computers (in fact the programmes that run on computers)
are designed to function with strict formalisms
because that's the only way we (okay not me) have been able to make
them work to date (01)
well done guys, because surely I would have not been able to do that
(still amazed but the beauty of the machines ) (02)
knowledge however is different from 'pure data', althoug
(knowledge has_a data component too) (03)
knowledge requires different formalisms, and that's what we are
trying to find out (04)
here we are discussing how to design applications layers that can
function using natural language and heuristic reasoning (05)
you want to call that 'guessing'? fine by me
scientists and even medical doctors build careers on 'guessing' how
something works, before they formalize such guesses into algorithms
and formulas that
cab be standardized and re-used (06)
how knowledge is produced and used is different from sheer numerical
computation (07)
PDM (08)
On Feb 2, 2008 8:23 AM, Randall R Schulz <rschulz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday 01 February 2008 17:03, John F. Sowa wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > For deep reasoning, I would insist on a representation in formal
> > logic. But for commonsense reasoning, I believe that formal
> > deduction is not necessary.
>
> How does the moniker "common-sense" become an epithet for non-formal
> reasoning?
>
> Frankly, what is it that can be captured in a digital computer that is
> anything _but_ formal? Computers execute deterministic programs. When
> the algorithms are non-deterministic, they suffer the consequences
> of "guessing" until a ... (I was going to use the "f...t..l" word!)
> successful result is obtained.
>
> I think it's quite curious that we're talking about anything that is
> _not_ formal. Whatever that may be, it is of no consequence in the
> fabrication of digital information systems. We fundamentally cannot
> write programs that are anything other than encodings of formal
> systems!
>
> (Whether this will change when we have quantum computers, I don't know,
> but that is, presumably, neither here nor there in this discussion.)
>
>
> > Case-based reasoning using analogies
> > from very large resources, such as the WWW, is simpler and faster.
> > Furthermore, it can take advantage of much, much larger resources
> > than Cyc without requiring all the effort of defining large
> > ontologies or writing XML tags.
>
> No matter what, if they use algorithms, they're deterministic and
> formally expressible
>
> Now, while it's true that a snippet of procedural code in an everyday
> language such as C or Java can have a voluminous FOL representation,
> the fact remains that Turing machines are formal things and all
> computations we can today carry out are Turing-equivalent.
>
> If you cannot formalize it, you cannot compute it!
>
>
> > John
>
>
> Randall Schulz
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (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)
|