• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Induction and Deduction

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
dissonance,

Think in terms of natural selection. What good would a brain be if it were a perfect deduction machine? Perhaps it would have some use, but would have a major disadvantage--all the right premises woud have to be "built in". Imagine that this kind of brain evolves, but some mistakes creep into the system i.e. occassionally the information copying processes make mistakes a create something novel (analogous to genetic mutations). Sometimes these ideas will be flawed, even hazardous, but from time to time they might actually be improvements, good ideas, and worth keeping. Eventually natural selection begins selecting for brains which make these "mistakes", and moreover, for cognitive apparatus which deal with and evaluate them.

Some billion years later, brains are systematically making "mistakes", and calling them inductions, abductions, or more accurately, good guesses.

Looks like you're finally saying a similar thing to what I'm saying.

It doesn't look like you entirely got my point, though.

I don't know if I have the energy to fully explain it without gesture and other non-verbal communication. That's why I'm always frustrated with these threads. Bah.

One last try: those "mistakes" are still reached through deduction. It's our premises that are contradictory to each other; the conclusions are always logically valid, just not always sound.

How our consciousness interprets this process is an entirely different story, not one I'm talking about.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
One last try: those "mistakes" are still reached through deduction. It's our premises that are contradictory to each other, the conclusions are always logically valid, just not always sound.
The "mistakes" need not arise from any contradiction, for example, inductive inference is invalid, but not contradictory. In any case, I am not sure what you mean by 'those "mistakes" are still reached through deduction'; they are created by a process, but since the content of the conclusion goes beyond the premises, there does not seem to be anything deductive about them (that is, there is extra content which cannot be reduced to anything which came before). Indeed, without some method of generating new ideas (mutations), learning (evolution) could not take place.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
(that is, there is extra content which cannot be reduced to anything which came before)

That "extra content" is not actually extra. It's included in the premises, we just aren't consciously aware of all of the premises. So we call it induction.

My point is that conclusions are ALWAYS reducible to premises, even if we don't consciously know what those premises are.

There is nothing non-deterministic in our brains; how then, could they generate "mutations" or anything like that?

Again, a valid deduction is:
A->B
A
Therefore B

This is deduction (or call it something else if you have problems with the definition) whether or not we are consciously aware of the premises. Say "A->B" is stored unconsciously and "A" is stored consciously. We will (deductively) conclude B, and call it a "guess" or "inductive" (because we do not know that we know "A->B").
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
I think CC had a good point. I find that a lot of the times the stronger my deductive abilities are the more accurate my inductive reasoning skills become. Granted I haven't taken any philosophy classes so pardon me on some of the more technical terms, but it seems the more i'm aware of the "unconscious premises" dissonance talks about the stronger and tighter my inductive reasoning.

I think I've always sort of had questions similar to dissonance especially in regards to the computational deductive processes of computers and how that makes it hard to replicate human deterministic thought because of induction. I think the trouble is we often times valuate the importance or weight of these unconscious premises in differing and hard to trace ways and then form conclusions based on this. I think that the synthesis analogy is like trying to recreate these premises in a way that new conclusions can be drawn. The pool of premises we choose from whether conscious or not is still vitally important, we just choose to deduce based on the weight we place on each one.

pardon me if that wasn't very clear, its still a topic i'm trying to become more familiar with.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
I think CC had a good point. I find that a lot of the times the stronger my deductive abilities are the more accurate my inductive reasoning skills become. Granted I haven't taken any philosophy classes so pardon me on some of the more technical terms, but it seems the more i'm aware of the "unconscious premises" dissonance talks about the stronger and tighter my inductive reasoning.

I think I've always sort of had questions similar to dissonance especially in regards to the computational deductive processes of computers and how that makes it hard to replicate human deterministic thought because of induction. I think the trouble is we often times valuate the importance or weight of these unconscious premises in differing and hard to trace ways and then form conclusions based on this. I think that the synthesis analogy is like trying to recreate these premises in a way that new conclusions can be drawn. The pool of premises we choose from whether conscious or not is still vitally important, we just choose to deduce based on the weight we place on each one.

pardon me if that wasn't very clear, its still a topic i'm trying to become more familiar with.

Furthermore, the question of the"weights" we put on the premises (if you want to put it that way), can also be thought of as deductively chosen as long as other premises lead to the choosing of them.

As in, there is a hierarchical web of premises that pick the ones "lower" on the web.

You can also think of learning in the same way. There are learning algorithms that determine where new concepts are put into the web -- those can also be thought of as a set of premises applied deductively to the new concept.

The way I think about it is, you're genetically programmed with a few basic premises (including learning mechanisms -- premises to be used in application to new concepts, rules of metaphor if you will). Each piece of data you are exposed to is fit into the web of concepts you have so far (a piece of data can even be a new learning algorithm, it's like a Universal Turing Machine). Throughout life, you keep building this concept web until it's ridiculously complex (not that it doesn't start complex, you start with mechanisms for vision and stuff like that that are incredibly intricate).

Anyway, some of the data you will be exposed to is inconsistent with the current structure of the web, so there also have to be learning mechanisms for resolving stuff like that.

But the whole system is entirely deterministic; it runs exactly like a computer program.

Each "new" idea (induction, intuition, guess, whatever you want to call it) is an exact result of a deductive calculation in your brain somewhere. "Incorrect deductions" are not logically invalid, they are only logically unsound. As in, the deductive process MUST go according to laws -- the conclusion must follow from the premises. The premises are the actual problem -- they can be inconsistent or untrue (don't correspond to reality).

Our consciousness is merely an observer of this phenomena -- it makes up a story for what it sees. The story may or not correspond to exactly what's happening on the hardware level. Some of the premises are entirely hidden, in other words. So instead of calling it "deduction" with premises we don't have access to, we come up with a different term to describe it. Intuition, or guess, or whatever.

The consciousness usually assumes that the fact that conclusions are sometimes incorrect means there's something fuzzy about the calculations. There's some imperfection in the brain, or there's something fundamentally different between the brain and any other information processing machine. This is not accurate. The consciousness program just doesn't have enough inputs or computing power to accurately explain other brain phenomena.

Meh.

My point is, there is nothing fundamentally different between brains and computers. They are both machines capable of deduction and deduction only. The labels "induction" "guess" and "intuition" are just our ways of describing deductive processes that we can't fully see.
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
That makes sense to me. The question that's really interesting to me would be how do you account for the benefits of what we call "inductive" or "intuitive" reasoning on a computer level. Basically, there are a lot of creative and ingenious ideas that are borne of that type of thinking and to me it would seem hard to replicate on a computer level. How would we sort of put the barriers( the deductive processes that we can't see) in a computers reasoning so they can also reap the benefits of creative thought and ingenuity.

To go back to CC's point how do you sort of put a value on the ability to synthesize, we all know computers can deduce or analyze with the best of them. It seems to me more valuable and challenging to synthesize information in to something novel than to analyze something to perfection, which is what we would be doing if we could see all the deductive processes that occured.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
That makes sense to me. The question that's really interesting to me would be how do you account for the benefits of what we call "inductive" or "intuitive" reasoning on a computer level. Basically, there are a lot of creative and ingenious ideas that are borne of that type of thinking and to me it would seem hard to replicate on a computer level. How would we sort of put the barriers( the deductive processes that we can't see) in a computers reasoning so they can also reap the benefits of creative thought and ingenuity.

To go back to CC's point how do you sort of put a value on the ability to synthesize, we all know computers can deduce or analyze with the best of them. It seems to me more valuable and challenging to synthesize information in to something novel than to analyze something to perfection, which is what we would be doing if we could see all the deductive processes that occured.

Right, that's the problem. It seems obvious that there is some computational process going on in things like induction or intuition, but it's gotta be insanely complex (tons of lines of code, and an insanely giant and intricately linked data structure).

That's sort of what computational cognitive scientists are trying to do, but we're quite far off. (I'm in the cognitive science major at Cal with some of the top names in the field, and have heard lectures from a bunch of them...)

But yeah, that's the problem right there. All we can do is try some code out and see if it matches human behavior, then modify in the right direction and repeat. Theories in cognitive science make it much easier, but we still don't have very well defined ideas of how all these things relate to each other.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Oh, and dissonance, when I am not feeling so under slept and groggy, I most certainly will have a thing or two to say about your theories on the human brain.

;)
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Different approach:
-Computers are only capable of deduction
-The brain is a computer
-Therefore the brain is only capable of deduction
The brain is a computer...

LOL!!!!

More like the computer is a product of man, and more specifically, of man's brain. I agree, that it is an iteration of nature, all manufactured goods are, but it is not, nor will ever be as intricately complex as the real thing, that being the natural source, which in this case would be the human brain.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Some of our brains compute things.

dissonance's deduction is totally F'd though.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Yeah it seems like very few people are understanding what I'm talking about.

@CC -- the brain is an information processing machine. All particles or atoms that make it up are subject to laws of physics. Nothing "funny" can go on.

It can be thought of as a specific kind of computer.

To use the argument that humans made computers so they can't be them doesn't make any sense. I'm talking about the concept of computer, not the current physical manifestations.

A question for you, CC. What do you think of this line of reasoning?
The brain is made up of atoms
Those atoms follow physical laws
Each atom can be thought of as having functional (input/output) relations
The brain is therefore an information processing machine that has ONLY functional relations (one for each atom in this metaphor)
So if we were to hypothetically simulate each of those functions on a computer (all input/output relations the exact same, including reaction time, body movement, etc.), do you think
a) the computer can't think, it is merely an automaton.
b) the computer literally thinks, because thinking is defined as a certain complex input/output relation (my interpretation).

Another question in a similar line of reasoning:
How do you know that other people think? You don't have access to the inner workings of their body. You don't know if they're made of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen or synthetic materials. If, hypothetically, there was a man-made computer inside of them, but artificial skin that looked the same, how would you tell the difference? Couldn't everyone in the world besides you just be a machine? Where I'm going is this: you define them as "thinking" and "feeling" beings because they respond in certain ways to stimulus. That is your definition of thinking and feeling. Or sentience.

So if a computer had the same input output relations, would it not literally think?
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
The brain is a computer...

LOL!!!!
@U!

It is. If you disagree, you're wrong. It really truly is that simple. It's not an analogy, it's fucking plain truth: Brain = Computer.

More like the computer is a product of man
And, consequently, as well as naturally, evolution.
I agree, that it is an iteration of nature, all manufactured goods are, but it is not, nor will ever be as intricately complex as the real thing
Well... that's true, but Nintendo made the Wii backwards compatible. How'ja know God didn't?

In any case, you're deluding yourself.
that being the natural source, which in this case would be the human brain.
You've a lot of (ungrounded) faith in that digital, electrical mechanism stored up in that bone bowl of yours don't you?
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
It is. If you disagree, you're wrong. It really truly is that simple. It's not an analogy, it's fucking plain truth: Brain = Computer.

Lol proof by assertion, try justifying yourself just a little bit, statements like this piss me off. "Its plain fucking truth", wow, don't you wish it was that easy for every argument? Try not saying that ever again please, it will do you alot of good. "Its not an analogy", really.. cmon, you're not that stupid are you?

Computer ~(similar to, not equal) Brain. Why? Because we made it that way, but it will never possess certain attributes that a Brain has so you can never call it a true brain. Computers possess the logical/mathematical/data processing aspects of the brain but not much else, the brain contains these as well (not quite as good or as fast) and also has many other functions (you should be able to think of a few, and also being able to asking yourself what a brain can do shows a large difference between the brain and a computer). Also that whole thing about a Brain being made of Living material while a Computer is made of Non-Living material does not allow you to state them as Equal. Also, brains require fuel, energy from what we eat, and this we can obtain for ourselves (given that we are not in infant stage, its only fair to not bring that up because computers are never in an infant stage). Computers cannot operate like that, they require electricity that they cannot obtain for themselves, sure we can slap a solar panel on it or something like that, but it Initially has no fuel, we have to initially give it its fuel (then depending on the computer it may be able to get power for itself after its already up and running). Brains also develop over time, they grow and change. You can turn a computer on and off arbitrarily. You can only turn off a brain once (except for in extreme circumstances where doctors manage to get it back on).

Computers Imitate brains, they are not brains.

And, consequently, as well as naturally, evolution.

Just because we were spawned from Evolution, and we made Computers, doesn't necessarily mean that Computers are a spawn of Evolution. You essentially stated that Computers can be a Natural product of Evolution. Computers cannot come into existence by themselves, they are made of complex machinery that are unchanging unless we act upon them. However, give a cell a few billion years and its amazing what it can do.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
There is nothing non-deterministic in our brains; how then, could they generate "mutations" or anything like that?
Again I refer you to the distinction between causal reasons and logical reasons. I think that you are conflating the two.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Again I refer you to the distinction between causal reasons and logical reasons. I think that you are conflating the two.

We're getting caught up in the limits of words here.

Forget inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

I'm talking about deductive processes.

Here's an example of inductive reasoning --
The light is on
Therefore the switch is up

This is, by definition, inductive reasoning. I get that. But it can ALSO be represented as a deductive process with the following hidden premises:
"Of the times lights have been on -- 90% of the time, the switch is up"
"If there's a 90% chance of something, assume it's true"

Combine those premises with the premise that "the light is on", and you can deductively conclude that the switch is up. Based on ALL of the premises, the conclusion 100% follows.

Yes, we call it inductive reasoning. I get that definition. It is ALSO a deductive process.

My argument is that for every single "guess" or "intuition" or "induction" or whatever, you can figure out extra premises until the "new" information deductively follows from all the premises. The definitions for "guess" or whatever still hold; they're still true. I'm just saying that those PROCESSES can be thought of as deductive.

Our consciousness of all the premises is irrelevant to my argument.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Lol proof by assertion, try justifying yourself just a little bit
I have. In another thread. How about, instead, you research my proposition.

You're not a publishing firm -- I don't have to prove shit to you. I'm offering an idea, not appealing to your approval.

statements like this piss me off.
Well that's not far from idiotic. If I'm right, regardless of whether or not I've justified myself, I'm still right.

"Its plain fucking truth", wow, don't you wish it was that easy for every argument? Try not saying that ever again please, it will do you alot of good. "Its not an analogy", really.. cmon, you're not that stupid are you?
Are you? I'm goddamn right. Look it up if you don't believe me, but don't try to shove off a bunch of proofing responsibilities on to me. If you wanna know the truth, you'll hear what I have to say, and check to see if it's true. If it's not, then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

Computer ~(similar to, not equal) Brain. Why? Because we made it that way, but it will never possess certain attributes that a Brain has so you can never call it a true brain.
Did I?
Computers possess the logical/mathematical/data processing aspects of the brain but not much else
Everything in the brain is done by digital logic. You're confusing conscious reasoning with specific minute synapse reaction.

And you're calling me dumb...
Also that whole thing about a Brain being made of Living material while a Computer is made of Non-Living material does not allow you to state them as Equal.
Living material? Do you think the molecules in a brain have different qualities of those in a computer? It's all electrons and protons. So a brain biodegreades more quickly. That's only because there are bacteria who use the same atoms in their own life. If we had silicone based life forms, we'd have to worry about our semiconductors being eaten too.

Living material...
Also, brains require fuel, energy from what we eat, and this we can obtain for ourselves (given that we are not in infant stage, its only fair to not bring that up because computers are never in an infant stage). Computers cannot operate like that, they require electricity that they cannot obtain for themselves, sure we can slap a solar panel on it or something like that, but it Initially has no fuel
And just where do you think we got our fuel from? It had to come from somewhere -- think: Womb. Womb is a factory, which fills up the battery charge.
we have to initially give it its fuel (then depending on the computer it may be able to get power for itself after its already up and running). Brains also develop over time, they grow and change.
So because a computer isn't equipped with a billion years of self-repair functions, it can't share a verb?
You can turn a computer on and off arbitrarily. You can only turn off a brain once (except for in extreme circumstances where doctors manage to get it back on).
That we know of currently. But actually, if you know anything about physics, you know that there is a way to restart a brain, we just haven't figured out precisely how to do it, probably because it's just really really hard/complicated.


Computers Imitate brains, they are not brains.
PCs imitate part of a brain. The brain is a computer.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
You essentially stated that Computers can be a Natural product of Evolution. Computers cannot come into existence by themselves

Neither could humans.

they are made of complex machinery that are unchanging unless we act upon them.

Interesting definition of unchanging you're using. Everything your computer does is a physical change in its internal system.

Additionally, we can program learning algorithms into computers -- they rewrite their own programming based on data and calculated trends.

We could attach a camera to a computer and have it change things about its programming based on that input.

We could attach a microphone, blah blah.

You get my point (I hope).

We are computers (in the broad sense of the word -- information processing machines) with specific kinds of input systems, and specific kinds of processing algorithms.

Computers and humans need energy -- we could conceivably make a machine that extracted chemicals out of similar kinds of food, and moves around the environment seeking out those kinds of food (it would be incredibly hard, but definitely not theoretically impossible).

Plus, if you actually listened to my "everything is a deductive process" argument, you could hopefully see how even intuition could be programmed into a computer.

Again, how would you argue that the brain is capable of something that a computer is literally incapable of doing? I'd like an example of a process that can not be thought of as input/output relations.

However, give a cell a few billion years and its amazing what it can do.

Our race has been "programmed" by our surroundings. A computer is programmed by its surroundings...
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
To sort of take this thread in a different direction, how would we sort of prematurely describe the N or S web of premises?

Is it possible that different modes of deduction are at play with each of the perceiving functions?

I say premature because I'm not necessarily interested in a clear distinct "it would be represented by them choosing this path and concluding with this" but more so how would they approach the method of "induction" or if their can't be anything drawn from that maybe instead intelligence.

It seems when you are in conversation with someone who is obviously extremely intelligent they have this exceptional ability to see what seems like impossible premises and from there deduce a very clear and concise conclusion. I think that to me was a good way at sort of seeing how induction really seems to just be a deductive process just manifested in a different way.
 
Top