Activity Feed

  Vincent Brunsch criticized idea #5681.

I don’t think animals are sentient.

I realize this view sounds outlandish to most but it’s a considered, researched conclusion.

There’s lots of evidence of insentience in the way animals behave. If they were sentient, they would not behave the way they do: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence-of-animal-insentience

Dozens of videos compiling and explaining evidence of animal insentience: https://libertythroughreason.com/insentience-in-animals-and-sleepwalkers/

Additional reasoning:
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-faq
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/konrad-lorenz-hacked-animals
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-discussion-tree
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-animal-rights-community-is-based-on-fear-a

#5681​·​Dennis Hackethal revised about 19 hours ago

In the reasoning you link in support of animal insentience, you argue that similarities between human and animal nervous systems do not tell us whether the same conscious “software” is running. But humans and other mammals are not analogous to two identical computers on which entirely unrelated programs happen to have been installed. The relevant systems have a shared evolutionary history, with substantial continuity in sensory, affective, nociceptive and learning mechanisms.

A change in that inherited system may indeed have produced the qualitative leap to universal creativity. Since universality is necessarily all-or-nothing in the relevant sense, that leap is unsurprising. But it does not follow that every other aspect of mental life (including pain or other phenomenal experience) must have appeared in the same leap, or even require a comparable leap at all.

Neural continuity therefore seems evidentially relevant even if it cannot by itself prove sentience. The observation that universal creativity is uniquely human still leaves open whether older, shared systems already supported phenomenal experience.

  Vincent Brunsch addressed criticism #5680.

This suggests that phenomenal experience can occur independently of the active critical capacities you take animals to lack.

I don’t think so, since, as you write yourself, the critical attitude while dreaming is only “diminished”, not completely gone.

#5680​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 19 hours ago

If vivid phenomenal experience persists while the relevant critical capacities are greatly diminished (and some forms of meta-awareness appear to be absent altogether in ordinary dreams) that seems at least evidence that phenomenal experience does not closely depend on the degree to which those capacities are active. Lucid dreaming strengthens this: reflective/metacognitive capacities can return within an experience that was already phenomenal.

  Vincent Brunsch addressed criticism #5679.

Hi Vincent, welcome to V. Nice meeting you at Conjecture Con.

But why must phenomenal experience emerge only together with universal creativity?

Idk why you switched from “consciousness” to “phenomenal experience” here. But the argument is that behavior that may just as well be preprogrammed and then executed mindlessly is not evidence of consciousness (because it is, again, mindless).

I have seen no evidence of any animal behavior that could not have been preprogrammed. If you know of any, please show me.

#5679​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 19 hours ago

I have seen no evidence of any animal behavior that could not have been preprogrammed. If you know of any, please show me. <

You ask for animal behavior that could not have been preprogrammed. But I’m not sure any finite observed behavior could meet that standard.

For any finite sequence of behavior, it seems possible in principle to posit a sufficiently elaborate fixed program that produces it. The same would apply to human behavior.

So if the criterion for sentience is behavior that could not possibly have been preprogrammed, it is unclear how sentience could ever be established behaviorally, including in humans.

  Vincent Brunsch addressed criticism #5679.

Hi Vincent, welcome to V. Nice meeting you at Conjecture Con.

But why must phenomenal experience emerge only together with universal creativity?

Idk why you switched from “consciousness” to “phenomenal experience” here. But the argument is that behavior that may just as well be preprogrammed and then executed mindlessly is not evidence of consciousness (because it is, again, mindless).

I have seen no evidence of any animal behavior that could not have been preprogrammed. If you know of any, please show me.

#5679​·​Dennis Hackethal, about 19 hours ago

But the argument is that behavior that may just as well be preprogrammed and then executed mindlessly is not evidence of consciousness (because it is, again, mindless).

This seems to be circular reasoning:
Your reply seems to move from “the behavior could have been preprogrammed” to “the behavior is therefore mindless.” But those are different claims.

“Preprogrammed” describes how the behavior is generated. “Mindless” additionally says that no phenomenal experience accompanies that process. That does not follow unless we already assume that non-universal or preprogrammed computation cannot support phenomenal experience. Which is precisely the connection my criticism questioned.

So showing that animal behavior could be preprogrammed may show that the behavior does not prove sentience, but it does not by itself provide evidence of insentience.

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #3039.

Add newest video compilation

I don’t think animals are sentient.

I realize this view sounds outlandish to most but it’s a considered, researched conclusion.

There’s lots of evidence of insentience in the way animals behave. If they were sentient, they would not behave the way they do: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence-of-animal-insentience

Additional reasoning:
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-faq
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/konrad-lorenz-hacked-animals
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-discussion-tree
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-animal-rights-community-is-based-on-fear-a

I don’t think animals are sentient.

I realize this view sounds outlandish to most but it’s a considered, researched conclusion.

There’s lots of evidence of insentience in the way animals behave. If they were sentient, they would not behave the way they do: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence-of-animal-insentience

Dozens of videos compiling and explaining evidence of animal insentience: https://libertythroughreason.com/insentience-in-animals-and-sleepwalkers/

Additional reasoning:
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-faq
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/konrad-lorenz-hacked-animals
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-discussion-tree
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-animal-rights-community-is-based-on-fear-a

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5678.

In the reasoning you link in support of animal insentience, you argue that sentience and the capacity for universal creativity/critical thought come as a package deal. Dreaming seems to provide evidence against that connection.

Ordinary dreams can involve vivid visual experience, fear, pleasure, pain, etc., while metacognition, reality testing and critical reflection are greatly diminished. Lucid dreaming makes the distinction especially interesting: metacognitive awareness can return during an already conscious dream. The dream does not become phenomenally conscious only when lucidity begins; rather, an additional capacity for recognizing and critically reflecting on the experience appears.

This suggests that phenomenal experience can occur independently of the active critical capacities you take animals to lack.

#5678​·​Vincent Brunsch, about 21 hours ago

This suggests that phenomenal experience can occur independently of the active critical capacities you take animals to lack.

I don’t think so, since, as you write yourself, the critical attitude while dreaming is only “diminished”, not completely gone.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5677.

You propose in your writings that universal creativity can emerge from lower-level, mindless computation, and that consciousness is among the emergent properties associated with creativity. But why must phenomenal experience emerge only together with universal creativity?

The fact that simple execution-only systems are not conscious does not show that no noncreative computation can have phenomenal properties. For example, pain could in principle have emerged from a different kind of lower-level computation long before that system acquired universal creativity.

So unless there is an explanation for why phenomenal experience cannot emerge from noncreative computation, the inference from “animals are noncreative” to “animals are insentient” does not seem to follow.

The inference would seem more natural in the opposite direction: evidence that animals lacked phenomenal experience might support doubts about more general mental capacities, but the absence of universal creativity does not by itself explain why even pain or color experience should be absent.

#5677​·​Vincent Brunsch, 1 day ago

Hi Vincent, welcome to V. Nice meeting you at Conjecture Con.

But why must phenomenal experience emerge only together with universal creativity?

Idk why you switched from “consciousness” to “phenomenal experience” here. But the argument is that behavior that may just as well be preprogrammed and then executed mindlessly is not evidence of consciousness (because it is, again, mindless).

I have seen no evidence of any animal behavior that could not have been preprogrammed. If you know of any, please show me.

  Vincent Brunsch criticized idea #3039.

I don’t think animals are sentient.

I realize this view sounds outlandish to most but it’s a considered, researched conclusion.

There’s lots of evidence of insentience in the way animals behave. If they were sentient, they would not behave the way they do: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence-of-animal-insentience

Additional reasoning:
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-faq
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/konrad-lorenz-hacked-animals
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-discussion-tree
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-animal-rights-community-is-based-on-fear-a

#3039​·​Dennis Hackethal, 11 months ago

In the reasoning you link in support of animal insentience, you argue that sentience and the capacity for universal creativity/critical thought come as a package deal. Dreaming seems to provide evidence against that connection.

Ordinary dreams can involve vivid visual experience, fear, pleasure, pain, etc., while metacognition, reality testing and critical reflection are greatly diminished. Lucid dreaming makes the distinction especially interesting: metacognitive awareness can return during an already conscious dream. The dream does not become phenomenally conscious only when lucidity begins; rather, an additional capacity for recognizing and critically reflecting on the experience appears.

This suggests that phenomenal experience can occur independently of the active critical capacities you take animals to lack.

  Vincent Brunsch criticized idea #3039.

I don’t think animals are sentient.

I realize this view sounds outlandish to most but it’s a considered, researched conclusion.

There’s lots of evidence of insentience in the way animals behave. If they were sentient, they would not behave the way they do: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence-of-animal-insentience

Additional reasoning:
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-faq
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/konrad-lorenz-hacked-animals
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-discussion-tree
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-animal-rights-community-is-based-on-fear-a

#3039​·​Dennis Hackethal, 11 months ago

You propose in your writings that universal creativity can emerge from lower-level, mindless computation, and that consciousness is among the emergent properties associated with creativity. But why must phenomenal experience emerge only together with universal creativity?

The fact that simple execution-only systems are not conscious does not show that no noncreative computation can have phenomenal properties. For example, pain could in principle have emerged from a different kind of lower-level computation long before that system acquired universal creativity.

So unless there is an explanation for why phenomenal experience cannot emerge from noncreative computation, the inference from “animals are noncreative” to “animals are insentient” does not seem to follow.

The inference would seem more natural in the opposite direction: evidence that animals lacked phenomenal experience might support doubts about more general mental capacities, but the absence of universal creativity does not by itself explain why even pain or color experience should be absent.

  Dennis Hackethal posted idea #5676.

The poster I presented at Conjecture Con about animals:

Poster

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #5664. The revision addresses ideas #5459, #5460, #5482, #5512, and #5521.

Add rule making repeat & blatantly irrational advocacy or rejection of an idea a bannable offense

Forum Rules

Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.

Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.

Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.

Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.

AI-generated content may be submitted, but only if disclosed prominently enough so a reasonable person can tell right away. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for your content. Repeat submission of AI-generated content that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.

Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.

Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.

Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.

Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.

Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.

Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.

Site-wide terms apply as well.

Forum Rules

Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.

Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.

Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.

Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.

AI-generated content may be submitted, but only if disclosed prominently enough so a reasonable person can tell right away. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for your content. Repeat submission of AI-generated content that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.

To ensure a high quality of discussions and avoid having to refute and re-refute ideas already known to be wrong, members of Veritula are expected to make an effort to act rationally and take ideas seriously. They should stay at least somewhat up to date on discussion outcomes and avoid repeating the same discussions. Advocacy of ideas with pending criticisms and/or rejection of ideas without pending criticisms – in short, deviations from rationality as defined here – may result in a warning when someone should reasonably already know better. Repeat offenses may result in a temporary or permanent ban. Don’t rely on memory alone to decide whether to adopt an idea. Look it up on Veritula and go by whether the idea has pending criticisms – dispassionately, the way a judge would look up a law in a legal text. If you personally disagree, you can say something like: ‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’ To make things easier, there’s a search page. You can also subscribe to notifications on an idea to stay up to date on any new criticisms (hit the bell icon in the upper right corner of an idea). You can also enable email notifications in your settings.

Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.

Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.

Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.

Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.

Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.

Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.

Site-wide terms and bounty terms apply as well.

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #5670.

How Do Bounties Work?

Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.

Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.

How do I participate?

Only users with a Beginner, Engager, and Defender badge can participate in bounties. Find a list of all badges and how to get them here.

To participate in a bounty, start by logging in or sign up.

Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism of that idea.

That’s it – you’re in.

How do I get paid?

The bounty owner reviews submissions for eligibility against his bounty terms.

To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:

  1. Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
  2. Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms by the deadline. (For temporary bounties, that’s when the review period ends; for standing bounties, it’s seven days after submission.)
  3. Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
  4. You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the deadline.
  5. You’ve not contributed funds to the bounty.

The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.

Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.

How much will I get paid?

For temporary bounties, the amount is prorated among eligible participants based on contribution. For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the amount when the bounty ends.

For standing bounties, amounts are assigned on a per-submission basis. For example, funders may indicate that they will pay a total of USD 100 for the first eligible submission, a total of USD 50 for the second eligible submission, and so on. Each eligible submission has its own payout date.

Fractions of cents are not paid out.

How do I run a bounty?

Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near the buttons to bookmark, archive, etc.).

Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.

Your card is at most authorized, but not charged, when the bounty starts.

A temporary bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. You may review submissions during the entire bounty period. Toward the end, a 24-hour grace period begins during which no new submissions can be made but you may continue your review. Reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.

A standing bounty runs for as long as funds last. Each submission has its own seven-day review period. Again, reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted seven days after submission. Your card is then charged as indicated in your funding allocation.

If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.

What’s the difference between a temporary and a standing bounty?

A temporary bounty has a fixed duration, typically between five and seven days. The bounty amount is prorated among eligible participants at the end. Standing bounties, on the other hand, don’t have a fixed duration; they run as long as funds last. Funds are paid out continuously and on a per-submission basis, as described above.

Temporary bounties are ideal when you have limited time and a smaller budget. Standing bounties are ideal for the long term with a larger budget. However, you can mix and match based on your own unique preferences and circumstances: for example, it’s possible to use a larger budget on a temporary bounty.

Can I fund someone else’s bounty?

Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is at most authorized but not charged.

The bounty owner will expect you to join them in enforcing their terms. Don’t fund a bounty if you’re not prepared to enforce its terms. Run a separate bounty with your own terms instead. By funding someone else’s bounty, you agree that your card may be charged in full if the bounty owner finds you unwilling to enforce their bounty terms, with all proceeds going to Veritula.

Your card is charged for any submissions the bounty owner does not reject. If he rejects all submissions, your card is not charged.

Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.

Start a bounty today. Terms apply.

How Do Bounties Work?

Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.

Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.

How do I participate?

Only users with a Beginner, Engager, and Defender badge can participate in bounties. Find a list of all badges and how to get them here.

To participate in a bounty, start by logging in or sign up.

Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism of that idea.

That’s it – you’re in.

How do I get paid?

The bounty owner reviews submissions for eligibility against his bounty terms.

To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:

  1. Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
  2. Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms by the deadline. (For temporary bounties, that’s when the review period ends; for standing bounties, it’s seven days after submission.)
  3. Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
  4. You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the deadline.
  5. You’ve not contributed funds to the bounty.

The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.

Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.

How much will I get paid?

For temporary bounties, the amount is prorated among eligible participants based on contribution. For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the amount when the bounty ends.

For standing bounties, amounts are assigned on a per-submission basis. For example, funders may indicate that they will pay a total of USD 100 for the first eligible submission, a total of USD 50 for the second eligible submission, and so on. Each eligible submission has its own payout date.

Fractions of cents are not paid out.

How do I run a bounty?

Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near the buttons to bookmark, archive, etc.).

Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.

Your card is at most authorized, but not charged, when the bounty starts.

A temporary bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. You may review submissions during the entire bounty period. Toward the end, a 24-hour grace period begins during which no new submissions can be made but you may continue your review. Reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.

A standing bounty runs for as long as funds last. Each submission has its own seven-day review period. Again, reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted seven days after submission. Your card is then charged as indicated in your funding allocation.

If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.

What’s the difference between a temporary and a standing bounty?

A temporary bounty has a fixed duration, typically between five and seven days. The bounty amount is prorated among eligible participants at the end. Standing bounties, on the other hand, don’t have a fixed duration; they run as long as funds last. Funds are paid out continuously and on a per-submission basis, as described above.

Temporary bounties are ideal when you have limited time and a smaller budget. Standing bounties are ideal for the long term with a larger budget. However, you can mix and match based on your own unique preferences and circumstances: for example, it’s possible to use a larger budget on a temporary bounty.

Can I fund someone else’s bounty?

Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is at most authorized but not charged.

The bounty owner will expect you to join them in enforcing their terms. Don’t fund a bounty if you’re not prepared to enforce its terms. Run a separate bounty with your own terms instead. By funding someone else’s bounty, you agree that your card may be charged in full if you’re found unwilling to enforce the bounty terms, with all proceeds going to Veritula.

Your card is charged for any submissions the bounty owner does not reject. If he rejects all submissions, your card is not charged.

Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.

Start a bounty today. Terms apply.

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #5636.

Add clause about funders having to enforce bounty terms

How Do Bounties Work?

Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.

Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.

How do I participate?

Only users with a Beginner, Engager, and Defender badge can participate in bounties. Find a list of all badges and how to get them here.

To participate in a bounty, start by logging in or sign up.

Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism of that idea.

That’s it – you’re in.

How do I get paid?

The bounty owner reviews submissions for eligibility against his bounty terms.

To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:

  1. Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
  2. Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms by the deadline. (For temporary bounties, that’s when the review period ends; for standing bounties, it’s seven days after submission.)
  3. Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
  4. You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the deadline.
  5. You’ve not contributed funds to the bounty.

The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.

Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.

How much will I get paid?

For temporary bounties, the amount is prorated among eligible participants based on contribution. For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the amount when the bounty ends.

For standing bounties, amounts are assigned on a per-submission basis. For example, funders may indicate that they will pay a total of USD 100 for the first eligible submission, a total of USD 50 for the second eligible submission, and so on. Each eligible submission has its own payout date.

Fractions of cents are not paid out.

How do I run a bounty?

Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near the buttons to bookmark, archive, etc.).

Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.

Your card is at most authorized, but not charged, when the bounty starts.

A temporary bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. You may review submissions during the entire bounty period. Toward the end, a 24-hour grace period begins during which no new submissions can be made but you may continue your review. Reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.

A standing bounty runs for as long as funds last. Each submission has its own seven-day review period. Again, reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted seven days after submission. Your card is then charged as indicated in your funding allocation.

If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.

What’s the difference between a temporary and a standing bounty?

A temporary bounty has a fixed duration, typically between five and seven days. The bounty amount is prorated among eligible participants at the end. Standing bounties, on the other hand, don’t have a fixed duration; they run as long as funds last. Funds are paid out continuously and on a per-submission basis, as described above.

Temporary bounties are ideal when you have limited time and a smaller budget. Standing bounties are ideal for the long term with a larger budget. However, you can mix and match based on your own unique preferences and circumstances: for example, it’s possible to use a larger budget on a temporary bounty.

Can I fund an existing bounty?

Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is at most authorized but not charged.

Your card is charged for any submissions the bounty owner does not reject. If he rejects all submissions, your card is never charged.

Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.

Start a bounty today. Terms apply.

How Do Bounties Work?

Bounties let you invite criticism and reward high-quality contributions with real money.

Bounties are in beta. Expect things to break.

How do I participate?

Only users with a Beginner, Engager, and Defender badge can participate in bounties. Find a list of all badges and how to get them here.

To participate in a bounty, start by logging in or sign up.

Next, browse the list of bounties. Click a bounty’s dollar amount to view its page, review the bountied idea and the terms, and submit a criticism of that idea.

That’s it – you’re in.

How do I get paid?

The bounty owner reviews submissions for eligibility against his bounty terms.

To be eligible for a payout, all of the following must be true:

  1. Your submission is a direct criticism of the bountied idea.
  2. Your submission has no pending counter-criticisms by the deadline. (For temporary bounties, that’s when the review period ends; for standing bounties, it’s seven days after submission.)
  3. Your submission meets the bounty terms and the site-wide terms.
  4. You’ve connected a Stripe account in good standing before the deadline.
  5. You’ve not contributed funds to the bounty.

The bounty owner is never eligible to receive payouts from their own bounty.

Note that counter-criticisms are not constrained by the bounty-specific terms. Only direct criticisms of the bountied idea are.

How much will I get paid?

For temporary bounties, the amount is prorated among eligible participants based on contribution. For example, if there are ten eligible criticisms and you contributed two of them, you receive 20% of the amount when the bounty ends.

For standing bounties, amounts are assigned on a per-submission basis. For example, funders may indicate that they will pay a total of USD 100 for the first eligible submission, a total of USD 50 for the second eligible submission, and so on. Each eligible submission has its own payout date.

Fractions of cents are not paid out.

How do I run a bounty?

Click the megaphone button next to an idea (near the buttons to bookmark, archive, etc.).

Set a bounty amount and write clear terms describing the kinds of criticisms you’re willing to pay for. Then enter your credit-card details to authorize the amount plus a 5% bounty fee.

Your card is at most authorized, but not charged, when the bounty starts.

A temporary bounty typically runs for five to seven days, depending on your card’s authorization window. You may review submissions during the entire bounty period. Toward the end, a 24-hour grace period begins during which no new submissions can be made but you may continue your review. Reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted at the end of the review period and become eligible for payout. Your card is then charged the full authorization.

A standing bounty runs for as long as funds last. Each submission has its own seven-day review period. Again, reject any submissions that don’t meet your terms. Submissions you don’t reject are automatically accepted seven days after submission. Your card is then charged as indicated in your funding allocation.

If you reject all submissions, your card is never charged.

What’s the difference between a temporary and a standing bounty?

A temporary bounty has a fixed duration, typically between five and seven days. The bounty amount is prorated among eligible participants at the end. Standing bounties, on the other hand, don’t have a fixed duration; they run as long as funds last. Funds are paid out continuously and on a per-submission basis, as described above.

Temporary bounties are ideal when you have limited time and a smaller budget. Standing bounties are ideal for the long term with a larger budget. However, you can mix and match based on your own unique preferences and circumstances: for example, it’s possible to use a larger budget on a temporary bounty.

Can I fund someone else’s bounty?

Yes. Review the bounty terms. If you agree with them, click the ‘Add funding’ button on the bounty page and follow the next steps. At this point, your card is at most authorized but not charged.

The bounty owner will expect you to join them in enforcing their terms. Don’t fund a bounty if you’re not prepared to enforce its terms. Run a separate bounty with your own terms instead. By funding someone else’s bounty, you agree that your card may be charged in full if the bounty owner finds you unwilling to enforce their bounty terms, with all proceeds going to Veritula.

Your card is charged for any submissions the bounty owner does not reject. If he rejects all submissions, your card is not charged.

Funders are never eligible to receive payouts from a bounty they funded.

Start a bounty today. Terms apply.

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #3780.

Deutsch’s stance in my own words:

The distinguishing characteristic between rationality and irrationality is that rationality is the search for good explanations. All progress comes from the search for good explanations. So the distinction between good vs bad explanations is epistemologically fundamental.

A good explanation is hard to vary “while still accounting for what it purports to account for.” (BoI chapter 1 glossary.) A bad explanation is easy to vary.

For example, the Persephone myth as an explanation of the seasons is easy to change without impacting its ability to explain the seasons. You could arbitrarily replace Persephone and other characters and the explanation would still ‘work’. The axis-tilt explanation of the earth, on the other hand, is hard to change without breaking it. You can’t just replace the axis with something else, say.

The quality of a theory is a matter of degrees. The harder it is to change a theory, the better that theory is. When deciding which explanation to adopt, we should “choose between [explanations] according to how good they are…: how hard to vary.” (BoI chapter 9; see similar remark in chapter 8.)

#3780​·​Dennis HackethalOP revised 9 months ago

What should do when two explanations are equally hard to vary? Which can I rationally prefer? Can I pick one at random?

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5667.

should_adopt? and pending_criticisms are implemented in terms of each other. Doesn’t that cause a vicious cycle?

#5667​·​Dennis HackethalOP, 11 days ago

No because as they call each other, they traverse the tree, going down it each step of the way. They don’t remain at the same level.

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #5114.

Recursive Epistemology

Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be pending, it can’t have any pending criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.

ruby
def should_adopt? idea

  pending_criticisms(idea).none?

end



def pending_criticisms idea

  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| should_adopt?(c) }

end



def criticisms idea

  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)

end

This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.

#5114​·​Dennis HackethalOP revised 2 months ago

should_adopt? and pending_criticisms are implemented in terms of each other. Doesn’t that cause a vicious cycle?

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #2138.

What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt [the criticized idea] anyway?

Maybe the criticisms aren’t decisive.

#2138​·​Dennis HackethalOP revised 12 months ago

They must be decisive, since pending criticisms and rational adoptability are defined in terms of each other (see #5114). If a criticism is pending, we must by definition adopt it (if we want to be rational). These two concepts are a package deal.

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #5640.

Link to explanation about why being a meat proxy is bad

Forum Rules

Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.

Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.

Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.

Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.

AI-generated content may be submitted, but only if disclosed prominently enough so a reasonable person can tell right away. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for your content. Repeat submission of AI-generated content that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.

Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.

Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.

Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.

Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.

Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.

Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.

Site-wide terms apply as well.

Forum Rules

Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.

Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.

Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.

Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.

AI-generated content may be submitted, but only if disclosed prominently enough so a reasonable person can tell right away. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for your content. Repeat submission of AI-generated content that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.

Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.

Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.

Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.

Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.

Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.

Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.

Site-wide terms apply as well.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5653.

Okay but if I go tomorrow and I do lose strength, I won’t know if it’s because I waited too long.

#5653​·​Dennis Hackethal, 19 days ago

A single additional day won’t cause much strength loss, if any.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5650.

I’m running an experiment to see if I can keep my strength while on an aggressive cut. If I go to the gym today and get weaker numbers, I won’t know whether to attribute that to the cut or to poor sleep.

#5650​·​Dennis Hackethal, 19 days ago

I may still know depending on the numbers. If my strength dips a lot, then it’s not plausibly due to poor sleep (I didn’t sleep that poorly) and I should ease up on the cut anyway.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5660.

I’ll be on the cut for another week at least, so there’ll be one more workout to compare with. Not everything hinges on today or tomorrow.

#5660​·​Dennis Hackethal, 19 days ago

But knowing I’m losing muscle would inform my decision about stopping the cut sooner.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5650.

I’m running an experiment to see if I can keep my strength while on an aggressive cut. If I go to the gym today and get weaker numbers, I won’t know whether to attribute that to the cut or to poor sleep.

#5650​·​Dennis Hackethal, 19 days ago

I’ll be on the cut for another week at least, so there’ll be one more workout to compare with. Not everything hinges on today or tomorrow.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5646.

If I didn’t sleep well, I might not perform well.

#5646​·​Dennis Hackethal, 19 days ago

I’ve been sleeping poorly in general lately. Who’s to say tonight’s sleep will be better? It may even get better because I work out today.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5655.

I’ve been sleeping poorly in general lately. Who’s to say tonight’s sleep will be better? It may even get better because I work out today.

#5655​·​Dennis Hackethal revised 19 days ago

Wrong parent.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #5650.

I’m running an experiment to see if I can keep my strength while on an aggressive cut. If I go to the gym today and get weaker numbers, I won’t know whether to attribute that to the cut or to poor sleep.

#5650​·​Dennis Hackethal, 19 days ago

But if I still hit PRs while on aggressive cut and having slept poorly, that data point would be all the more meaningful for it.