3 ms·

My general point applies to human thinking in general not just Go. Example: Would you fly on a plane designed ultimately by a human vs an impenetrable black bo

My general point applies to human thinking in general not just Go. Example: Would you fly on a plane designed ultimately by a human vs an impenetrable black box? Also there is a spectrum. Let us not pretend otherwise. 1. One end: No explanations. 2. Middle: Seometimes false explanataions and sometimes true explanations. 3. Other end: Always true explanations. Are we really saying the middle is completely useless?

nradov 10y ago
Yes I would fly in any large airplane which is properly certified for scheduled commercial airline service, regardless of how it was designed. The FAA has earned our trust and has a good safety record so if they tell me the design is satisfactory then I would believe them. I also wouldn't take the risk of flying in any non-certified experimental aircraft, again regardless of who or what designed it. We have no way to determine whether an explanation is true, false, or simply a post-hoc rationalization. We like to believe that we can, but we're just fooling ourselves.
- cscurmudgeon 10y ago
  > We have no way to determine whether an explanation is true, false, or simply a post-hoc rationalization If we have no way of determining whether something is true or false, then I can say the same thing about your own statement quoted above. I can just say it is false and go on with my life. I sincerely hope you realize the obvious self contradiction :D Logic 101. :)
  - nradov 10y ago
    There's no self contradiction. I never claimed that we have no way of determining whether something is true or false. I only claimed that we have no way of determining whether the explanation a person gives for how he made a decision actually matches his real mental process or motives. We can't yet install a debugger with break points and variable watches in the human mind; it's very much a black box. Logic 201. :-)
    - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
      Logic 101. :) > I never claimed that we have no way of determining whether something is true or false Everything can be cast as a declarative statement. Matches(givenStatement, actualIntention).

nradov 10y ago

Yes I would fly in any large airplane which is properly certified for scheduled commercial airline service, regardless of how it was designed. The FAA has earned our trust and has a good safety record so if they tell me the design is satisfactory then I would believe them. I also wouldn't take the risk of flying in any non-certified experimental aircraft, again regardless of who or what designed it. We have no way to determine whether an explanation is true, false, or simply a post-hoc rationalization. We like to believe that we can, but we're just fooling ourselves.

cscurmudgeon 10y ago
> We have no way to determine whether an explanation is true, false, or simply a post-hoc rationalization If we have no way of determining whether something is true or false, then I can say the same thing about your own statement quoted above. I can just say it is false and go on with my life. I sincerely hope you realize the obvious self contradiction :D Logic 101. :)
- nradov 10y ago
  There's no self contradiction. I never claimed that we have no way of determining whether something is true or false. I only claimed that we have no way of determining whether the explanation a person gives for how he made a decision actually matches his real mental process or motives. We can't yet install a debugger with break points and variable watches in the human mind; it's very much a black box. Logic 201. :-)
  - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
    Logic 101. :) > I never claimed that we have no way of determining whether something is true or false Everything can be cast as a declarative statement. Matches(givenStatement, actualIntention).