Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    If default persistence is built into the action formalism... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The frame problem makes complete action specification virtually impossible in common-sense AI settings

    If default persistence is built into the action formalism itself, non-effects require no explicit specification, undermining P2's force.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Action formalisms that encode persistence as default eliminate redundant specification, making representations more parsimonious and cognitively efficient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If persistence is the common case, explicit specification only for changes aligns with how humans naturally reason about action and causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.P2's argumentative force depends on assuming non-effects must be explicitly stated; built-in defaults undercut that assumption logically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Default persistence in the formalism merely relocates the problem; we still must explicitly specify when persistence *fails*, requiring equal effort.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P2's force concerns the conceptual necessity of explaining why properties persist, not notational convenience; formalism doesn't address the underlying metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Building assumptions into formalism risks obscuring genuine causal questions by treating them as solved by representational choice rather than philosophical argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Action formalisms that encode persistence as default eliminate redundant specifi...Building assumptions into formalism risks obscuring genuine causal questions by ...Default persistence in the formalism merely relocates the problem; we still must...If persistence is the common case, explicit specification only for changes align...
    +3 moreShow less
    P2's argumentative force depends on assuming non-effects must be explicitly stat...P2's force concerns the conceptual necessity of explaining why properties persis...The frame problem makes complete action specification virtually impossible in co...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit