RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
January 17, 2017 at 12:00 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2017 at 12:07 pm by emjay.)
(January 17, 2017 at 11:44 am)Khemikal Wrote: In the exceedingly specific way that I've been using the term truth, yeah, it'd be a conflation. I think it's useful to separate what is true from what is accurate for precisely that reason. We can possess an accurate conclusion without that conclusion being a product of logical processes. Similarly, the operation of a computational architecture might conform to the rules of boolean algebra but -not- the rules of propositional logic.
I would be very, very surprised to find that our minds conformed to the rules of propositional logic, the standard of truth, whereas I would not be suprised to find that our minds conformed to the standards of machine logic...which are exceedingly capable of providing accuracy. The two might dovetail nicely around any given "what", but it would be a mistake to draw inferences or analogies about the one as though they uniformly extended to the other. They do not.
Wish they were, though, then we wouldn't need to wonder about anything, we could build a legitimate truth machine, lol. A calculator could provide us with the answers to the deepest questions of life.
Nonetheless, the results of our reasoning process are represented in the system, as is the process itself, so however it arrives at the conclusion - the process of propositional logic - whether computationally as you imagine it or neurally as I imagine it, it gets there or at least it can get there (to truth). So just understanding that process, from either of our perspectives, might lead to such a (hypothetical) truth machine or at least to us fully understanding what truth is.
