(January 17, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I think we both agree on hat, that tjhe results are represented in the system. The process itself is represented in the system. There's no inherent difference between "nuerally" and "computationally" either.
The trouble, from my perspective, is not understanding what truth is (because I take an exceedingly reductionist and systemic view of it, rigidly conforming to the system and refusing to extrapolate beyond the boundary of that system). Truth, in my view, self describes as the product of valid arguments supplied with sound propositions. The trouble is generating sound propositions. That's the only potential unknown in my view of truth. If you have them, the rest is systematic, understood, downright simple. If you don't, you have nothing.
Yeah we do agree on that and yeah, I didn't phrase that very well about the difference between computation as you mean it and as how I mean it... maybe there is no difference in the end, just different ways of picturing it.
Fair enough. So the question is how are propositions generated? And that can come from a little bit of both sides of our processing equipment; from intuition and pattern recognition on the statistical side (i.e our irrational, emotional side), and reasoning on the logical side... so I like your use of the term 'dovetails' because I agree... the two sides work together in harmony to zero in on truth.
