Onar Åm  wrote:

> "Onar Åm"  wrote in message
> news:b6ipn6$o78$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> > "John Edser"  wrote in
> > message ...>
> > >
> >
> > > 4) Machines, including tape recorders, that
> > > can identify "clusters" cannot make ONE
> > > SINGLE INDUCTIVE INFERENCE, i.e the basis
> > > of human intelligence is inductive and not
> > > deductive, ability.
> >
> >
> > In other words (for the third time) you claim that induction/thinking is
> > somehow forever beyond the scope of determinism. This essentially means
> > that you think that the process of thinking and induction is pure magic.
> > Do you concur? If not, by deduction you must conclude that machines are
> > in principle capable of induction and thinking.
> >
> > [moderator's note: In fairness to John, he may be arguing along the
> > lines of Goodman that induction is inherently flawed as a means of
> > understanding the world in a rigorous fashion (see the infamous
> > "grue" papers, for example). Or maybe that's not his
point. - JAH]

It should be noted that machine-based "inductive systems" have been
around for a long time. I first encountered a mention of them back in
the 1980s. It is simply false that Turing machines cannot make
inductions. Dennett somewhere mentions them (in DDI perhaps?).

And Goodman's paradox teaches that for induction to occur, the
predicates used must be projectible, that's all. Of course, we do not
know this ahead of time, but hey, that's what science is about, right?
Finding the natural predicates.
.....

-- 
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/7/03 8:50:10 PM