I take this as a description of an ingredient of the notion of perspective-based reasoning as it’s being defined, not a claim about a prior notion of perspective-based reasoning. So perspective-based reasoning is something with free will built in. If free will is ability to consider the possible worlds where each available decision is taken and to enact one of them, this should work for other agents as well. But for any one possible action of another agent, there is still a whole collection of possible worlds corresponding to the possible actions of the agent in charge of the perspective from which it’s being considered.
As far as I can tell, the post does not just define a new notion called “perspective-based reasoning”. It appears to be using the term to cover every possible form of reasoning that humans can do based on imagining the world from another perspective:
Though we cannot think without a perspective, we are capable of putting ourselves into others’ shoes. In another word, we can imagine thinking from different perspectives.
If it was intended to define a new term that applies only to a subset of such thought, then it completely missed the mark from my point of view.
Factual claims and hypothetical constructions are hopelessly jumbled together in these posts, so making sense of them requires sorting this out. I think the appropriate role for that provision is as an axiom for the notion, not as an assertion of fact. There may be a further assertion of fact, but it’s ignorable, while the axiom has some hope of being useful.
(It doesn’t look feasible to mine these posts for something not already familiar, but maybe they sketch their general topic enough to communicate what it is.)
I take this as a description of an ingredient of the notion of perspective-based reasoning as it’s being defined, not a claim about a prior notion of perspective-based reasoning. So perspective-based reasoning is something with free will built in. If free will is ability to consider the possible worlds where each available decision is taken and to enact one of them, this should work for other agents as well. But for any one possible action of another agent, there is still a whole collection of possible worlds corresponding to the possible actions of the agent in charge of the perspective from which it’s being considered.
As far as I can tell, the post does not just define a new notion called “perspective-based reasoning”. It appears to be using the term to cover every possible form of reasoning that humans can do based on imagining the world from another perspective:
If it was intended to define a new term that applies only to a subset of such thought, then it completely missed the mark from my point of view.
Factual claims and hypothetical constructions are hopelessly jumbled together in these posts, so making sense of them requires sorting this out. I think the appropriate role for that provision is as an axiom for the notion, not as an assertion of fact. There may be a further assertion of fact, but it’s ignorable, while the axiom has some hope of being useful.
(It doesn’t look feasible to mine these posts for something not already familiar, but maybe they sketch their general topic enough to communicate what it is.)