Comment by gsf_emergency_2
10 days ago
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.
And this is why I think gibson1 is wrong: we can argue about which projections or systems of logic should be used, concepts are still "calculations".
Here is why I think Gibson could in principle still be right (without necessarily summoning religious feelings)
[if we disregard that he said "concepts are key" -- though we can be yet more charitable and assume that he doesn't accept (median) human-level intelligence as the final boss]
(I haven't thought this through, just vibe-calculating, as it were, having pondered the necessity of concrete particulars for a split-second)
(More on that "sophistiKated" aspect of "projeKtion": turns out not to be as idiosynKratic as I'd presumed, but I traded bandwidth for immediacy here, so I'll let GP explain why that's interesting, if he indeed finds it is :)
Wolfram (selfstyled heir to Leibniz/Galois) seems to be serving himself a fronthanded compliment:
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/12/combinators-a-ce...
>What I called a “projection” then is what we’d call a function now; a “filter” is what we’d now call an argument )