Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU!costello
From: costello@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (Tom John Costello)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AGAINST FORMALISM?
Keywords: REASONING (is the keyword)!
Message-ID: <1991Jun21.004003.23016@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 21 Jun 91 00:40:03 GMT
References: <549@schoenfinkel.cscs.uwindsor.ca> <1991Jun17.032758.14030@aifh.ed.ac.uk> <553@schoenfinkel.cscs.uwindsor.ca> <1991Jun20.201004.2277@arcturus.uucp>
Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: costello@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (Tom John Costello)
Organization: Stanford University, Computer Science Department
Lines: 33

In article <1991Jun20.201004.2277@arcturus.uucp>, berry@arcturus.uucp (Berry;Craig D.) writes:
|>|> 
|> I have a fundamental objection to refering to our cognitive processes as a
|> logical system of any type.  A formal logical system must be reproducible -
|> e.g., if I conclude that "pregnant => female" given my current internal
|> state today, I should conclude the same thing given the same state at any
|> other time.  My assertion is that the underlying uncertainties of brain
|> physiology negate this criterion.  What I had for breakfast could skew
|> synaptic responses just enough to move around a few truth values, without
|> any new evidence or such being available.
|


I would certainly think that a few truth values moved around is easily
sufficent to say that you are in a different state.  The assumption that
all input must be of a verbal form is wrong.  Also formal logical 
systems do not have to be reproducible, non-deterministic logics
exist, not that I find them in the least useful.

The problem with arguing against logic is that for anyone to take you
seriously you have to use logic to argue with.  Arguments from physics
claiming that matter is continuous or the brain is a wave function 
and can therefore not be described, are not an argument against logic
merely they assert the need for non countable langauges in which
to express the logic.

In short, in order to study or discuss anything we must abstract it, 
and give it a name, and qualities.  Thus the concept of concept
assumes that we are formalising, as to extract a concept from 
our sensory perceptions is to map a certain formalism to those
perceptions.

Tom