| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v8m97s$obh8$2@solani.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: Ok I made a joke, sorry (Was: 2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 23:59:24 +0200 Message-ID: <v8m97s$obh8$2@solani.org> References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v8e5u2$k6gf$1@solani.org> <v8f2pk$20jil$1@dont-email.me> <v8m4kh$ofe2$1@solani.org> <v8m7bt$oaq1$1@solani.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 21:59:24 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: solani.org; logging-data="798248"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:OdVRF0E4Z/sviNLtdwQUlwOndEQ= X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXnNAyzqG6/n/CEgQfnkqCCcMVscPyG9AasLeUmZON9XHrimO3sDIqR5vudvEzQvfUD0cnFZ4= In-Reply-To: <v8m7bt$oaq1$1@solani.org> Bytes: 7840 Lines: 164 BTW: Friedrich Ueberweg is quite good and funny to browse, he reports relatively unfiltered what we would nowadays call forms of "rational behaviour", so its a little pot purry, except for his sections where he explains some schemas, like the Aristotelan figures, which are more pure logic of the form. And peng you get a guy talking pages and pages about pure and form: "Pure" logic, ontology, and phenomenology David Woodruff Smith https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm But the above is a from species of philosophy that is endangered now. Its predator are abstractions on the computer like lambda calculus and the Curry Howard isomorphism. The revue has become an irrelevant cabarett, only dead people would be interested in, like may father, grandfather etc... Mild Shock schrieb: > > My impression Cognitive Science was never > Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke. > > The time scale, its start in 1950s and that > it is still relative unknown subject, > > would explain: > - why my father or mother never tried to > educated me towards cognitive science. > It could be that they are totally blank > in this respect? > > - why my grandfather or grandmothers never > tried to educate me towards cognitive > science. Dito It could be that they are totally > blank in this respect? > > - it could be that there are rare cases where > some philosophers had already a glimps of > cognitive science. But when I open for > example this booklet: > > System der Logic > Friedrich Ueberweg > Bonn - 1868 > https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL > > One can feel the dry swimming that is reported > for several millennia. What happened in the > 1950s was the possibility of computer modelling. > > Mild Shock schrieb: >> Hi, >> >> Yes, maybe we are just before a kind >> of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive >> Turn is characterized as: >> >>> The cognitive revolution was an intellectual movement that began in >>> the 1950s as an interdisciplinary study of the mind and its >>> processes, from which emerged a new field known as cognitive science. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution >> >> The current mainstream believe is that >> Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly >> based on "Machine Learning", whereas >> >> most of the progress is more based on >> "Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical >> about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist >> >> is again lurking. In the worst case the >> no Bayension Brain shock will come with a >> Technological singularity in that the current >> >> short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by >> some long inferencing, like here: >> >> A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a >> logical reasoning benchmark as a side project. >> Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘, >> designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles. >> https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705 >> >> making it possible not to excell by LLMs >> in such puzzles, but to advance to more >> elaborate scientific models, that can somehow >> >> overcome fallacies such as: >> - Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies >> caused by averaging? >> - Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning, >> some fallacies by consistency assumptions? >> - What else? >> >> So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord >> of science which we will happily depend on. >> >> Jeff Barnett schrieb: >>> You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have we lost contact with >>> the primary studies of knowledge and reasoning, we have also lost >>> contact with the studies of methods and motivation. Psychology was >>> the basic home room of Alan Newell and many other AI all stars. What >>> is now called AI, I think incorrectly, is just ways of exercising >>> large amounts of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates >>> to correlations and other statistical approximations. >>> >>> The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we learn nothing >>> about the capturing of knowledge, what it is, or how it is used. Both >>> logic and heuristic reasoning are needed and we certainly believe >>> that intelligence is not measured by its ability to discover "truth" >>> or its infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process was >>> pure genius but known to produce fallacious results when you know >>> what Einstein knew at a later time. >>> >>> I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about MYCIN (an >>> early AI medical consultant for diagnosing blood-borne infectious >>> diseases) where I learned about one use of the term "staff disease", >>> or just "staff" for short. In patient care areas there always seems >>> to be an in-house infection that changes over time. It changes >>> because sick patients brought into the area contribute whatever is >>> making them sick in the first place. In the second place there is >>> rapid mutations driven by all sorts of factors present in >>> hospital-like environments. The result is that the local staff is >>> varying, literally, minute by minute. In a days time, the samples you >>> took are no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be >>> meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is that probability >>> theory doesn't really have the tools to make predictions when the >>> basic probabilities are changing faster than observations can be >>> turned into inferences. >>> >>> Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities here? Because >>> new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation to simulate probabilistic >>> inference, e.g., Bayesian inference. Since actual probabilities may >>> not exist in any meaningful ways, the simulations are often based on >>> air. >>> >>> A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to explain how >>> we arrived at our conclusions. We are also able to repair our inner >>> models when we are in error if we can understand why. The abilities >>> to explain and repair are fundamental to excellence of thought >>> processes. By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have >>> theses reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between. >>> However, any AI that doesn't have some of these capabilities isn't >>> very interesting. >>> >>> For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human >>> ability to reasonably reason, see >>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html >>> >>> >>> -- Jeff Barnett >> >> >