Activity Feed
Thanks for clarifying! My criticism no longer applies.
Wait, I've probably misunderstood but in #2228 it seemed like you thought pruning was needed for scarcity, which is needed for competition between ideas and their evolution.
And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.
And now you say the meta algorithm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?
Thanks for clarifying
Erik Orrje updated discussion ‘Is correspondance true (in CR)?’.
The title changed from ‘Is correspondance true (in CR)?’ to ‘Is correspondence true (in CR)?’.
The ‘About’ section changed as follows:
This thread is based on Lucas Smalldon's talk and article on correspondance: https://barelymorethanatweet.com/. Later Dennis Hackethal followed up with criticism on X: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/1977089334294516124. This is my attempt to continue the discussion here on Veritula.
This thread is based on Lucas Smalldon's talk and article on correspondence: https://barelymorethanatweet.com/. Later Dennis Hackethal followed up with criticism on X: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/1977089334294516124. This is my attempt to continue the discussion here on Veritula.
Typo in discussion title: “correspondance” should be ‘correspondence’.
@erik-orrje You (and only you) can update the title here.
Typo in discussion title: “correspondance” should be ‘correspondence’.
@erik-orrje You (and only you) can update the title here.
Typo in discussion title: “correspondance” should be ‘correspondence’.
@erik-orrje You (and only you) can update the title here.
I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and with more reach), similar to biological adaptation.
I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and/or has more reach), similar to biological adaptation.
#2320·Erik OrrjeOP, about 1 year agoCR is an evolutionary theory. There's no need for correspondence in Darwinism. Therefore, we don't need it in CR either.
I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and with more reach), similar to biological adaptation.
CR is an evolutionary theory. There's no need for correspondence in Darwinism. Therefore, we don't need it in CR either.
This thread is based on Lucas Smalldon's talk and article on correspondance: https://barelymorethanatweet.com/. Later Dennis Hackethal followed up with criticism on X: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/1977089334294516124. This is my attempt to continue the discussion here on Veritula.
Benjamin Davies updated discussion ‘Choosing a place to live’.
The ‘About’ section changed as follows:
I am approaching a point in my life where I will soon be able to freely choose where in the world I live (from a financial perspective). I want to discuss various criteria for criticising different places. I am currently a citizen of New Zealand and Britain.
I am approaching a point in my life where I will soon have the financial freedom to choose where in the world I live. I want to discuss various criteria for criticising different places. I am currently a citizen of New Zealand and Britain.
Benjamin Davies updated discussion ‘Choosing a place to live’.
The ‘About’ section changed as follows:
I am progressing in my career to the point where I am approaching the level of financial freedom required to be free to choose where in the world to live. I want to discuss various criteria for criticising different places. I am currently a citizen of New Zealand and Britain.
I am approaching a point in my life where I will soon be able to freely choose where in the world I live (from a financial perspective). I want to discuss various criteria for criticising different places. I am currently a citizen of New Zealand and Britain.
#2318·Benjamin DaviesOP, about 1 year agoUsing my true name here causes me to take more care in what I write. I’m not hiding behind an identity I can discard.
This may make it harder for me to discuss sensitive topics (e.g. navigating personal relationships, health issues, etc.) since it may reveal things to people who know me personally, things that I may wish to keep to myself, that I would only discuss online behind a pseudonym.
Using my true name here causes me to take more care in what I write. I’m not hiding behind an identity I can discard.
People often say there are safety issues involved in using your true name online.
When signing up to Veritula, we are all asked to use our true first and last names. I would like to discuss using true names online, not only on Veritula but on other social media too. This is not something I have thought about much. I currently use pseudonyms everywhere except Instagram/FB and Veritula.
@dennis-hackethal* Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.
#2311·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoWould it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?
Yes, sure.
The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.
Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.
We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.
There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.
I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.
I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?
I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?
I believe I came across it while exploring your blog. My ‘Popperian Wikipedia’ idea was particularly sharp in my mind in that moment, so I was very excited to see how you had set things up here. I think a tremendous amount of it is transferable.
#2311·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoWould it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?
Yes, sure.
The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.
Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.
We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.
There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.
I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.
I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?
My vision is for an online encyclopedia that contains complete articles describing the totality of a perspective, with articles for alternate explanations readily available. I see many problems with this idea but I think it is worth exploring.
#2311·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoWould it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?
Yes, sure.
The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.
Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.
We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.
There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.
I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.
I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?
Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.
Veritula emphasises making one point at a time for ease of criticism and discussion, which is useful in a forum but makes absorbing the totality of an idea a little more tedious compared to a quick glance at an encyclopedia article. (It is possible I have misunderstood some aspect of Veritula here.)
#2311·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoWould it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?
Yes, sure.
The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.
Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.
We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.
There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.
I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.
I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?
Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.
One thing that Wikipedia articles are very good for is providing well-structured information on a given subject. Discussion threads are not so well structured (the order of information is not based on how high-level or foundational it is, like an encyclopedia entry would be, but rather on the nested chronology of whatever discussion happened to take place.)
#2304·Benjamin Davies, about 1 year agoWould it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology? Larry Sanger (a founder of Wikipedia) has said that he now thinks Wikipedia should have competing articles on the same topic to allow for the fact that people disagree.
The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.
I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.
Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?
Yes, sure.
The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.
Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.
We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.
There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.
I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.
I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?
Fix typo
Wait, I've probably misunderstood but in #2228 it seemed like you thought pruning was needed for scarcity, which is needed for competition between ideas and their evolution.
And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.
And now you say the meta algoritm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?
Wait, I've probably misunderstood but in #2228 it seemed like you thought pruning was needed for scarcity, which is needed for competition between ideas and their evolution.
And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.
And now you say the meta algorithm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?
#2283·Erik Orrje, about 1 year agoWait, I've probably misunderstood but in #2228 it seemed like you thought pruning was needed for scarcity, which is needed for competition between ideas and their evolution.
And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.
And now you say the meta algoritm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?
And now you say the meta algoritm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?
Right. Pruning helps it along but isn’t strictly required. You may be misunderstanding natural selection. It is merely “the non-random differential reproduction of genes.” (From The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.) More generally, it’s the non-random differential reproduction of replicators, including ideas.
In other words, selection in and of itself doesn’t even imply that any individual replicator dies (though in practice, they usually do). It just means there’s a difference in the rate of reproduction between different replicators. That difference arises without any pruning.
#2283·Erik Orrje, about 1 year agoWait, I've probably misunderstood but in #2228 it seemed like you thought pruning was needed for scarcity, which is needed for competition between ideas and their evolution.
And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.
And now you say the meta algoritm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?
And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.
I did not equate them. I said in #2263 that the meta algorithm does the pruning: “When I say ‘pruning’, I’m referring to a specific mechanism of a meta algorithm in the mind.”
#2305·Benjamin Davies, about 1 year agoI started a discussion earlier, and what I wrote in the “about” section of the discussion was not written well. I would like to revise it. Is this possible? If not, is there an intention to make this possible eventually?
I went ahead and implemented this feature since it was a good suggestion.
You can edit your discussion here.
Dennis Hackethal updated discussion ‘Veritula – Meta - test’.
The title changed from ‘Veritula – Meta - test’ to ‘Veritula – Meta’.
The ‘About’ section changed as follows:
Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions. - test
Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions.
Dennis Hackethal updated discussion ‘Veritula – Meta’.
The title changed from ‘Veritula – Meta’ to ‘Veritula – Meta - test’.
The ‘About’ section changed as follows:
Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions.
Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions. - test