Many Thanks, Paola. As John mentioned Feferman is quite well respected.
You can find more about Fererman here: http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/ (01)
Given the current structure of CL & LBase, I believe proposition a) is
where CL & LBase are now: a natural language description of the
constraints to which the axioms of an open ended schematic system would
adhere. Proposition b) presumes that we structure a logical environemt
as illustrated below. (02)
Logical Environment
|
-----------------------------------------
| | | |
Languages Logics Models Theories
|
-----------------
| |
Axiomatic Natural Language
|
-------------------
| |
LBASE Common Logic (03)
I believe Feferman's open ended schematic system implies proposition b)
and the evolution of formal systems towards logical environments. (04)
Rick (05)
paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|