This is a reply to an FI post.
----------------------------
----------------------------
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ok. just checking my understanding:
>>>
>>> so context is pretty much like all the relevant, active aspects which need to be considered (including not only any relevant ideas and preferences in your mind, but other relevant aspects of reality such as the laws of physics). and there would be a *set* of problems included in this context.
>>
>> yes though the context may be "i have a bunch of stuff in my life in general. books, meals, friends, etc. and problems too. and solutions – solved problems. but right now, i'm focusing on this one problem i want to solve. (which i want to solve without messing up any of my important solutions without a replacement.)”
>
> so in a way, it seems like all of this background knowledge which you have is actually *relevant* for every context.
>
> it matters what that information is. cuz you want to solve the current problem without creating conflicts with this other older stuff. so you can’t just totally ignore the old stuff. if there WAS a conflict, you’d notice that.
There could be conflicts that you don't notice till later (or ever).
-- Rami
----------------------------
| Re: [FI] choice and reality | |
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Elliot Temple curi@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ok. just checking my understanding:
>>>
>>> so context is pretty much like all the relevant, active aspects which need to be considered (including not only any relevant ideas and preferences in your mind, but other relevant aspects of reality such as the laws of physics). and there would be a *set* of problems included in this context.
>>
>> yes though the context may be "i have a bunch of stuff in my life in general. books, meals, friends, etc. and problems too. and solutions – solved problems. but right now, i'm focusing on this one problem i want to solve. (which i want to solve without messing up any of my important solutions without a replacement.)”
>
> so in a way, it seems like all of this background knowledge which you have is actually *relevant* for every context.
>
> it matters what that information is. cuz you want to solve the current problem without creating conflicts with this other older stuff. so you can’t just totally ignore the old stuff. if there WAS a conflict, you’d notice that.
There could be conflicts that you don't notice till later (or ever).
-- Rami
No comments:
Post a Comment