Witold Marciszewski

Intelligent problem-solving depends on consciously applied methods of thinking as well as inborn or trained skills. The latter are like resident programs which control processes of the kind called (in Unix) daemons. Such a computational process is a fitting reaction to situations (defined in the program in question) which is executed without any command of a computer user (or without any intention of the conscious subject). The study of intelligence should involve methods of recognizing those beliefs whose existence is due to daemons. Once having been aware of so produced belief, one can assess it critically and, if possible and necessary, make it more rational. Eg, beliefs concerning properties of time are produced by a daemon-like intuition, likewise the Euclidean properties of space. The merit of getting aware of such daemon's activities, and so transforming implicit beliefs into explicit ones, lies mainly in the axiomatic characterization of the properties involved. That makes possible to improve a daemon-like conceptual equipment (producing beliefs) by suitable modifications of the axioms, or postulates. Such postulate sets can also define artificial daemons to either emulate or improve natural intelligence.

The first good message is to the effect that people possess reason as a source of intellectual insights, not available to the senses, as e.g. axioms of arithmetic. The awareness of this fact is called rationalism. Another good message is that reason can daringly quest for and gain new plausible insights. Those, if suitably checked and confirmed, can entail a revision of former results, also in mathematics, and - due to the greater efficiency of new ideas - accelerate science’s progress. The awareness that no insight is secured against revision, is called fallibilism. This modern fallibilistic rationalism, i.e. the belief in the attainability of inviolable truths of reason which would forever constitute the foundations of knowledge. Fallibilistic rationalism is based on the idea that any problem-solving consists in processing information. Its results vary with respect to informativeness and its reverse - certainty. It is up to science to look for highly informative solutions, in spite of their uncertainty, and then to make them more certain through testing against suitable evidence. To account for such cognitive processes, one resorts to the conceptual apparatus of logic, informatics, and cognitive science.

Zwrot \"Mathesis Universalis\" (MU) oznacza projekt unifikacji całości wiedzy za pomocą metody matematycznej. Powstał on pod tą nazwą u progu nowożytności, a częściowo miał antycypacje w starożytności i średniowieczu. Głównymi jego rzecznikami byli Kartezjusz i Leibniz. Podejście Leibniza jest radykalnie formalistyczne, a przez to nadające sie do realizacji maszynowej, podczas gdy Kartezjusza - zdecydowanie antyformalistyczne. Artykuł koncentruje się na projekcie Leibniza jako tym, który ma kontynuację w nauce współczesnej. Zamysł, żeby narzędziem realizacji projektu była uniwersalna symbolika i rachunek logiczny jest obecnie realizowany w odniesieniu do całości matematyki za pomocą środków, które jako pierwszy stworzył Gottlob Frege (1879). Istotny wkład ma Georg Cantor jako autor teorii mocy zbiorów, która wprowadza odróżnienie zbioru nieskończonego przeliczalnie od zbioru o mocy kontinuum. Umożliwia to dowód fundamentalnego dla współczesnej MU twierdzenia o istnieniu problemów nierozstrzygalnych w arytmetyce, co jest dziełem Kurta Gödla, oraz w logice. To drugie wykazał Alan Turing, dowodząc, że zbiór realizowalnych przez maszynę programów do dokonywania obliczeń, czyli do rozstrzygania problemu, jaka jest wartość określonej funkcji, jest tylko przeliczalny, podczas gdy zbiór problemów do rozstrzygnięcia ma moc kontinuum; stąd wynika, że pewne problemy są nierozstrzygalne w sposób formalny czyli maszynowy, co z kolei implikuje nierozstzygalność logiki. Analogiczny wynik Gödla ma ważne dopełnienie w jego twierdzeniu, że ograniczenia rozstrzygalności są tylko względne (w stosunku do określonego systemu formalnego) i mogą być przezwyciężane przez konstrukcję nowych pojęć pierwotnych, aksjomatów i metod postępowania badawczego. Rysuje się więc przed nauką możliwość nieustannego postępu. Takie dynamiczne ujęcie stanowi rys istotnie różniący współczesną postać MU od klasycznej, którą cechowała statyczność

We discuss the existence of universal spaces (either in the sense of embeddings or continuous images) for some classes of scattered Eberlein compacta. Given a cardinal κ, we consider the class Sκ of all scattered Eberlein compact spaces K of weight ≤ κ and such that the second Cantor-Bendixson derivative of K is a singleton. We prove that if κ is an uncountable cardinal such that κ = 2&ltκ, then there exists a space X in Sκ such that every member of Sκ is homeomorphic to a retract of X. We show that it is consistent that there does not exist a universal space (either by embeddings or by mappings onto) in Sω₁. Assuming that ∂ = ω₁, we prove that there exists a space X ∈ Sω₁, which is universal in the sense of embeddings. We also show that it is consistent that there exists a space X ∈ Sω₁, universal in the sense of embeddings, but Sω₁ does not contain an universal element in the sense of mappings onto

1 Recognition Device........................................ 3 2 Classical Categorial Grammar............................... 4 3 Classical Categorial Grammar. Examples..................... 5 4 Logic Grammar........................................... 8 5 Lambek calculus. Examples................................ 9 6 Lambek calculus. Semantics................................ 11 7 Lambek calculus. Advantages............................... 12 8 Derivations............................................... 13 9 Residuated and Galois Connected Functions.................. 14 10 Interpretation of the Constants.............................. 15 11 Nonveridical Functions..................................... 16 12 Dutch.................................................... 18 13 Classification of NPIs in Dutch.............................. 19 14 Antilicensing Relation...................................... 20..

There is a lot of fuzziness about the concept of civilization, and this is why the paper starts from an attempt to clarify this concept. This consists in selecting one entity which is commonly acknowledged as a system of civilization, examining its main features, and then exemplifying how to define them operationally. These features are treated as if they were answers to certain questions. Now other systems can be addressed with the same questions; if a system is able to answer them, in this way or other, it proves to be a civilizational system. The answers expected are those to express attitudes toward science, democracy, free market, tolerance, etc. Islam, e.g. does not prove to be a unique civilizational system, since there are represented in it much varying attitudes in each point in question. On the other hand, the communist paradigm does so, since it offers an answer of its own in each of the listed issues. Its answers directly oppose those offered by liberal civilization, thus there are at least two paradigms of civilization, the liberal and the anti-liberal. In the second part, it is argued that though the West is the cradle of liberal civilization, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the trait of being Western and that of being liberal. Also the main totalitarian projects of civilization were bom in the West, while same seeds of liberal civilization (Christianity, science as stemming from mathematics, etc.) came from the East. Nowadays, significant contributions to liberal civilization are due to people from any race, culture and continent. The destiny of liberal civilization is to become universal, while the Western contribution to it, when seen in a great evolutionary perspective, is just a historical episode.