Lazy Logic

    When the logical processor was first created, it was valued for its ability to think analytically and come out with cold, hard facts that were exactly the same every time. 2 + 2 = 4. This is the way computers think, in either right or wrong. If a logical processor was grading your math homework, it could tell you if you were right or wrong, but not if you were "close", because the logical processor has no concept of "close". It can see only in black or white, one or zero, true or false. This was not seen as a fault – it was valued for its precision.

    Now enter the concept of Fuzzy Logic, by which the logical processor becomes a fuzzy processor. Logical facts are made into "fuzzy" facts, applied to rules, and then "defuzzified" back into logical facts, all in the effort to enable the logical processor to do what it could never do before – think like a human (Prophet, 2004). Why were people going through all this effort to turn a cold, calculating machine into a "fuzzy" machine that can think like us? My theory is this – Laziness.

    Using newer variations of fuzzy logic, it is now possible for a computer to be able to analyze statement paradoxes such as "This sentence is false" and come up with a definitive answer, whereas using a pure logical processor would have resulted in an endless loop (This headline is (half) false.2003). This enables computers to be presented with a question that does not have a strictly right or wrong answer, and be able to derive from it the same answer a human would. In short, fuzzy logic and its continually developing branches are designed to enable computers to be able to not only do our math homework for us, but to be able to decide for us what clothes to buy and wear, what movie to watch – or even what we should write our paper about.

 

 

References

Prophet, G. (2004). Whatever happened to fuzzy logic? EDN Europe, 49(4), 23-28. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=12713880&site=ehost-live&scope=site

This headline is (half) false.(2003). Economist, 369(8344), 77-77. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=11005575&site=ehost-live&scope=site