Activity feed
#422 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoDiffs should omit unchanged lines. Maybe just leave up to three lines around changed content for context – that’s how git does it.
Done as of cc8e3e9. It now says ‘x unchanged lines collapsed’.
Diffs should omit unchanged lines. Maybe just leave up to three lines around changed content for context – that’s how git does it.
Now that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, *those are the ones he can rationally hold.* And another tab for problematic ideas, ie *ideas he has submitted that he cannot rationally hold*.
Now that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he cannot rationally hold.
Clarify remark about decision-making – decision-trees are different
48 unchanged lines collapsedBecause decision-making is a special case of, or follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, such trees canalsobe usedas decision trees.↵ ↵ Allfor decision-making, too. When you’re planning your next move, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a decision. Again, it’s rational to go with the idea that has no outstanding criticisms.↵ ↵ All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely as possible.20 unchanged lines collapsed
There’s a bug where hovering over a link in the markdown preview removes the form and all typed text. Hovering over a link should have no effect on the form.
#414 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoSince the diff processes the text as a single line, the hunk header is always going to say either
@@ -0,0 +1 @@(for the first version) or@@ -1 +1 @@(for every subsequent version). Meaning the header provides no real information. So I might as well remove it.
Done as of 8d3eed0, see eg the version history of #414.
Since the diff processes the text as a single line, thediff informationhunk header is always going to say either `@@ -0,0 +1 @@` (for the first version) or `@@ -1 +1 @@` (for every subsequent version). Meaningitthe header provides no real information. So I might as well removethat part.it.
Since the diff processes the text as a single line, the diff information is always going to say either @@ -0,0 +1 @@ (for the first version) or @@ -1 +1 @@ (for every subsequent version). Meaning it provides no real information. So I might as well remove that part.
4 unchanged lines collapsedIt helps when critics quotewhichthe part they’re criticizing, like I’m doing above, but the responsibility still lies with the original poster.
> I also don't mind the bulk criticism. Even if the person submittingan ideaa post doesn’t mind bulk criticism, *others* still have a harder time discerning whichparts ofideas in theideapost are true/salvageable and which should be discarded. Meaning error correction is harder. It helps when critics quote which part they’re criticizing, like I’m doing above, but the responsibility still lies with the original poster.
#398 · Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 8 months agoI have to admit I was unsure how many claims I actually made, and excused myself from the burden of having to figure it out with the following excuse: I expect that many potential users of your platform would make this error and therefore we should try to run with it. I also don't mind the bulk criticism.
I also don't mind the bulk criticism.
Even if the person submitting an idea doesn’t mind bulk criticism, others still have a harder time discerning which parts of the idea are true/salvageable and which should be discarded. Meaning error correction is harder.
It helps when critics quote which part they’re criticizing, like I’m doing above, but the responsibility still lies with the original poster.
#398 · Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 8 months agoI have to admit I was unsure how many claims I actually made, and excused myself from the burden of having to figure it out with the following excuse: I expect that many potential users of your platform would make this error and therefore we should try to run with it. I also don't mind the bulk criticism.
I agree many people would make the same error and that it’s a good idea to see how things play out when it does happen. There’s going to be a learning curve for new users. I will probably just point it out every time. I may even implement a feature where ‘AI’ analyzes text and helpfully points out to users that they’re about to submit multiple claims at once.
#397 · Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 8 months agoI think it's different from Pascal's wager, as with Pascal's wager you have infinite, or many (all known religions) wagers. (Which god?) Whereas with animal consciousness we have only one wager, that we're currently not sure of, on which we're wagering a lot of potential animal suffering. Furthermore, we are not on our deathbed, and hence have the luxury of time to consider our trade.
[W]e are not on our deathbed, and hence have the luxury of time to consider our trade.
But meat eaters contribute to the death of animals every day, so if animals were sentient there would be more urgency to apply the wager, not less. (I’ll preemptively add that, although meat eaters die every day, too, each one of them is complicit in what would be the murder of several innocent animals, so there’d still be more urgency.)
#397 · Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 8 months agoI think it's different from Pascal's wager, as with Pascal's wager you have infinite, or many (all known religions) wagers. (Which god?) Whereas with animal consciousness we have only one wager, that we're currently not sure of, on which we're wagering a lot of potential animal suffering. Furthermore, we are not on our deathbed, and hence have the luxury of time to consider our trade.
I see that, according to Wikipedia, Pascal’s detractors criticized the wager for not addressing “the problem of which religion and which God should be worshipped”, but I don’t see how that is relevant here. Maybe there are some differences between how you apply the wager and how Pascal applied it, but the core logic is the same and equally invalid.
As I write in the first link, the videos “mostly show bugs and nonsensical behavior, things that wouldn’t happen if animals were sentient.”
#375 · Dennis Hackethal, 9 months ago[W]ild nature is evil and […] we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
The suffering of some is not an obligation on others (Rand).
Not an obligation, but it would be a Morally Good Thing, whereas without sentience it would be pointless. (Or rather, a Morally Bad Thing, as this would be costly to sentient humans.)
#374 · Dennis Hackethal, 9 months ago[C]onsidering our own (recognised) fallibility […] we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
There’s lots of evidence: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/evidence-of-animal-insentience
And reasoning:
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/konrad-lorenz-hacked-animals
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-discussion-tree
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/animal-sentience-faq
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-animal-rights-community-is-based-on-fear-a
What are the criteria by which this is evidence?
#370 · Dennis Hackethal, 9 months agoI think you’ve replaced my question with a different one.
I asked whether you’d like to break your post up into several ideas to protect against bulk criticism.
You replaced the question with: ‘what is the core of your idea?’ And then you answered the replacement question instead of mine.
So your original post still stands (#364), and is still vulnerable to bulk criticism. I conclude that you are not concerned with bulk criticism and I will comment on the original post accordingly.
I have to admit I was unsure how many claims I actually made, and excused myself from the burden of having to figure it out with the following excuse: I expect that many potential users of your platform would make this error and therefore we should try to run with it. I also don't mind the bulk criticism.
#373 · Dennis Hackethal, 9 months ago[S]uppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
You say this wouldn’t put us in a Pascal’s wager situation, but then you employ more or less the same logic as Pascal: comparing a huge, potential downside with a certain, minor downside, and then choosing the minor downside.
I think it's different from Pascal's wager, as with Pascal's wager you have infinite, or many (all known religions) wagers. (Which god?) Whereas with animal consciousness we have only one wager, that we're currently not sure of, on which we're wagering a lot of potential animal suffering. Furthermore, we are not on our deathbed, and hence have the luxury of time to consider our trade.
#364 · Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 9 months agoUnless we are solipsists, we conclude that all human beings are conscious.
A simple extrapolation to animals would be to say that those with similar characteristics to humans, could also have consciousness.
I am not aware of any strong theories on animals being unconscious, other than intuitions of some AGI researchers who conjecture that sentience hangs together with unique learning capabilities of humans.
And suppose that we have a reasonable (best available) current explanation for why animals are not conscious, I don't think that puts us in a Pascal's wager situation, because considering our own (recognised) fallibility, and the asymmetry of being right and wrong with respect to moral outcomes: enormous suffering versus inconvenience, we should consider to tread on the safe side until we have more evidence.
This implies that we should treat animals carefully, as their sentience allows them to feel pain, until we have a lot more information. Interestingly, this also implies that wild nature is evil and that we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
TL;DR: We only have vague conjectures on animal consciousness
[W]ild nature is evil and […] we should seek to get rid of it (if we continue to believe in animal consciousness).
The suffering of some is not an obligation on others (Rand).