Prolegomena by Rappaport (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

I am really surprised that we have reached
a point in history, where philosophy and
artificial intelligence go separate paths,
where philosophy stigmatizes means of
abstractions on the computer and where even
education in computer science itself is at
loss with the rapid advancement of type theory
from computation to deduction. This wasn’t always
the case according to this essay (*):

It is interesting to note that almost all the major subfields of AI mirror subfields of philosophy: The AI analogue of philosophy of language is computational

 > linguistics; what philosophers call “practical
 > reasoning” is called “planning and acting” in

AI; ontology (indeed, much of metaphysics
and epistemology) corresponds to knowledge

 > representation in AI; and automated reasoning
 > is one of the AI analogues of logic.

– C.2.1.1 Intentions, practitions, and the ought-to-do.

maybe we should find a way back to cooperation:

Should AI workers study philosophy? Yes,

 > unless they are content to reinvent the wheel
 > every few days. When AI reinvents a wheel, it is
 > typically square, or at best hexagonal, and
 > can only make a few hundred revolutions before
 > it stops. Philosopher’s wheels, on the other hand,
 > are perfect circles, require in principle no
 > lubrication, and can go in at least two directions

at once. Clearly a meeting of minds is in order.
– C.4 Summary

See also:
(*)
Prolegomena to a Study of Hector-Neri Castañeda’s
Influence on Artificial Intelligence: A Survey
and Personal Reflections William Rappaport - January 1998
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266277981
Mild Shock schrieb:

Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
 Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
 Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
 ----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
 Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
 Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
 And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
 but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
 Recommended reading so far:
 Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
 The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C   Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
 logic without embedded implication.