Sheesh. I suppose we'll continue to trade "pithy" little sentences without
saying anything of substance.
So! You're now contradicting your earlier statement and suggesting that Peirce
*does* assume there are commonalities?
On 10/04/2017 12:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Turn that question
thlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 1:03 PM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument
How can there be "convergent discourse" if
How can there be "convergent discourse" if there are no commonalities?
On 10/04/2017 11:56 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Peirce does not presume that there ARE any communalities. He presumes only
> that if there ARE any communalities, they are what truth would be.
> On 10/04/2017 09:55 AM,
/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 11:10 AM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument
I propose that any commonalities between experiences, are due to common
phys
I propose that any commonalities between experiences, are due to common
physiology. And that means that were I and a mouse to get together and define
some scientific experiments we *both* could perform independently (say, jumping
on a see-saw or pushing a kibble lever), then the mouse would
ilto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 10:07 AM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument
There is an "out there" reality. But the map between it and me (or a bee or a
tree) is plectic, with all that entail
There is an "out there" reality. But the map between it and me (or a bee or a
tree) is plectic, with all that entails including far-from-equilibrium,
polyphenism, robustness, sensitivity to initial conditions, multi-scale, etc.
That implies that my understanding of what's out there can be
<friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument
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 "I
Yes, very much so! One of my favorite characters.
On 10/04/2017 07:58 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> e.g. R. Daneel Olivaw, possessor of the finest Positronic Brain,
> inventor of the Zeroth Law of Robotics, and Protector of Humanity until
> he resigned his post as advisor to Cleon I, Galactic
e.g. R. Daneel Olivaw, possessor of the finest Positronic Brain,
inventor of the Zeroth Law of Robotics, and Protector of Humanity until
he resigned his post as advisor to Cleon I, Galactic Emperor?
dw
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017, at 08:54 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:
>
> It depends on how you define "computer".
It depends on how you define "computer". If it's a CPU-in-a-vat, like a brain
in a vat, then I disagree. That kind of computer is impoverished compared to a
human. But if it's an android or somesuch, then I agree.
On 10/04/2017 07:47 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> A necessary presupposition —
ive (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
>>>
On 10/03/2017 07:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Well, as a Peircean, I am certainly NOT allowed to believe that all valid
> logic is deductive, so Got Me There!
Heh, I'm not playing "gotcha". What's important to me about my question is
whether you think abduction can be formalized.
> But to
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2017 9:07 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>
2017 9:07 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@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
that we should worry (or not) about opaque oracles?
Marcus
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly
<wimber...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:21:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Gr
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Tuesday, Octo
/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:30 PM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument
Hm. My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that
f
A useful distinction? When I was working in the philosophy Dept at CMU my
boss was a logician. I asked him if he had heard the story that Bertrand
Russell had fallen off his bike on the Cambridge campus when he realized
that Anselm's proof of the existence of God was valid (argument from
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
Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:08 PM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument
Hm. How about: Albert Einstein understands general relativity and has
predicted the existence of gravita
Hm. How about: Albert Einstein understands general relativity and has
predicted the existence of gravitational waves. Therefore, I claim we will
find evidence for the existence of gravitational waves.
On 10/03/2017 05:02 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> So, for instance, lay out an argument for
-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 5:49 PM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument
No, I think the fallacy is about transparency, for the most part. Perhaps we
could call it "appeal to an orac
No, I think the fallacy is about transparency, for the most part. Perhaps we
could call it "appeal to an oracle" instead. If you rely on an expert in
building your argument, then presumably, if we tracked down that expert, she
could delineate all the reasoning she used to arrive at her
Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 5:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument
"During the exchange, my friend comm
"During the exchange, my friend committed
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority. I tried to stop them by
calling out the fallacy. That didn't work. They accused me of condescension.
[sigh] So, I asserted that I would counter-argue by *also* appealing to
authority. And it
ith they go off the rails?
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 3, 2017 11:42 AM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com>
> *Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' <jonzing
com>
Subject: [FRIAM] AI and argument
The computers being trained to beat you in an argument
<http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41010848>
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41010848
> At the University of Dundee we have recently even been using 2,000-year-old
> theories of
The computers being trained to beat you in an argument
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41010848
> At the University of Dundee we have recently even been using 2,000-year-old
> theories of rhetoric as a way of spotting the structures of real-life
> arguments.
--
☣ gⅼеɳ
29 matches
Mail list logo
