ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] formal systems, common logic and lbase

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:41:34 +0700
Message-id: <c09b00eb0711180441o3aa708a4g9f04c0a3ffcdfdf3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks a lot Rick
havent had the chance to read the docs yet, but it sounds like a
fundamental question, although shifts in thinking paradigms may be
unsettling and painful
I do think that CL is going to stimulate the transition from NLP to AI
(so many acronyms)
and I have come to accept the possibility of a passive logical schema
but I am still reading
(and reading and reading)
I am interested in exploring your a) and b) propositions
what happend to this chap Feferman? did he get any traction?
will catch up with the reading and continue with this discussion at
the first opportunity
cheers
PDM    (01)


On 11/17/07, rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> All:
>
> Folks might enjoy the Soloman Feferman lecture Goedel, Nagel, Minds and
> Machines. After recounting an exchange between Godel and Nagel circa 1956,
> Feferman describes the implications of the minds vs. machines dichotomy
> ensuing from the exchange. To avoid the impass resulting from the dichotomy,
> Feferman proposes the redefinition of a formal system to an "open ended
> schematic axiomatic system." He claims this redefinition is a constructive
> step towards an "informative, systematic account at a theoretical level of
> how the mathematical mind works that squares with experience."  He stresses
> the importance of a subject neutral theory of operations with basic schemata
> for language, arithmetic, set theory that would amount to a version of an
> untyped lambda calculus. Feferman concludes by rejecting any effective
> machine representation of mind as contemplated by Nagel, Penrose & others.
>
> So, what does this mean to Common Logic and LBase ? Seems to me that efforts
> like Common Logic and LBase would either have to a) be defined within this
> type of an open ended system, let's say as the natural language description
> of the constraints to which the axioms that make up the theory of such a
> system would  adhere; or b) evolve into an open ended system that exhibits
> characteristics of transformation across languages, logics, models and
> theories.
>
> Rick
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>    (02)


-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************    (03)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>