Surprise by lanyuehua

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 11

• pg 1
```									 It’s a surprise!

Ron Chrisley
COGS
Department of Informatics
University of Sussex
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

E-Intentionality, PAICS Research Group, Department of Informatics
University of Sussex, June 1st 2006
Surprise!
• Why is the title of this talk "It's a
surprise!"?
• It's a surprise!

But first…
…some logic (groan)
Logic: What is it good for?
• One application: To make explicit
the logical structure of an
inference
• Then it becomes a
mechanical/syntactic matter to
determine, e.g. validity
Arguments
• Ron says: "All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates
is mortal."
• Michael says: "Every man is mortal.
Socrates is a man. Thus, Socrates is
mortal."
• Blay says: "All men are mortal.
Schwarzenegger is a man. Therefore,
Schwarzenegger is mortal."
• Different words, but same logical form…
Logical form
Ax[M(x)->D(x)]
M(S)
-----
D(S)

• So if one of the arguments is valid, the
others are.

• This logical form is valid.
My claim
• Either logical form does not
determine validity (a
…Or…
• Standard means of translating
arguments into their logical form
are incorrect.
Problem case
• Consider: "Ron has drawn 10
conclusions today. 10 is less than 11.
Therefore, Ron has drawn fewer than
11 conclusions today."

C(R,t) = 10
10 < 11
-----
C(R,t) < 11

• Is this valid?
Validity
• Perhaps for you, but not for me!
• The problem is that carrying out the
inference interacts with the truth of the
premises of the inference
• So either we need to say that validity
does not supervene on logical form, or
the foregoing is not the logical form
Embodied logical form
• But what is the logical form, then?
• Needs to include the person who is
carrying out the inference?
• What else? Timing? Order?