ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:54:50 -0600
Message-id: <p06230901c3692321c4fb@[192.168.1.2]>
>Many Thanks, Paola. As John mentioned Feferman is quite well respected.
>You can find more about Fererman here: http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/
>
>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.
>
>               Logical Environment
>                       |
>       -----------------------------------------
>       |       |               |               |
>Languages    Logics         Models         Theories
>                                                  |
>                                       -----------------
>                                          |                |
>                                    Axiomatic    Natural Language
>                                                        |
>                                               -------------------
>                                               |                  |
>                                                LBASE         Common Logic
>
>I believe Feferman's open ended schematic system implies proposition b)
>and the evolution of formal systems towards logical environments.    (01)

I'm sorry, but none of this makes the slightest 
sense. Its fine to have opinions on ontologies, 
but if you want to make intelligible comments 
about matters like logics, models, theories and 
axioms, you really do need to have at least a 
smattering of knowledge about the basics of this 
rather technical area. Not knowing who Solomon 
Feferman is, for example, is rather like not 
knowing who Einstein is (and still setting out to 
classify physics, all the same.)    (02)

Pat Hayes    (03)

>
>Rick
>
>
>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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)


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (05)


_________________________________________________________________
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)

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