Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!boulder!bernstei
From: bernstei@boulder.Colorado.EDU (mwb)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Help!
Summary: Evolution of "Logical" Thought
Keywords: Godel logic evolution
Message-ID: <30217@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 26 Nov 90 08:00:47 GMT
References: <1990Nov25.223132.24431@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
            <4168@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: bernstei@tramp.Colorado.EDU (mwb)
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: The University of Colorado at Boulder
Lines: 36
Nntp-Posting-Host: tramp.colorado.edu

In article <4168@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu
(Marvin Minsky) writes:
[in response to a query about Godel's incompleteness theorem...]

>Interesting subject.  But has anyone really got anything useful out of
>it?  It seems to me that all the discussions have been irrelevant
>because of two peculiar assumptions.

>1. There has been a general assumption that human reasoning is logical
>-- and hence is limited by the limitations implied by Godel's theorem.
>This is strange because people do not normally assert proofs.  They
>make assertions.  Nor do they claim, normally, to make these on the
>basis of a completely consistent logical or formal system.  Now you
>might argue that whatever the brain is, it might well be approximated
>adequately well by some formal system, hence is subject to those
>limitations.  But Godel's theorem doesn't apply to all formal systems,
>only consistent ones.  Sometimes, a person may detect an inconsistency
>and withdraw an assertion, but that's beside the point, because there
>is no reason to suppose this can be always done, etc.

Has there been, with the evolution of mathematical thought and formal
systems, a corresponding evolution in the way all people view the world?
It seems to me rather likely that with the development of explicit logical
systems, the "scientific method" and other formalizations of ideas about
the world, there would be a corresponding change in the way people think
and express themselves.  Consequently, the only reason that we can even
attempt to express human thought in a formal manner is because humans have
developed these same formal systems.  

Or, on the other hand, is formal thinking "hardwired" into the brain in the
same way that language acquisition and the existence of syntax seem to be
(according to Chomsky, at least)?  Where do logic and proofs come from --
internally, as a byproduct of the structure of the brain, or as a necessary
result of the structure of the universe?

mwb					bernstei@tramp.boulder.colorado.edu