= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Book Review: The Root of Thought - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (91)
A good one might be "the things you would have to mention first if you were explaining your field/problem/whatever to a person with no knowledge of it".
For example, if you're explaining A.I. to someone, something that will come up very quickly is that human-level intelligence is almost certainly not the maximum possible, due to the constraints of biology and evolution. What then, would be the result if you ignore or reverse this, and act as if human-level intelligence IS the maximum possible?
That will get you to the category of reversing your conscious premises, but possbily not to examining something like "glial cells are too boring to bother with".
Why not?
Good point - that sort of assumption is much harder to isolate.
I'll have to mull this over for a while.