Check out John Baez's recent work on Azimuth blog
C
On Sep 22, 2017 17:50, "gⅼеɳ ☣" wrote:
>
> Given the discussion of logic(s), I imagine a visualization where we take
> a language, maybe ZFC, come up with a set of sentences, maybe 100 or so,
> and place them on a 2D grid, where each grid
"Given the discussion of logic(s), I imagine a visualization where we take a
language, maybe ZFC, come up with a set of sentences, maybe 100 or so, and
place them on a 2D grid, where each grid point shows their truth value. So,
you'd have a 10x10 grid of T's and F's based on how those sentences
Given the discussion of logic(s), I imagine a visualization where we take a
language, maybe ZFC, come up with a set of sentences, maybe 100 or so, and
place them on a 2D grid, where each grid point shows their truth value. So,
you'd have a 10x10 grid of T's and F's based on how those sentences
“Black” can serve as an adjective or it can be part of a proper noun that
happens to involve two glyphs (or three if you count the icon of the dog).
It could be convenient to ground the referent of “black dog” either earlier or
later in a logic program or constraint solving procedure or NLP code.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Frank Wimberly
wrote:
[ ... ]
> Beyond that, there are problems with statements that are apparently
> analytic. Every black dog is a dog but is every iron horse a horse? Even
> "black dog" may mean something other than a dog in some context. Human
> language i
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/arts/design/dogs-fighting-guggenheim.html
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.co
Ha! Yeah, the conference I went to a few months ago was _ripe_ (no, not rife,
RIPE) with this stuff ... mostly in the context of automatic cars. I really
appreciated one attendee trashing the Trolley Problem as so ideal as to be
useless. I heard an interview with the creator of Wolverine the
Glen writes:
"Which course corrections can I make that still lead to a satisficing objective
(like crashing my bike without brain damage), which lead to failure (brain
damage), which lead to optimal outcome (dodging the left-turning old lady
completely), etc."
In one universe there's brain dam
My answer to Roger's question is "both", FWIW. But my concern seems slightly
different from both Marcus' and Nick's answers. I'm more concerned with the
granularity of the updates/iota. Nick's 70/30-clean/scramble is pretty fscking
coarse. As I said early on, my beliefs/skepticism is *never*
Glen writes:
< I'd be interested to hear how you (and others) answer Roger's question: "So
when the actor believes in a probabilistic network of possible futures, updates
those expectations according to each iota of evidence as it is received, and
acts accordingly, is that belief or skepticism
Yes, I agree. That IS the interesting question. Thanks for putting it so
succinctly.
So I leap across the chasm believing that I have a 70 percent chance of making
the jump but knowing that I have a 30 percent chance of not making it. I think
James would argue that to the extent that one pa
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Frank Wimberly"
Date: Sep 22, 2017 8:25 AM
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
To: "Thompson, Nicholas"
Cc:
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Seriously, I'll attempt a better answer
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Frank Wimberly"
Date: Sep 22, 2017 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
To: "Thompson, Nicholas"
Cc:
OK, more seriously.
If "is" means "=" then it's symmetric and you are correct. But if it me
On 09/22/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> All right. I admit it. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about logic.
And that's not true, either. 8^) You know more about logic than an
overwhelming majority of people. The trick is you're convinced of the
unitarity and hegemony of some particular type
You should read my erstwhile boss's book. It goes beyond tennis players:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/minds-arrows
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Sep 22, 2017 7:51 AM, "Roger Critchlow" wrote:
> Simulation, hmm. As I read a cover article in Nature several years ago, a
> study of t
All right. I admit it. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about logic.
Frank, can you help me out here? My concession here was that in Peirce's
world, the relation of belief to action is analytical i.e. arises directly
from the definitions of terms. I thought this was a big concession, because
Simulation, hmm. As I read a cover article in Nature several years ago, a
study of tennis players established that their nervous systems implemented
a Bayesian model of where the tennis ball was going in order to prepare for
the possible return actions that might be necessary. This reminds me of
Eric writes:
"But at least one of the reasons to have a mind is to simulate many more
actions than one can take. I guess I would say that concepts like belief refer
to very materially instantiated patterns in those contexts of simulation. But
again, that is a topic that has been raised and j
On 09/21/2017 08:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> */[NST==> Is there any logic in which, “Let X be Y; therefore X is Y” is not
> entailed. If a belief is defined as that upon which one is prepared to act,
> is there any logic in which acting does not imply belief? <==nst] /*
Of course. E.g. mod
Thanks Nick,
Yes, I understand the distinctions below. I am glad I opened with “Some how I
imagine that…”, giving me enough wiggle room to have been wrong in the
imagination to almost any degree. Small larding below, because I too have been
under the gun to do something I don’t want to do, bu
20 matches
Mail list logo
