What sort of explanation could his description encompass? I had to think of Eliezer’s Free Will posts. Which built knowledge from the ground up starting at the roots, going through all the interferential steps up to his final solution to the question.
It is, perhaps, not a coincidence that I consider the Free Will sequence to be one of the few parts of the Sequences which is quite unconvincing, and in fact rather confused.
The Style of explanation used by him empowers me: I can read it jump out when I realize that my reasoing hasn’t come to the end result yet, think for myself and try to get it myself. Furthermore it gives me the tools and hooks to disassemble his whole reasoning. If I, in that fully represented journey of reason, find an error, I could hypothetically take it down.
Meaning no disrespect, but I am having considerable trouble parsing this paragraph. Perhaps you could rewrite it, or someone else might interpret it for me?
I do understand that his Free Will posts may come off confused. I’d even go so far and say they are! Purposefully so. Let me explain why by rephrasing as per your request:
If I imagine reasoning like a staircase, where each step is one step I have to overcome. I think about a problem and reach a conclusion, which seems to be satisfying. Then I realize, no it isn’t. I have to take another step towards full understanding of the problem, I have to reason further, there is more to find.
When someone gives me the top of those stairs, I’ll be incredulous as to how anyone might’ve gotten there: Priests in Temples casting magic spells to produce Yeast.
However, imagine getting the whole stair case in form of an explanaition. You’ll be able to start at the lowest step and work your way up. Using the explanation You’ve gotten as a handrail to aid you, while all the time examining each and every step for cracks—or junctions others missed.
In my opinion accounting for missteps and pitfalls which are easily fallen into in a chain of reasoning are as much steps in that staircase as all the right steps. Scientific Philosophy, or something—the mistakes made are as much learning material as the right steps.
If you want to include all that in an explanation that, of course, neccessitates giving a confused explanation, on Eliezers part. The Free Will sequences are meant for aspiring rationalists honing their tools in a first task. Instead of simply giving the result of his reasoning—the ‘top step’ - and leave them to their devices, he’s gone through the trouble of giving iconic steps of the staricase leading up to his result.
It is, perhaps, not a coincidence that I consider the Free Will sequence to be one of the few parts of the Sequences which is quite unconvincing, and in fact rather confused.
Meaning no disrespect, but I am having considerable trouble parsing this paragraph. Perhaps you could rewrite it, or someone else might interpret it for me?
I do understand that his Free Will posts may come off confused. I’d even go so far and say they are! Purposefully so. Let me explain why by rephrasing as per your request:
If I imagine reasoning like a staircase, where each step is one step I have to overcome. I think about a problem and reach a conclusion, which seems to be satisfying. Then I realize, no it isn’t. I have to take another step towards full understanding of the problem, I have to reason further, there is more to find.
When someone gives me the top of those stairs, I’ll be incredulous as to how anyone might’ve gotten there: Priests in Temples casting magic spells to produce Yeast.
However, imagine getting the whole stair case in form of an explanaition. You’ll be able to start at the lowest step and work your way up. Using the explanation You’ve gotten as a handrail to aid you, while all the time examining each and every step for cracks—or junctions others missed.
In my opinion accounting for missteps and pitfalls which are easily fallen into in a chain of reasoning are as much steps in that staircase as all the right steps. Scientific Philosophy, or something—the mistakes made are as much learning material as the right steps.
If you want to include all that in an explanation that, of course, neccessitates giving a confused explanation, on Eliezers part. The Free Will sequences are meant for aspiring rationalists honing their tools in a first task. Instead of simply giving the result of his reasoning—the ‘top step’ - and leave them to their devices, he’s gone through the trouble of giving iconic steps of the staricase leading up to his result.