Comment by gibsonf1
9 days ago
The error with that is that human reasoning is not mathematical. Math is just one of the many tools of reason.
9 days ago
The error with that is that human reasoning is not mathematical. Math is just one of the many tools of reason.
Intransitive preferences is well known to experimental economists, but a hard pill to swallow for many, as it destroys a lot of algorithms (which depends on that) and require more robust tools like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
> just one of the many tools of reason.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_(economics)#Transit... then read https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7058914/ and you will see there's a lot of data suggesting that indeed, it's just one of the many tools!
I think it's similar to how many dislike the non-deterministic output of LLM: when you use statistical tools, a non-deterministic output is a VERY nice feature to explore conceptual spaces with abductive reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
It's a tool I was using at a previous company, mixing LLMs, statistics and formal tools. I'm surprised there aren't more startups mixing LLM with z3 or even just prolog.
Thanks for the links, the "tradeoff" aspect of paraconsistent logic is interesting. I think one way to achieve consensus with your debate partner might be to consider that the language rep is "just" a nondeterministic decompression of "the facts". I'm primed to agree with you but
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41892090
(It's very common, esp. with educationally traumatized Americans, e.g., to identify Math with "calculation"/"approved tools" and not "the concepts")
"No amount of calculation will model conceptual thinking" <- sounds more reasonable?? (You said you were ok with nondeterministic outputs? :)
Sorry to come across as patronizing
if conceptual thinking is manipulating abstract concepts after having been given concrete particulars, I'd say it relies heavily upon projection, which, as generalised "K" (from SKI), sounds awfully like calculation.
2 replies →
Did you read the slide? It doesn't make the argument you are responding to, you just seem to have been prompted by "Math".
A more generous take on the previous post is that the dominant paradigm of Math (consistent logic, which depends on many things like transitive preference) is wrong, and that another type of Math could work.
If you look at the slide, the subtree of correct answers exists, what's missing is just a way to make them more prevalent instead of less.
Personally, I think LeCun is just leaping to the wrong conclusion because he's sticking to the wrong tools for the job.
My point is no type of math will work to model reason. Math is one of the many tools of reason, it is not the basis for reason. This is a very common error.
5 replies →
A less generous take would be that humans are also stoichastic parrots that can't help themselves but say something when they see a trigger word like math, Trump, transgender, or abortion.