Would you consider "describe an experiment which likely produces insight X" as explaining verbally? I feel like what people usually mean by "explain" is more homoiconic so I'd say 'Basically no'
-
-
-
Nope, I'd call that instructions. The understanding there is experiential, which is where I think real understanding comes from, mostly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think that most things can be explained verbally, but not all things can be _understood_ verbally. There are a lot of things that you can explain perfectly well and repeat in theory, but that are really hard to execute practically without having lived through them.
-
Right. I have in mind a pretty high standard for "explained," involving the thing being actually understood on the other end.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Answered it's complicated. Although, I lean towards Basically no. Words _may_ be necessary, but they're insufficient. What was your answer to this?
-
I'm somewhere between "basically no" and "it's complicated." Words have to point to / remix experiences, and some experiences are so rare that the inferential gap can't be bridged with just words, I think. Mary's room kind of issue.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Explained, yes... understood, also yes, but shaped more by the nonverbal than we think...truly understood, not so surepic.twitter.com/UjSpdSb623
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.