Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5936 sci.philosophy.tech:2086
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!darkstar!ucscb.UCSC.EDU!escher
From: escher@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (of Dreams and Shadows)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: more Chinese Room
Keywords: Chinese room, CR, Searle
Message-ID: <1203@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Date: 11 Feb 90 22:05:58 GMT
References: <2602@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Jan9.162338.28110@twwells.com> <9458@cbmvax.commodore.com> <21866@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <7758@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <33868@cci632.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu
Reply-To: escher@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (of Dreams and Shadows)
Followup-To: comp.ai
Distribution: usa
Organization: Makers Of Brand-Z Physics, c/o UCSC The Beta Block
Lines: 22


In article <33868@cci632.UUCP> jct@ccird3.UUCP (John Thompson) writes:
>
>I don't see a way that inductive reasoning, which by the definitions I am used
>to does not always follow rules ( i.e. the jump without sufficent data ), can
>be reduced to an algolrithm. Can anyone out there enlighten me as to where I am 
>wrong with this?

	Inductive reasoning -- and I prefer as you do the term reasoning over
thinking -- is simply taking as given the conclusion and constructing a set of
simplifications that lead you back to specific atoms. This can be dealt with
by a recursive-like process, or any alogorithm [sp?] capable of searching the 
"tree" backwards and applying deductive tests to it.
	Also... there is such a thing as an indirect mode of proof where one
ASSUMES what they wish not to prove and concludes to a contradiction, thereby
showing the original assumption to be wrong and the negation of that assumption
to be right. This sort of "weak" proof corresponds roughly to quite a few so-
called "inductive" arguments.
	[no clever end block yet, but we're working on it]