zlacker

A more generous take on the previous post is that the dominant paradigm of Math (consistent logic, which depends on many things like transitive preference) is wrong, and that another type of Math could work.

If you look at the slide, the subtree of correct answers exists, what's missing is just a way to make them more prevalent instead of less.

Personally, I think LeCun is just leaping to the wrong conclusion because he's sticking to the wrong tools for the job.

>>csdvrx+(OP)
My point is no type of math will work to model reason. Math is one of the many tools of reason, it is not the basis for reason. This is a very common error.

>>csdvrx+(OP)
A less generous take would be that humans are also stoichastic parrots that can't help themselves but say something when they see a trigger word like math, Trump, transgender, or abortion.

>>gibson+Cb
> My point is no type of math will work to model reason

Then I disagree with you.

>>csdvrx+ue
Exactly, we disagree and you are not alone in thinking this. You can use reason to do math, but your can't model reason with math.

>>csdvrx+ue
I'm ignorantly curious of what type of math will work in your view. Genuine question, I just want to be educated.

>>airstr+po
There is no type of math that can model conceptual reasoning. You can use conceptual reasoning, however, to do math.

>>gibson+DB
I think I know what math is, though I'm not sure. Logical systems of axioms and inference rules?

But I'm even less sure what conceptual reasoning is.