Introduction to the logic of thinking

This book is about the nature of human thinking. Just want to emphasize that each of the sciences known to us is relevant to this. The nature of thinking, even if it is not a direct object of study for any scientific field, still affects it, since the concepts with which this area operates, and the methodology of cognition in general, are consequences of how our mind works. This means that, on the one hand, one can argue about the nature of thinking from the standpoint of any of the existing sciences, and, on the other hand, that, apparently, none of them is sufficiently complete to formulate an exhaustive explanation. Accordingly, we will have to go beyond individual disciplines, such as mathematics, computer science, neurophysiology, psychology or philosophy, and try to look at thinking using the arsenal of all these areas of knowledge at once. At the same time, our task will be not just to talk about thinking in terms of different sciences, but to show specific mechanisms that allow us to create artificial intelligence similar to human intelligence.

Artificial intelligence can be divided into strong and weak. Systems that reproduce any particular forms of human intellectual activity on a computer are referred to as weak artificial intelligence. There is no question of universality, it is initially clear that a certain class of problems is being solved, and there are no complaints that the system will be able to independently adapt to other circumstances. Strong artificial intelligence means creating a system capable of independent thinking, and thinking in the way that is characteristic of us, people.

The criterion of whether it was possible to create an artificial mind or not is the famous Turing test (Turing, 1950). Its wording is extremely concise. If we communicate with the person and with the computer through the communication channels that ensure confidentiality, and we cannot determine where the computer is and where the person is, then we will have to agree that the computer thinks. The basic idea of ​​the test is simple: a person may not know what thinking is, but he is able to determine the adequacy of the interlocutor. By adequacy, we understand the very versatility in solving any problems that is inaccessible to weak artificial intelligence.

A certain dividing line between strong and weak artificial intelligence can be seen in the fact that strong intelligence is not just a set of algorithms, but also the ability to understand the meaning of what is happening and the ability to use this understanding in the process of thinking and shaping one's behavior. But in order to create a strong artificial intelligence, it is not enough to designate concepts, it is necessary to formalize them to the level when it becomes possible to program them on a computer. This, in turn, requires not philosophical, but quite specific answers to many questions, including, for example:

• How does the brain handle information?

• What is the meaning?

• How is the memory?

• What are emotions?

• What are the principles of thinking?

• How is behavior formed?

Moreover, the answers to these questions should be such that they would follow from an understanding of the nature of beauty, harmony, love, humor, humor, and similar manifestations of human essence.

In this book, I will try to show that there is a model that allows not only answering individual questions, but also consistently linking these answers to each other. I will try to demonstrate that natural intelligence is based on a number of principles, each of which is ideologically important and unique, and that, in combination and interaction, these principles allow us to explain the phenomenon of thinking.

Immediately make a reservation, this story does not pretend to be an academic completeness. Many very interesting topics related to the brain will be touched only superficially or not mentioned at all. Our task is not to list all that is known on the subject of thinking, but to describe the basic principles so that they do not drown in the flow of information, while keeping within the reasonable print volume. In this regard, I recall the words of Rodin, who, when asked what the art of the sculptor actually is, replied: “Take a block of marble and cut off all unnecessary marble from it”.

So, how do we still think?