Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!tomh
From: tomh@proxftl.UUCP (Tom Holroyd)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Acting irrationally (was Re: Free Will & Self Awareness)
Summary: A simple rule for deciding what to articulate.
Message-ID: <180@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 88 14:44:48 GMT
References: <770@onion.cs.reading.ac.uk> <1177@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <5499@venera.isi.edu>
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 32

In article <5499@venera.isi.edu>, smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) writes:

> I think you are overlooking how great an extent we rely on implict
> assumptions in any intercourse.  If we had to articulate everything
> explicitly, we would probably never get around to discussing what we
> really wanted to discuss.

True communication can only occur when both parties understand what all
the symbols used to communicate mean.  This doesn't mean you have to
explicitly define what you mean by "tree" every time you use the word
tree, but it's a good idea to define it once, especially if it's something
more complex than "tree" (with due respect to all sentient hardwood).

>The problem comes in deciding WHAT needs to be explicitly articulated
>and what can be left in the "implicit background." That is a problem
>which we, as humans, seem to deal with rather poorly, which is why
>there is so much yeeling and hitting in the world.

Here's a simple rule: explicitly articulate everything, at least once.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are a lot of people who, for
one reason or another, keep some information secret (perhaps the
information isn't known).

A truly reasoning being doesn't hesitate to ask, either, if something
hasn't been explicitly articulated, and it is necessary for continuing
discussion.

Tom Holroyd
UUCP: {uunet,codas}!novavax!proxftl!tomh

The white knight is talking backwards.