3 ms·
Is 'thinking about thinking' correctly actually an unsolvable problem? Let's say I'm trying to do X. - Level 0 might be: do the first thing that comes to mind
by smallnamespace 7y ago
Is 'thinking about thinking' correctly actually an unsolvable problem?
Let's say I'm trying to do X.
- Level 0 might be: do the first thing that comes to mind
- Level 1 may be 'consider your possible choices and do a cost-benefit analysis'
Most people would say that Level 1 is preferable, but only for 'weighty' decisions where the cost of thinking is outweighed by the benefit of making a better decision. For example, nobody does rational deliberation for 'should I brake at this red light?'
So in practice, we seem to do some level of rational metacognition that takes into account the cost of thinking about a problem.
What about level 3? Are there large classes of problems where it's not really worth it to 'think about whether to think' - you should always ponder them, or never? And what about levels beyond yet?
- vokep 7y agoOr maybe that is just what level 2 would be? Level 1 is doing cost-benefit analysis on all problems. Level 2 might be doing cheap meta analysis to determine if energy can be saved and a level 0 solution used, or if more thinking is required. I would think there is a top level, which is full memorization of the space in which thinking might occur. Than instead of any thinking taking place, a reference is made to this memory-truth-table and the correct action is produced in response. Such a truth-table sounds maybe a bit paradoxical though. Does it take into account its own presence in the situation?