WADLISP7@CARLETON.BITNET (walter roberson) (10/29/86)
Gilbert Cockton <mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!aimmi!gilbert@seismo.css.gov> recently wrote: >This is contentious and smacks of modelling all learning procedures >in terms of a single subject, i.e. mathematics. I can't think of a >more horrible subject to model human understanding on, given the >inhumanity of most mathematics! The inhumanity of *most* mathematics? I would think that from the rest of your message, what you would really claim is the inhumanity of *all* mathematics -- for *all* of mathematics is entirely deviod of the questions of what is morally right or morally wrong, entirely missing all matters of human relationships. Mathematical theorems start by listing the assumptions, and then indicating how those assumptions imply a result. Many humans seem to devote their entire lifes to forcibly changing other people's assumptions (and not always for the better!); most people don't seem to care about this process. Mathematics, then, could be said to be the study of single points, where "real life" requires that humans be able to adapt to a line or perhaps something even higher order.| And yet that does not render mathematics "inhumane", for we humans must always react to the single point that is "now", and we *do* employ mathematics to guide us in that reaction. Thus, mathematics is not inhumane at all -- at worst, it is a subclass of "humanity". If you prefer to think if it in such terms, this might be expressed as " !! Humanity encompasses something Universal!" Perhaps, though, there should be a category of study devoted to modelling the transformation of knowledge as the very assumptions change. A difficult question, of course, is whether such a study should attempt to, in any way, model the "morality" of changing assumptions. I would venture that it should not, but that a formal method of measuring the effects of such changes would not be out of order. ----- Gilbert, as far as I can tell, you have not presented anything new in your article. Unless I misunderstand you completely, your entire arguement is based upon the premise that there is something special about life that negates the possibility of life being modelled by any formal system, no matter how complex. As I personally consider that it might be possible to do such a modelling note that I don't say that it *is* possible to do such a modelling|, I disregard the entire body of your arguements. The false premise implies all conclusions. ----- >Nearer to home, find me >one computer programmer who's understanding is based 100% on formal procedures. >Even the most formal programmers will be lucky to be in program-proving mode >more than 60% of the time. So I take it that they don't `understand' what >they're doing the other 40% of the time? I'm not quite sure what you mean to imply by "program-proving mode". The common use of the word "prove" would imply "a process of logically demonstrating that an already-written program is correct". The older use of "prove" would imply "a process of attempting to demonstrate that an already- written program is incorrect." In either case, the most formal of programmers spend relatively little time in "program-proving mode", as those programmers employ formal systems to write programs which are correct in the first place. It is only those that either do not understand programming, or do not understand all the implications of the assumptions they have programmed, that require 60% of their time to "prove" their programs. 60% of their time proving to others the validity of the approach, perhaps... walter roberson <WADLISP7@CARLETON.BITNET> walter