Activity Feed
#3028·Dennis HackethalOP revised 11 months agoSay the thought of adopting some idea with no criticisms bothers you. Then you can always try to be the first to suggest criticisms, which will then give you a rational reason not to adopt the idea. If instead you fail to come up with criticisms, why not adopt it?
This approach does not specify how long you should spend coming up with criticisms before adopting it, therefore it cannot be put into action as stated. The delay must be nonzero otherwise, the fresh idea "you should ignore criticisms" would nullify the system.
#5083·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoI’ve formalized some of these ideas in my first paper, ‘The Structure of Rational Thought’.
https://www.academia.edu/170297518/The_Structure_of_Rational_Thought
Now also available on PhilPapers: https://philpapers.org/archive/HACTSO-6.pdf
#4471·Dennis HackethalOP revised 8 months agoHow Does Veritula Work?
Veritula (Latin for ‘a bit of truth’) can help you live a life guided exclusively by reason.
To reason, within any well-defined epistemology, means to follow and apply that epistemology. Unreason, or whim, is an undue departure from it. Epistemology is the study of knowledge – basically, the study of what helps knowledge grow, what hinders its growth, and related questions.
Veritula follows, and helps you apply, Karl Popper’s epistemology, Critical Rationalism. It’s a continuation of the Athenian tradition of criticism and the only known epistemology without major flaws.1
Critical Rationalism says that ideas are assumed true until refuted. This approach leaves us free to make bold guesses and use the full arsenal at our disposal to criticize these guesses in order to solve problems, correct errors, and seek truth. It’s a creative and critical approach. Critical Rationalism is a fallibilist philosophy: there is no criterion of truth to determine with certainty whether some idea is true or false. We all make mistakes, and by an effort, we can correct them to get a little closer to the truth. Rejecting all forms of mysticism and the supernatural, Veritula recognizes that progress is both possible and desirable, and that rational means are the only way to make ongoing progress.
Veritula is a programmatic implementation of Popper’s epistemology.
Veritula provides an objective, partly automated way to tentatively determine whether a given idea is problematic. It does not tell you what to think – it teaches you how to think.
On Veritula, ideas are discrete and immutable. Consider an idea
I:plaintextISince it has no criticisms, we tentatively consider
Iunproblematic. It is rational to adopt it and act in accordance with it. Conversely, it would be irrational to reject it, consider it problematic, or act counter to it. (See #2281 for more details on rational decision-making.)Next, someone submits a criticism
C1:plaintextI|C1The idea
Iis now considered problematic so long as criticismC1is not addressed. How do you address it? You can reviseIso thatC1doesn’t apply anymore, which restores the previous state with just the standaloneI(now calledI2to indicate the revision):plaintextReviseI ------------> I2|C1To track changes, Veritula offers beautiful diffing and version control for ideas.
If you cannot think of a way to revise
I, you can counter-criticizeC1, thereby neutralizing it with a new criticism,C2:plaintextI|C1|C2Now,
Iis considered unproblematic again, sinceC1is problematic and thus can’t be a decisive criticism anymore.If you can think of neither a revision of
Inor counter-criticism toC1, your only option is to accept thatIhas been (tentatively) defeated. You should therefore abandon it, which means: stop acting in accordance with it, considering it to be unproblematic, etc.Since there can be many criticisms (which are also just ideas) and deeply nested counter-criticisms, the result is a tree structure. For example, as a discussion progresses, one of its trees might look like this:
plaintextI/ | \C11 C12 C13/ \ \C21 C22 C23/ \C31 C32In this tree,
Iis considered problematic. AlthoughC11has been neutralized byC21andC22,C12still needs to be addressed. In addition,C23would have neutralizedC13, butC31andC32makeC23problematic, soC13makesIproblematic as well.You don’t need to keep track of these relationships manually. Veritula automatically marks ideas accordingly.
Since decision-making follows the same logic as truth-seeking, you can use these trees to make decisions, too. Veritula implements unanimous consent as defined by Taking Children Seriously, a parenting philosophy that builds on Popper’s epistemology. When you’re planning your next move but can’t decide on a city, say, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a rational decision – meaning a decision you’ll be happy with. Again, it’s rational to act in accordance with ideas that have no pending criticisms.
All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible, and separate ideas should be submitted separately, even if they’re related. Otherwise, you run the risk of receiving ‘bulk’ criticisms, where a single criticism seems to apply to more content than it actually does.
Again, criticisms are also just ideas, so the same is true for criticisms. Submitting each criticism separately has the benefit of requiring the proponent of an idea to address each criticism individually, not in bulk. If he fails to address even a single criticism, the idea remains problematic and should be rejected.
The more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticisms can apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be made explicit by submitting them repeatedly.
Comments that aren’t criticisms – eg follow-up questions or otherwise neutral comments – are considered ancillary ideas. Unlike criticisms, ancillary ideas do not invert their respective parents’ statuses. They are neutral.
One of the main benefits of Veritula is that the status of any idea in a discussion can be seen at a glance. If you are new to a much-discussed topic, adopt the displayed status of the ideas involved: if they are marked problematic, reject them; if they are not, adopt them.
Therefore, Veritula acts as a dictionary for ideas.
One of the problems of our age is that people have same discussions over and over again. Part of the reason is widespread irrationality, expressed in the unwillingness to change one’s mind; another is that it’s simply difficult to remember or know what’s true and what isn’t. Discussion trees can get complex, so people shouldn’t blindly trust their judgment of whether some idea is true or problematic, whether nested criticisms have been neutralized or not. Going off of memory is too error prone.
Veritula solves this problem: it makes discussion trees explicit so you don’t have to remember each idea and its relation to other ideas. Veritula therefore also enables you to hold irrational people accountable: if an idea has pending criticisms, the rational approach is to either abandon it or to save it by revising it or addressing all pending criticisms.
Many people don’t like to concede an argument. But with Veritula, no concessions are necessary. The site just shows you who’s right.
Using Veritula, we may discover a bit of truth.
Popperian epistemology has some flaws, like verisimilitude, but Veritula doesn’t implement those.
I’ve formalized some of these ideas in my first paper, ‘The Structure of Rational Thought’.
https://www.academia.edu/170297518/The_Structure_of_Rational_Thought
#5079·Tyler Mills, 4 months agoGemini's response to that tweet: "The text uses legitimate biochemical concepts—like the fact that fluoride is a potent halogen that hardens minerals and can be toxic in high doses—to build a narrative based on skewed history. It fabricates a geological explanation for Hereford, Texas, to erase the very thing that actually protected the town's teeth: naturally occurring fluoride."
I usually get conspiracy vibes from anti-fluoride sources, but I haven’t looked into it much.
Gemini's response to that tweet: "The text uses legitimate biochemical concepts—like the fact that fluoride is a potent halogen that hardens minerals and can be toxic in high doses—to build a narrative based on skewed history. It fabricates a geological explanation for Hereford, Texas, to erase the very thing that actually protected the town's teeth: naturally occurring fluoride."
#5075·Tyler MillsOP revised 4 months agoAssuming qualia are classical, there is nothing stopping every step in the computation comprising them from being measured, like any computation. Then, nothing is stopping that recording/program from being rerun.
#5075·Tyler MillsOP revised 4 months agoAssuming qualia are classical, there is nothing stopping every step in the computation comprising them from being measured, like any computation. Then, nothing is stopping that recording/program from being rerun.
Is a quale a sequence of information states? Is this true of any given computation? Does the quale "care" if the states are computed afresh or read from memory?
Any physical process can be simulated to arbitrary precision. A simulation is a program, and nothing is stopping any given program from being rerun.
Assuming qualia are classical, there is nothing stopping every step in the computation comprising them from being measured, like any computation. Then, nothing is stopping that recording/program from being rerun.
#5040·Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoA quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times.
How do you know this?
Any physical process can be simulated to arbitrary precision. A simulation is a program, and nothing is stopping any given program from being rerun.
May have found a solution to my salt problem: https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ5cCwQFOtp/
The Kirin Electric Salt Spoon. CNET wrote an article about it: https://www.cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/we-tested-an-electric-salt-spoon-that-might-help-you-stick-to-your-low-sodium-diet/
It basically works by using electric signals to trick your brain into thinking it’s tasting salt.
#5055·Anon Anon, 4 months agoThis is not a valid or interesting criticism of my argument that the apparent dilemma can be resolved through the growth of knowledge.
Not interesting:
You’ve merely argued one side of the dilemma, apparently insisting that there is no dilemma to be resolved. If the dilemma can be resolved, then any argument for one side or the other is pedantic and superseded by that solution.Not valid:
Sex is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause pregnancy. “Eating too much” is also neither necessary nor sufficient to cause adiposity. Even if you assume that those voluntary actions played a causal role in the transformation, the argument you presented depends on the premise that “if someone voluntarily performs any action that contributes to the antecedents of a transformation and has knowledge about the antecedent relationship between those actions and that transformation, then that transformation is under their authority.” This is a deeply problematic theory, because it results in every accident or crime against someone happening “under their authority.” With respect to sex and pregnancy, specifically, this theory leads to the conclusion that miscarriages are also under one’s authority. Regardless of whether your real concern here is about the loss of life due to terminated pregnancies (vs. punishing women for having sex), far more potential lives are lost due to miscarriage than abortion, so this should be of much greater concern.Fortunately, miscarriages could also be avoided by using the technologies I proposed above. In the future, this could even become the preferred method of gestation for the protection of the child’s life, and the optimization of their early development.
You’ve submitted several criticisms in one idea. It’s in your interest to avoid doing that because you make yourself vulnerable to what we call ‘bulk criticism’. See #4471.
I may have more criticisms but I can’t really submit them productively until you split up your idea.
#5055·Anon Anon, 4 months agoThis is not a valid or interesting criticism of my argument that the apparent dilemma can be resolved through the growth of knowledge.
Not interesting:
You’ve merely argued one side of the dilemma, apparently insisting that there is no dilemma to be resolved. If the dilemma can be resolved, then any argument for one side or the other is pedantic and superseded by that solution.Not valid:
Sex is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause pregnancy. “Eating too much” is also neither necessary nor sufficient to cause adiposity. Even if you assume that those voluntary actions played a causal role in the transformation, the argument you presented depends on the premise that “if someone voluntarily performs any action that contributes to the antecedents of a transformation and has knowledge about the antecedent relationship between those actions and that transformation, then that transformation is under their authority.” This is a deeply problematic theory, because it results in every accident or crime against someone happening “under their authority.” With respect to sex and pregnancy, specifically, this theory leads to the conclusion that miscarriages are also under one’s authority. Regardless of whether your real concern here is about the loss of life due to terminated pregnancies (vs. punishing women for having sex), far more potential lives are lost due to miscarriage than abortion, so this should be of much greater concern.Fortunately, miscarriages could also be avoided by using the technologies I proposed above. In the future, this could even become the preferred method of gestation for the protection of the child’s life, and the optimization of their early development.
Please work on your tone. You’re mixing in personal accusations rather than just sticking with impersonal arguments. For example: “apparently insisting”, “pedantic”, and also a hidden accusation that I have an ulterior motive to punish women rather than save lives (“Regardless of whether your real concern here…”).
This kind of tone can derail and sabotage debate. Veritula has a policy against any behavior that sabotages debate. Please review our forum rules (#4460).
New accounts, especially anonymous ones, need to tread lightly and prove they’re worth engaging with.
#5055·Anon Anon, 4 months agoThis is not a valid or interesting criticism of my argument that the apparent dilemma can be resolved through the growth of knowledge.
Not interesting:
You’ve merely argued one side of the dilemma, apparently insisting that there is no dilemma to be resolved. If the dilemma can be resolved, then any argument for one side or the other is pedantic and superseded by that solution.Not valid:
Sex is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause pregnancy. “Eating too much” is also neither necessary nor sufficient to cause adiposity. Even if you assume that those voluntary actions played a causal role in the transformation, the argument you presented depends on the premise that “if someone voluntarily performs any action that contributes to the antecedents of a transformation and has knowledge about the antecedent relationship between those actions and that transformation, then that transformation is under their authority.” This is a deeply problematic theory, because it results in every accident or crime against someone happening “under their authority.” With respect to sex and pregnancy, specifically, this theory leads to the conclusion that miscarriages are also under one’s authority. Regardless of whether your real concern here is about the loss of life due to terminated pregnancies (vs. punishing women for having sex), far more potential lives are lost due to miscarriage than abortion, so this should be of much greater concern.Fortunately, miscarriages could also be avoided by using the technologies I proposed above. In the future, this could even become the preferred method of gestation for the protection of the child’s life, and the optimization of their early development.
This is not a valid or interesting criticism of my argument that the apparent dilemma can be resolved through the growth of knowledge.
It wasn’t intended as a criticism. It was a related observation. That’s why I didn’t mark my idea as a criticism. It sounds like you’ve misunderstood me.
#5052·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoIt seems odd to me when people argue pregnancy is a loss of authority over one’s body.
A woman had sex. Assuming it was voluntary, what did she think was going to happen?
Imagine someone saying: ‘I ate too much. Now I’m fat. I’ve lost authority over my own body.’ But they didn’t. They got exactly what they should have expected.
I think what those people are really saying is: they don’t like that their actions have consequences. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
This is not a valid or interesting criticism of my argument that the apparent dilemma can be resolved through the growth of knowledge.
Not interesting:
You’ve merely argued one side of the dilemma, apparently insisting that there is no dilemma to be resolved. If the dilemma can be resolved, then any argument for one side or the other is pedantic and superseded by that solution.
Not valid:
Sex is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause pregnancy. “Eating too much” is also neither necessary nor sufficient to cause adiposity. Even if you assume that those voluntary actions played a causal role in the transformation, the argument you presented depends on the premise that “if someone voluntarily performs any action that contributes to the antecedents of a transformation and has knowledge about the antecedent relationship between those actions and that transformation, then that transformation is under their authority.” This is a deeply problematic theory, because it results in every accident or crime against someone happening “under their authority.” With respect to sex and pregnancy, specifically, this theory leads to the conclusion that miscarriages are also under one’s authority. Regardless of whether your real concern here is about the loss of life due to terminated pregnancies (vs. punishing women for having sex), far more potential lives are lost due to miscarriage than abortion, so this should be of much greater concern.
Fortunately, miscarriages could also be avoided by using the technologies I proposed above. In the future, this could even become the preferred method of gestation for the protection of the child’s life, and the optimization of their early development.
#5046·Anon Anon, 4 months agoAbortion is a technology problem, not a political issue. The choice between the loss of life and the loss of authority over one’s own body is a poor one. This dilemma is caused by a lack of medical knowledge.
At a high level, there are only two technologies needed to resolve this dilemma.
1. Safe extraction of a living pregnancy.
2. In Vitro Gestation.In fact, if some of the political funding had been redirected toward research, it would probably be solved by now.
It seems odd to me when people argue pregnancy is a loss of authority over one’s body.
A woman had sex. Assuming it was voluntary, what did she think was going to happen?
Imagine someone saying: ‘I ate too much. Now I’m fat. I’ve lost authority over my own body.’ But they didn’t. They got exactly what they should have expected.
I think what those people are really saying is: they don’t like that their actions have consequences. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
Abortion is a technology problem, not a political issue. The choice between the loss of life and the loss of authority over one’s own body is a poor one. This dilemma is caused by a lack of medical knowledge.
At a high level, there are only two technologies needed to resolve this dilemma.
1. Safe extraction of a living pregnancy.
2. In Vitro Gestation.
In fact, if some of the political funding had been redirected toward research, it would probably be solved by now.
#5044·Tyler MillsOP, 4 months agoThat's what I get for suddenly returning to this discussion after a long gap. I was thinking that any computation can be recorded and re-run at will, in principle. So qualia can too. But indeed, I have suggested in this discussion that it is the evolution of programs that causes experience, and evolution cannot be scripted. This means a quale that is recorded will not "qualiate" if it is rerun exactly as recorded.
TL;DR: I don't.
My suspicion remains that creativity and qualia come from some kind of blind exchange between layers of emergence, of which mutations and mistakes in copying, as seen in DNA, are an example.
#5040·Dennis Hackethal, 5 months agoA quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times.
How do you know this?
That's what I get for suddenly returning to this discussion after a long gap. I was thinking that any computation can be recorded and re-run at will, in principle. So qualia can too. But indeed, I have suggested in this discussion that it is the evolution of programs that causes experience, and evolution cannot be scripted. This means a quale that is recorded will not "qualiate" if it is rerun exactly as recorded.
TL;DR: I don't.
#5038·Tyler MillsOP revised 5 months agoA quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times. That looping program is not a person: it can only create whatever knowledge it originally did, not any possible knowledge, maybe until freed from the loop. Yet it still constitutes experience.
So people are not the only programs that can be qualia.
A quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times.
How do you know this?
A quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times. That looping program is not a person (no knowledge is created, however many times it loops, for instance), but it still constitutes experience.
So people are not the only programs that can be qualia.
A quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times. That looping program is not a person: it can only create whatever knowledge it originally did, not any possible knowledge, maybe until freed from the loop. Yet it still constitutes experience.
So people are not the only programs that can be qualia.
#5032·Tyler MillsOP, 5 months agoActually maybe this isn't so obvious. A person need not create new knowledge for the personhood property to be present, since it is a counterfactual property: a person can create new knowledge (new and non-inferable, I argue).
True that a person need not create new knowledge, but a looping quale is not a person, per #5035, so the claim survives this criticism.
#5033·Tyler MillsOP, 5 months agoIf qualia are only present when new knowledge is being made, then for a quale to be replayed it could be that there must be a reset each time: the knowledge produced from the previous run is erased. So w.r.t. the AGI system alone, new knowledge is being created each time (it doesn't matter if the knowledge is copied from a previous run and stored elsewhere, in which case it is not new w.r.t. that combined system).
#5034·Tyler MillsOP, 5 months agoA looping quale is also not a person because personhood is not just: can create a given piece of new knowledge, it is: can create any knowledge (not just that created by this quale; again assuming knowledge creation defines qualia).
Should clarify that personhood is: can create any new knowledge in principle (excluding resource constraints). A program consisting of a looping quale cannot create any possible knowledge, whether or not it is creating some each time it's run.
#5031·Tyler MillsOP, 5 months agoA quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times. That looping program is not a person (no knowledge is created, however many times it loops, for instance), but it still constitutes experience.
So people are not the only programs that can be qualia.
A looping quale is also not a person because personhood is not just: can create a given piece of new knowledge, it is: can create any knowledge (not just that created by this quale; again assuming knowledge creation defines qualia).
#5031·Tyler MillsOP, 5 months agoA quale can be recorded and replayed later, arbitrarily many times. That looping program is not a person (no knowledge is created, however many times it loops, for instance), but it still constitutes experience.
So people are not the only programs that can be qualia.
If qualia are only present when new knowledge is being made, then for a quale to be replayed it could be that there must be a reset each time: the knowledge produced from the previous run is erased. So w.r.t. the AGI system alone, new knowledge is being created each time (it doesn't matter if the knowledge is copied from a previous run and stored elsewhere, in which case it is not new w.r.t. that combined system).