---Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> wrote:
> When I toss a ball to you, your brain solves a differential equation
so
> that it can move your hands to the right place to catch it.
Children as
> young as five can do this. This is not to say, however, that
children as
> young as five are ready to learn calculus, but that the brain is
capable of
> reaching correct rational conclusions without being conscious of the
> process required to reach it.
>
> When we say that someone has solved a problem instinctively, that
doesn't
> mean that they've done it wrong, nor does it mean that they weren't
being
> rational (or even non-rational) as they were doing it. Rather the
> difference is simply that the process by which they solved the
problem is
> unknown, even to the thinker.
>
> Why might this sort of thinking be valuable? Why not consciously
work out
> all of your conclusions, which would add to clarity of thought and
avoid
> confusion? Of course, instinct is often a lot faster than the
meticulous
> layers of thought required to solve problems rationally and
explicitly.
> But more importantly, instinct may ultimately be the only way by
which we
> can "think outside the box," as it is often called: to break free of
old
> paradigms and to think about a problem in a new way. I think that if
> Extropians were to reject instinct as a mental tool we would have
far more
> to lose than to gain.
>
> Rational thinkers of the past have often rejected the line of
reasoning I
> present above; today, in the common vocabulary, "rational thinking" is
> believed to be contradictory to instinctive problem solving; without
making
> explicit disclaimers like the one I gave above, I can think of no
way to
> make it clear that Extropians welcome instinct as a mental tool, but
insist
> that it must also be supplemented by a conscious criticism of our
own ideas.
Maybe its just nostalgia, but I remember liking one of the early (1.?) versions of the principles more than any that has come since. I wish I would have saved it. What is an effective way to edit a document without getting the phenomena of "over editing"?
Joe Jenkins
joe_jenkins@yahoo.com