Any science of logic?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by Univalence » Mon May 20, 2019 11:07 pm

wtf wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:03 pm
You said brains compute but are not computers. What exactly do you mean by that? If brains are not computers but they compute, then they must do something IN ADDITION to computing. Is that your point?
I said I was trying to determine if Speakpigeon was looking for ontological answers. I was doing that because the word "computer" has the connotation of the PC on your desk and I am trying to avoid that being used as the referent for what a computer is. That's not what computation or computer means to me. Or at least, a model of the brain would be a complex distributed system which is nothing like your PC.

The computer on your desk is implementation detail of a particular model. A model that a mathematicians might call a Kleene realization , and what engineers call a transfer function.

I thought I already made it clear that I subscribe to a digital ontology/digital physics. To me the whole universe is a computer.

But you are also a little off-topic, because we are talking about minds, not brains. My premise is that "minds are what brains DO", and even if you don't subscribe to a digital ontology, I am happy to stop at metaphysics.

Logic is metaphysics

wtf
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by wtf » Mon May 20, 2019 11:46 pm

Univalence wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:07 pm
wtf wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:03 pm
You said brains compute but are not computers. What exactly do you mean by that? If brains are not computers but they compute, then they must do something IN ADDITION to computing. Is that your point?
I said I was trying to determine if Speakpigeon was looking for ontological answers. I was doing that because the word "computer" has the connotation of the PC on your desk and I am trying to avoid that being used as the referent for what a computer is. That's not what computation or computer means to me. Or at least, a model of the brain would be a complex distributed system which is nothing like your PC.

The computer on your desk is implementation detail of a particular model. A model that a mathematicians might call a Kleene realization , and what engineers call a transfer function.

I thought I already made it clear that I subscribe to a digital ontology/digital physics. To me the whole universe is a computer.

But you are also a little off-topic, because we are talking about minds, not brains. My premise is that "minds are what brains DO", and even if you don't subscribe to a digital ontology, I am happy to stop at metaphysics.

Logic is metaphysics
Still won't answer a simple question. Is there something wrong with you? Did you change your handle because I pointed out that you are a bullshit artist?

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by Univalence » Mon May 20, 2019 11:51 pm

wtf wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:46 pm
Still won't answer a simple question. Is there something wrong with you?
I answered your simple question in a great level of detail. Is there something wrong with my answer?

Is there something particular you expect to hear me say?
wtf wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:46 pm
Did you change your handle because I pointed out that you are a bullshit artist?
Oh. You did that? Please point me there so I can school you.

And no. Your commentary has zero significance to my life choices.

wtf
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by wtf » Mon May 20, 2019 11:57 pm

Univalence wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:51 pm
Oh. You did that? Please point me there so I can school you.

LOL.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by Univalence » Tue May 21, 2019 12:00 am

wtf wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:57 pm
Univalence wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:51 pm
Oh. You did that? Please point me there so I can school you.

LOL.
Lolwhat? Give me a link.

wtf
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by wtf » Tue May 21, 2019 12:58 am

Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 12:00 am
Lolwhat? Give me a link.
Don't want to fight with you. Thank you to the individual who clued me in to who you are. I was silly enough to have been concerned about you. Shows what a sucker I am underneath the cynical exterior.

I don't know if you have any clever ideas. You are unwilling or unable to communicate clearly and simply. You have read some homotopy type theory and a little computer science but I do not get the impression you have the ability to put much of it into context. When I probed a little around these areas in another thread you failed to convince me that you have the foggiest notion of what you're talking about; and that your tendency is to pretend you know things instead of admitting you don't. Of course the fault might lie totally on my side. I only state my opinion based on my interactions with you.

I'm not going to continue to ask the same question again. My last several posts this afternoon are perfectly clear.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by Univalence » Tue May 21, 2019 1:17 am

wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 12:58 am
I'm not going to continue to ask the same question again. My last several posts this afternoon are perfectly clear.
As were my answers. The intent behind my words was stated repeatedly. My answer was elucidated from multitude of view-points to allow you to get a better understanding of my perspective, so that you can choose an angle that is closer to what you are trying to get at.

When that didn’t work you repeated your question verbatim.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

That you blame this on my “unwillingness to communicate simply” shows how little you understand about communication and language synchronisation.

wtf
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by wtf » Tue May 21, 2019 1:47 am

Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 1:17 am
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

Well now we are in complete agreement.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by Univalence » Tue May 21, 2019 2:06 am

wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 1:47 am
Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 1:17 am
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

Well now we are in complete agreement.
And yet - you failed to take in any of my responses, digest them and attempt to communicate in what way they fell short of your expectations.

I am many things but a mind-reader isn’t one.

wtf
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by wtf » Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am

Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:06 am

And yet - you failed to take in any of my responses, digest them and attempt to communicate in what way they fell short of your expectations.

I am many things but a mind-reader isn’t one.
Ok, that's fair. Let me take a run at this post.
Univalence wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:07 pm
I said I was trying to determine if Speakpigeon was looking for ontological answers.
I'm not reading all the back and forth so it would be better if you just engage with me separately without assuming I'm up on all the other posts.

The issue on the table (for me at this moment) is your statement that the mind (ok I said brain earlier but hey, if you think the universe is a computer then why would you even think there's a difference) ... you said that the mind computes but is not a computer. I'm trying to discern if you mean:

* The mind computes but is not a computer because computation is ONE of the things it does, just as a washer-dryer dries clothes but is not exclusively a dryer; and that the mind might do some OTHER thing as well. In which case I ask what that other thing is. Like the washer-dryer also washes.

* Or ... well exactly what, I'm not sure. If the mind computes but is not a computer, what can that mean?
Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:06 am
I was doing that because the word "computer" has the connotation of the PC on your desk
Not to me.
Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:06 am
and I am trying to avoid that being used as the referent for what a computer is. That's not what computation or computer means to me. Or at least, a model of the brain would be a complex distributed system which is nothing like your PC.
I'm happy to stipulate that by computer we mean a Turing machine. Either an abstract one as in Turing 1936; or else a practical implementation exactly like the one on my lap. Do you agree that a computer is a TM? Or do you prefer a different definition and if so, what?
Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:06 am
The computer on your desk is implementation detail of a particular model. A model that a mathematicians might call a Kleene realization , and what engineers call a transfer function.
Are those different than Turing machines? Do they break the Church-Turing thesis?
Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:06 am
I thought I already made it clear that I subscribe to a digital ontology/digital physics. To me the whole universe is a computer.
Ok. But the claim that the universe is a computer is a metaphysical claim that is entirely separate from any particular aspect of math or computer science or physics.

And in any event, if you think that the universe is a computer then so is the mind; in which case why did you object to my interchanging brain with mind earlier? To you they should be exactly the same thing. Or if not, how are they different?
Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:06 am
But you are also a little off-topic, because we are talking about minds, not brains.
Yes my point exactly. I myself am perfectly happy to distinguish minds from brains. But I don't believe the worlds' a computer. If one does believe that, then how can they distinguish between minds and brains?
Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 2:06 am
My premise is that "minds are what brains DO", and even if you don't subscribe to a digital ontology, I am happy to stop at metaphysics.
Well even that is a metaphysical speculation. Some people think that minds are what brains do. Others think that minds are what computations do. There's no proof that our brains are digital computers and plenty of evidence that they're not.

But regardless, I'm not hung up on the brain/mind distinction. If I said brain when I should have said mind, I'm fine with that. I just want to know:

If the mind computes but is not a computer, what else is it doing that goes beyond computing?

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by Univalence » Tue May 21, 2019 8:24 am

wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
The issue on the table (for me at this moment) is your statement that the mind (ok I said brain earlier but hey, if you think the universe is a computer then why would you even think there's a difference) ... you said that the mind computes but is not a computer. I'm trying to discern if you mean.
Because I said 'the universe is a computer' I thought I had given you enough to deduce that everything within the universe computes also.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
* The mind computes but is not a computer because computation is ONE of the things it does, just as a washer-dryer dries clothes but is not exclusively a dryer; and that the mind might do some OTHER thing as well. In which case I ask what that other thing is. Like the washer-dryer also washes.

* Or ... well exactly what, I'm not sure. If the mind computes but is not a computer, what can that mean?
It means simply that I understand how the first sentence in the conversation frames the context of discussion, and once a frame is established it brings with it the concepts/language/discourse associated with that frame of mind. And since we are on a philosophy forum I wanted to make sure we are talking about what X DOES, not what X is. Because I am acutely aware of the ontological error of philosophy

That was it. You read too much into it.

I could've said "the brain is just a bunch of quarks, leptons and bosons" and then the conversation would've gone in a different direction.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
Not to me.
OK. Then the sentence "the mind computes but is not a computer " was not targeted at you.
To somebody who understands computation abstractly I wouldn't even utter it. I measure my language depending on my interlocutor's background knowledge.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
I'm happy to stipulate that by computer we mean a Turing machine. Either an abstract one as in Turing 1936; or else a practical implementation exactly like the one on my lap. Do you agree that a computer is a TM? Or do you prefer a different definition and if so, what?
Because you have a background in Mathematics I am happy to go even more abstract. Church's Lambda calculus is a generalization of TMs.

And perhaps this is the crux of my argument. If you can describe the behaviour/function of the system in terms of λ-calculus - it computes.
Which is why I am interested in HoTT at present, because everything about HoTT screams "computation".

Hell. Everything about Univalent Mathemeatics screams "computation": https://github.com/UniMath/UniMath
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
Are those different than Turing machines? Do they break the Church-Turing thesis?
The only difference is finite memory. Which, in turn, has implication on all the mathematics that follow when it comes to dealing with the Real numbers when we start making range/precision trade-offs, computational complexity, representational complexity (Kolmogorov) etc

But the language I used was targeted at the general public, who might find the idea that your mind is "just like the PC on your desk" rather unsettling and inhumane thing to say. For somebody with an identity crisis, and lack of theoretical grounding it can be a little unnerving.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
Ok. But the claim that the universe is a computer is a metaphysical claim that is entirely separate from any particular aspect of math or computer science or physics.
It stops being a separate issue the moment we attempt to describe it in language.
Our description of the universe (however incomplete) are computational in nature.
In fact, I can't fathom a Mathematical model of any kind that is not computational.

If you can describe it in Mathematics - it computes some consequences. Input/output.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
And in any event, if you think that the universe is a computer then so is the mind; in which case why did you object to my interchanging brain with mind earlier? To you they should be exactly the same thing. Or if not, how are they different?
I am merely trying to draw the line somewhere. When we talk about brains we bring in all the complexity of molecular biology and neuroscience to the table. Since we are dealing with "functional equivalence" I am trying to abstract it away unless absolutely necessary and focus on question like "What is the function of the mind?" and "Who decides and how if a particular machine is functionally equivalent to a mind?"

I am trying to extract a utility function.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
Yes my point exactly. I myself am perfectly happy to distinguish minds from brains. But I don't believe the worlds' a computer. If one does believe that, then how can they distinguish between minds and brains?
I can observe many brains. I can observe only one mind. I can communicate with many minds. I cannot communicate with any brains.

But it is precisely because it is difficult to draw a distinction between MY brain and MY mind is why I am trying to settle the "functional equivalence" question. What is the function of the mind exactly? I am happy to use "computation" as point of departure - if you have a more useful model, I am happy to hear it.

I am also happy with "if it can do what I do" then it's an accurate description of my mind. Speakpigeon seems to expects more (than functional equivalence) even though he claims that's sufficient. Apparently autonomous vehicles aren't doing what minds do.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
Well even that is a metaphysical speculation. Some people think that minds are what brains do. Others think that minds are what computations do.
If you subscribe to model-dependent realism it's ALL metaphysical speculation.
The model that you have chosen directly influences the language you use to speak about X. It's about utility, not truth. I am the epitome of a model-dependent realist - I Interpret everything through the framework of computation.

Despite its name, it's actually an anti-realist position. We have no direct access to reality - we only have models of reality.
When I say that "the mind is a computer" I can now go onto use all of the languages of computation to speak about the internal structures of my mind.

Such as describing my "stale beliefs" as cache invalidation problems.
Or saying that notion of God is a Null pointer.
Or talk about context switching in much more detail than its colloquial meaning.
Or use the models of distributed systems to talk about organisational/inter-human communication failures.

Or we can use the language/algorithms/strategies from error detection/correction to improve communication.

Metaphysical consensus is a bloody useful thing in a collaborative environment!

wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 am
There's no proof that our brains are digital computers and plenty of evidence that they're not.
Proof, eh? You mean the process of hypothesis-testing, the process of updating one's beliefs as new information arrives?
That's what we use Bayesian machine learning for...

If we are talking about functional equivalence - none of the above maters, we are necessarily talking about instrumentalism. If you can make a computational machine (digital, mechanical, quantum-mechanical, chemical or biological) that performs some task as well as the human mind does then you have described the logic of some part of the human mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)
In systems theory, a realization of a state space model is an implementation of a given input-output behavior.

wtf
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by wtf » Tue May 21, 2019 10:05 pm

double post
Last edited by wtf on Tue May 21, 2019 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wtf
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by wtf » Tue May 21, 2019 10:10 pm

Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 8:24 am

Because I said 'the universe is a computer' I thought I had given you enough to deduce that everything within the universe computes also.
Yes. You said the mind computes but is not a computer. That is your exact quote. What do you mean?

You are waving your hands about ontology but you are not making sense. If the mind computes but is not ONLY a computer, what else is it? What else does it do? If the universe is a computer how can the mind be anything else BUT a computer?

Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 8:24 am
Because you have a background in Mathematics I am happy to go even more abstract. Church's Lambda calculus is a generalization of TMs.
That's factually false. They're equivalent. Turing proved that. He had to, because Church had scooped him on the Entsheidungsproblem. I'm sure you must know this, and I can't understand why you would claim an utter falsehood.
Univalence wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 8:24 am
Which is why I am interested in HoTT at present, because everything about HoTT screams "computation".
Of course. Computer checking of proofs is the main driving force behind HOTT, at least from Voevodsky's point of view. You're just figuring this out?

But HOTT, just like any branch of math, is a symbolic system. It says nothing about the universe.

Without looking it up, can you tell me what a homotopy is?

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by Univalence » Wed May 22, 2019 12:38 am

wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 10:10 pm
Yes. You said the mind computes but is not a computer. That is your exact quote. What do you mean?
the mind computes but is not ONLY a computer, what else is it? What else does it do? If the universe is a computer how can the mind be anything else BUT a computer?
I explained it in the very next paragraph! I explained that the sentence was targeted at my interlocutor's understanding.

In the way you understand computation (abstractly) and what a computer is (Turing machine) it doesn't do anything else. It is all that it does.
In the way that a materialist/ontologist understands what a computer is (concretely) then your mind is not a computer. The most important reason as to why your mind is not a computer is because Boolean logic is not foundational. Neither is basic arithmetic for that matter!

But if you really want to be pedantic - it's not A computer in the way you understand it either. It's A distributed system.
And if you really REALLY want to be pedantic (because I am getting that sense from you) your computer is not a Turing machine either.
It's about 50 Turing machines. With a bunch of networks in between them.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 10:10 pm
That's factually false. They're equivalent. Turing proved that. He had to, because Church had scooped him on the Entsheidungsproblem. I'm sure you must know this, and I can't understand why you would claim an utter falsehood.
An UTTER FALSEHOOD. Well, now I am just convinced you are nitpicking. Because I didn't make any claims.

What I mean by the above is the syntax of Lambda calculus is more general and intuitive than Turing's instruction-set. I prefer it. It can also be typed, and we are talking about Type theory, and if we have to get down to code examples just about every modern language supports Lambda functions.

They may be functionally equivalent and Turing gets all the brownie points, but lambda calculus is more useful and readily available.

If you want to nitpick history - start another thread.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 10:10 pm
Of course. Computer checking of proofs is the main driving force behind HOTT, at least from Voevodsky's point of view. You're just figuring this out?
What I am "just figuring out" is that Mathematics is just programming. Had you asked me if I knew anything about theorem-proving 12 months ago I would've told you "no". Not knowing that I've proven thousands of theorems. They are just programs.

I've been proving theorems since I was 5 years old it turns out. And your inner pedant/idealist is welcome to nitpick on the fact that imperative languages aren't exactly dependent type systems. They are approximate enough.

But if you, geniuses, had figured it out "long before" - how come majority of mathematics are still verified by hand? Doesn't that take like - years?
And isn't it highly error-prone because - humans?
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 10:10 pm
But HOTT, just like any branch of math, is a symbolic system. It says nothing about the universe.
Obviously. Mathematical models are abstract.

But the models of applied computer science aren't. Real-time distributed systems aren't. They make contact with the ground.
wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 10:10 pm
Without looking it up, can you tell me what a homotopy is?
You keep expecting me to give you answers that one might find in the book of "obscure mathematical jargon". I can't do that (yet? ever?).
I told you that my intuitions are from computer science, so I can tell you what it means and why it's significant in my paradigm.

It's concurrent/parallel computing. What you call "continuous functions" and "space" I call threads with shared memory access.
Every time a mathematician talk about "spaces" all I hear is "memory"...

Everything I need to know about topology is 1300 lines of Type theory. https://github.com/UniMath/UniMath/blob ... Topology.v

I can extract the proofs into working programs.
Run them. Debug them. Study them empirically. Science of logic...

They are not "just symbols" anymore. They are programs. Spatial/temporal phenomena.
Last edited by Univalence on Wed May 22, 2019 3:14 am, edited 14 times in total.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Any science of logic?

Post by Univalence » Wed May 22, 2019 1:58 am

wtf wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 10:10 pm
But HOTT, just like any branch of math, is a symbolic system. It says nothing about the universe.
This is where you are wrong.

Any system for which we have a state-space model is an example of Mathematics saying something about the universe. It predicts how the system is going to behave.

I'll let you join the dots between state-space and finite state machine.

The moment you mention "time" in a Mathematical model it becomes physics. And computer science.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest