[YeGoblynQueenne]

To clarify, what I have in my profile is not my "own personal" definition of reasoning. It's how reasoning is understood in computer science and AI, and I am an expert on the subject through my doctoral studies and my current post-doc research.

That's important to understand. What I have in my profile is not some idiosyncratic idea about reasoning, it's the standard, formal understanding of what reasoning means, as it has developed in practice, in AI research in the last many decades.

I appreciate that there are many people who opine about reasoning who are not aware of that prior work and come up with their own ideas about what "reasoning" means, and some are even AI researches which is very concerning but I can't do anything about that except push back against such uninformed opinions.

>> This can.

I'm sorry, what can?

[tsunamifury]

Academics have gotten AI wrong since its inception and now are relegated to the trailing edges of the field. Mostly because increasingly insist on theory-as-fact in soft arenas that are clearly still in motion. Reasoning has been one thing, it can continue to grow to be another. But even from your defition, I can provide abductive, inductive, and other examples of it reasoning to this degree just fine. However tour examples are a bit... silly to be honest.

But keep lecturing everyone -- its very common for post-grads to be so up their own behind in their research that they've closed their world off until they are the only ones right in it.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Unfortunately I'm used to people on the internet wearing their ignorance on their sleeve like a badge of honour and so I'm not surprised by the insults in your comment. Just a bit sad to be honest :(