Keith. Again, I agree with you. But, that’s my point. Our goal should not yet be the outcome. The goal should be understanding the “logic” that creates the “inability to understand what the errors will be.” Ironically, I think we’ll find it is not much different from the reasons so many differences in views in science and social understa…
Keith. Again, I agree with you. But, that’s my point. Our goal should not yet be the outcome. The goal should be understanding the “logic” that creates the “inability to understand what the errors will be.” Ironically, I think we’ll find it is not much different from the reasons so many differences in views in science and social understanding continue to evade us.
As for your “gravely worrisome” concern about “recursive prompting”, again, I’m not pushing to understand how to actualize it. I’m raising the “recursive” model as a tool to understand it. The reason I’m suggesting it is, in my new model for human thinking, it was the understanding of “recursion” in the human brain that answered so many questions. [ https://www.academia.edu/112492199/A3_A_New_Theory_of_Consciousness ]
Keith. Again, I agree with you. But, that’s my point. Our goal should not yet be the outcome. The goal should be understanding the “logic” that creates the “inability to understand what the errors will be.” Ironically, I think we’ll find it is not much different from the reasons so many differences in views in science and social understanding continue to evade us.
As for your “gravely worrisome” concern about “recursive prompting”, again, I’m not pushing to understand how to actualize it. I’m raising the “recursive” model as a tool to understand it. The reason I’m suggesting it is, in my new model for human thinking, it was the understanding of “recursion” in the human brain that answered so many questions. [ https://www.academia.edu/112492199/A3_A_New_Theory_of_Consciousness ]