Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!smoliar
From: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Acting irrationally (was Re: Free Will & Self Awareness)
Message-ID: <5561@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 23 May 88 00:12:04 GMT
References: <770@onion.cs.reading.ac.uk> <1177@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <5499@venera.isi.edu> <180@proxftl.UUCP>
Sender: news@venera.isi.edu
Reply-To: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
Lines: 24

In article <180@proxftl.UUCP> tomh@proxftl.UUCP (Tom Holroyd) writes:
>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.
>
>>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).
>
No, the problem is that there is always TOO MUCH information to be explicitly
articulated over any real-time channel of human communication.  If you don't
believe me, try explicitly articulating the entire content of your last
message.