computation (computer science)
is not taken seriously by science as a tool to describe the behaviors of
physical systems. Most uses of computers to model physical systems are
implementation of mathematical theories. A pure computational approach, one
that could not be easily described by mathematics, may help to expose the
behavior of complex systems and the human psyche (I.a. AI). But this is not
being done very much (as far as I know).
Have you read my paper? I have ideas on how the mind functions that may
spark an idea or two.
http://www.metaspec.org/onto/ontology.pdf
- Next message: Greg Evans: "Re: What's the Best Logic of Relations Primer?"
- Previous message: ynotssor: "Re: What's the Best Logic of Relations Primer?"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: Phenomenological Ontology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|