>Many Thanks, Paola. As John mentioned Feferman is quite well respected. (01)
Indeed. He is one of the most famous mathematical
logicians in the world. See for example
http://www.math.psu.edu/simpson/talks/feferfest/meeting.txt (02)
>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. (03)
Have you read the CL and Lbase documents? They
both give formal grammars and model theories of
versions of first-order logic. They say nothing
about axioms, they do not refer to "open ended
schematic systems" (whatever those are: what ARE
they, by the way?), they do not describe
"constraints", and they are written as much in
the language of mathematics as in natural
language. And they both describe logics.
(Strictly, CL is a family of logics with a common
abstract syntax, but the point still applies.) (04)
> 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. (05)
What do you mean by a "logical environment"? (06)
BTW, the use of 'ascii-art' as in the above is
best restricted to a non-proportional font. Your
diagram is broken in any font I can find to view
it in. However, since it places CL and Lbase
under something other than 'Logics' (I'm not sure
if its under 'Axiomatic' or "Natural Language'),
it is wrong, since these are in fact both logics. (07)
Pat (08)
>
>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
> (09)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|