Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Dreyfus's phenomenological critique suggests the frame problem is an artifact of propositional representation, not a feature of action itself.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Even embodied agents must somehow filter salient features from background noise—this selection problem persists regardless of representational format.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Skillful action still requires implicit discrimination of relevant vs. irrelevant factors; calling this 'non-propositional' doesn't solve the frame problem.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Complex novel situations require agents to reason about consequences of actions, which demands some form of representational structure to avoid explosion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Embodied agents navigate context through direct skillful engagement, not explicit rule-following, making frame problems disappear in practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The frame problem only arises when we artificially require agents to represent all relevant and irrelevant facts as discrete propositions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Human action demonstrates fluid adaptation without computing exhaustive state descriptions, suggesting propositional representation is unnecessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.