Prolog for the pre frontal cortex (PFC) (Re: LLM and Prolog, a Marriage in Heaven?)

Now I wonder whether LLMs should be an
inch more informed by results from Neuro-
endocrinology research. I remember Marvin
Minsky publishing his ‘The Society of Mind’:
Introduction to ‘The Society of Mind’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pb3z2w9gDg
But this made me think about a multi agent
systems. Now with LLMs what about a new
connectionist and deep learning approach.
Plus Prolog for the pre frontal cortex (PFC).
But who can write a blue print? Now there
is this amazing guy called Robert M. Sapolsky
who recently published Determined: A Science
of Life without Free Will, who
calls consciousness just a hicup. His turtles
all the way down model is a tour de force
through an unsettling conclusion: We may not
grasp the precise marriage of nature and nurture
that creates the physics and chemistry at the
base of human behavior, but that doesn’t mean it
doesn’t exist. But the pre frontal cortex (PFC)
seems to be still quite brittle and not extremly
performant and quite energy hungry.
So Prolog might excell?
Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will
https://www.amazon.de/dp/0525560998
Mild Shock schrieb:

There are more and more papers of this sort:
 Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
To address this, we propose a neurosymbolic
approach that prompts LLMs to extract and encode
all relevant information from a problem statement as
logical code statements, and then use a logic programming
language (Prolog) to conduct the iterative computations of
explicit deductive reasoning.
[2407.11373] Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
 The future of Prolog is bright?
 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.