Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
#1837·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
Might as well go with top-level ideas, too. That way, when there are other top-level ideas, they get filtered out. Good for zeroing in.
#1837·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoThere should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G /|\ P1 P2 P3 \|/ IThis feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
During testing, I realized this behavior is more confusing than I had initially thought.
7 unchanged lines collapsedI↵ ```↵ ↵ CyclingI↵ ```↵ ↵ This feature would be great for seeing an idea in its proper context without having to scroll past a bunch of potentially unrelated ideas.↵ ↵ Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.4 unchanged lines collapsed
There should be a feature similar to the ‘single comment thread’ feature Reddit has, where you start with some deeply nested child idea and render all of its deeply nested parents above it:
G
/|\
P1 P2 P3
\|/
I
Cycling through revisions on the parent level might hide the idea but that in itself isn’t a big deal: the user can just refresh the page anytime they quickly want to find their way back to the idea.
Every non-top-level idea should have a link to a separate page with the single comment thread.
This feature would also allow me to remove the buggy ‘context’ feature.
#1819·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 5 days agoThis has to take time into context. At one point, a belief in god was all that we had. We didn't have hard to vary explanations. As such, a person might have a belief in god as the only worldview currently. So it isn't irrational for that person, or people back in the days, to believe in god.
Irrationality may be all people had back in the day but that doesn’t make it rational.
This counter-criticism isn’t an invitation to continue this discussion at this point. See #1821.
#1818·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 5 days agoDreams can be a source of knowledge. But dreams aren't always reasonable. Sometimes, dreams are lies.
In that statement, I am looking at reason as a mode of criticism. You might get ideas and potentially knowledge from all sources and reason tests weather they are right or not.
And if I understand you right, what you're saying is if an idea isn't from 'reason' than how can we criticize it using reason. But we can and do all the time. Religion is irrational, but we criticize it and take what is good from it and discard the rest.
See #1821.
#1820·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 5 days agoSay someone said "I had a dream that {insert something true}" or "god told me that {insert something true}," what is the source of knowledge here?
That doesn’t belong here because you didn’t actually comment on my thoughts re circularity (I’m not requesting to do so now). You either did not read ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ or you did not understand it. You need to post ideas in the appropriate place. Discussions on Veritula shouldn’t be treated like linear chats.
Don’t post another idea in this discussion (the one titled ‘Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge’) until you understand how Veritula works. If you think you understand how it works, post a summary of your understanding as a new top-level idea using the form located at the bottom of ‘How Does Veritula Work?’. I can then criticize your summary to help improve your understanding.
You can also study Edwin’s activity for examples of how to do Veritula well. He’s fairly new to it but learned it quickly.
Don’t let this discourage you. Veritula has a learning curve. It takes some upfront investment but it’s worth it.
Use title case to be consistent with other top-level ideas in this discussion
## Whatdoes “battle tested” mean?↵ ↵ OneDoes “Battle Tested” Mean?↵ ↵ One of @edwin-de-wit’s ideas recently got the blue label that says “battle tested” – well done, Edwin! – so he asked me what it means.10 unchanged lines collapsed
Veritula## Recursive Epistemology↵ ↵ Veritula implements a *recursive* epistemology. For a criticism to be outstanding, it can’t have any outstanding criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.16 unchanged lines collapsed
Make small improvements throughout
14 unchanged lines collapsedSince it has no criticisms,it`I` is considered *unproblematic*. It is rational to adopt it, tentatively consider it true, and act in accordance with it. Conversely, it would generally be *irrational* to rejectit. Next,it, consider it false, or act counter to it.↵ ↵ Next, someone submits a criticism `C1`:7 unchanged lines collapsedThe idea `I` is now considered *problematic*for asso long as criticism `C1` is not addressed. How do you address it? You can *revise* `I` so that `C1` doesn’t apply anymore, which restores the previous state with just the standalone`I`.`I` (now called `I2` to indicate the revision):↵ ↵ ```↵ Revise↵ I ------------> I2↵ |↵ C1↵ ```↵ ↵ To track changes, Veritula offers beautiful diffing and *version control forideas*. Alternatively,ideas.*↵ ↵ If you cannot think of a way to revise `I`, you can *counter-criticize* `C1`, thereby neutralizing it:9 unchanged lines collapsedNow, `I` is considered unproblematic again, since `C1` is problematic and thus can’t be a decisive criticismanymore.↵ ↵ Sinceanymore.↵ ↵ If you can think of neither a revision of `I` nor counter-criticism to `C1`, your only option is to accept that `I` has been (tentatively) defeated. You should therefore abandon it, which means: stop acting in accordance with it, considering it to be true, 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,itas a discussion progresses, its tree might look like this:15 unchanged lines collapsedBecause decision-making is a special case of,orie follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, such trees can be used for decision-making, too. When you’re planning your nextmove,move but can’t decide on a city, say, Veritula helps you criticize your ideas and make a decision. Again, it’s rational togoact in accordance withthe ideaideas thathashave no outstanding criticisms. All ideas, including criticisms, should be formulated as concisely aspossible.↵ ↵ Separatepossible, 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.3 unchanged lines collapsedThe more you discuss a given topic, the deeper and wider the tree grows. Some criticismsdocan apply to multiple ideas in the tree, but that needs to be madeexplicit.↵ ↵ Ideasexplicit by submitting them repeatedly.↵ ↵ Ideas that are neither criticisms nor top-level conjectures – eg follow-up questions or neutral comments – are considered *ancillary ideas*. Unlike criticisms, they do not invert their respective parent’s truth status. They are neutral. One of the main benefits of Veritula is that the truth status of any idea in a discussion can be seen at a glance. If you are new to a much-discussed topic, the rational course of action is to adopt the displayed truth status of the ideas involved: if they are marked problematic, reject them; if they are not, adoptthem.↵ ↵ **Veritulathem.↵ ↵ **Therefore, Veritula acts as a *dictionary for ideas*.**3 unchanged lines collapsedVeritula 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 outstanding criticisms, the rational approach is to either abandon it or to save it by revising it or addressingthem.↵ ↵ Manythe outstanding 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.**
#1812·Dennis HackethalOP, 9 days agoWhen you revise an idea to address a criticism, its author should get a notification so they get a chance to verify that the revision really does address the criticism.
For example, I had to manually notify Edwin in #1811 of a revision I had made to address a criticism of his. Without this notification, he might miss the revision. If he disagrees that the revision addresses his criticism, that’s a potential error that might not get corrected.
When you revise an idea to address a criticism, its author should get a notification so they get a chance to verify that the revision really does address the criticism.
#1806·Dennis Hackethal, 9 days agoAnother problem with the term ‘statement’ is that not every statement encodes knowledge. Only some statements do.
For example, trivial or tautological statements aren’t knowledge, neither in the Popperian nor common sense of the word.
@edwin-de-wit In light of the potential shortcomings of Deutsch’s definitions of knowledge, I’ve revised my criticism, resulting in #1806. See if you want to counter-criticize it.
#1804·Edwin de WitOP, 11 days agoGotcha! Did my most recent edit now address the criticism that Joy isn't signaling an unaddressed conflict?
Yeah
#1801·Edwin de WitOP, 11 days agoYeah, it doesn’t feel like a real criticism. I’m just trying to figure out the right way to resolve this thread. You’ve raised other criticisms focused on the content of my explanations—those make sense to keep open. But this thread, about my English possibly being a problem, doesn’t seem like a relevant or substantive criticism. I've claimed that my inaccuracies come more from carelessness than from a lack of comprehension of the language, and that doesn’t feel like a criticism of the ideas we’re discussing. So what should we do with this thread?
But this thread, about my English possibly being a problem, doesn’t seem like a relevant or substantive criticism.
As I’ve pointed out previously, I wouldn’t try to assign strengths (or ‘substantiveness’) to arguments.
Any criticism no matter how small destroys its target decisively if unaddressed. Whether or not its decisive is determined by whether or not there are any counter-criticisms, not by assigning some strength score (a remnant of justificationism). A criticism is decisive as long as there are no counter-criticisms. In the absence of counter-criticisms, how could it not be decisive?
In the current situation, this epistemology is actually to your benefit because, if some idea (such as #1731) is off topic, simply pointing this out in a criticism completely neutralizes the idea you deem off topic.
If a criticism really is tiny (or ‘weak’), it’s easier to just correct the error it points to than to counter-criticize. (For example, it’s usually quicker to fix a typo than to argue about the merits of pointing out typos.)
This is how Veritula is built. If you have an epistemological disagreement about its functionality or want to continue this broader epistemological discussion, submit an idea or criticism in ‘How Does Veritula Work?’.
#1801·Edwin de WitOP, 11 days agoYeah, it doesn’t feel like a real criticism. I’m just trying to figure out the right way to resolve this thread. You’ve raised other criticisms focused on the content of my explanations—those make sense to keep open. But this thread, about my English possibly being a problem, doesn’t seem like a relevant or substantive criticism. I've claimed that my inaccuracies come more from carelessness than from a lack of comprehension of the language, and that doesn’t feel like a criticism of the ideas we’re discussing. So what should we do with this thread?
Since you asked, I suggest you do both of the following:
- Submit a criticism of #1731, suggesting that your English is off topic because the carelessness you suggest caused your typos had no effect on your choice of new terminology (‘Statements’ etc).
- Since you agree that #1738 is not a criticism, revise it to unmark it as a criticism. At the bottom of the revision form, uncheck #1799 to indicate that it does not apply anymore.
Another problem with the term ‘statement’ is that not every statement encodes *knowledge*. Only some statementsdo.↵ ↵ Recall Deutsch’s definitions of knowledge (paraphrasing from memory): information with causal power; information which, once instantiated, causes itself to remain instantiated.↵ ↵ The sentence ‘nice weather we’re having’ is a statement but doesn’t meet those definitionsdo.↵ ↵ For example, trivial or tautological statements aren’t knowledge, neither in the Popperian nor common sense ofknowledge.the word.
#1800·Edwin de WitOP, 11 days agoInteresting, I hadn’t thought of that angle before. I’ve always taken a fairly broad view of “information with causal power,” assuming that any explicit statement from a human mind qualifies. Even the simple remark “Nice weather we’re having” can have causal power—it might prompt the listener to respond, or push the speaker to continue if the comment goes unacknowledged. In that sense, almost any statement can be read and potentially inspire another universal explainer. Even when fed into an LLM, the statement can still be parsed and worked with. In contrast, mere “information” in the form of gibberish, a made-up language, or a nonsensical string of random words would not be parsable, and therefore would not exert causal power on the parser.
I also recall Deutsch often saying that knowledge is information that tends to remain instantiated once it appears. I always understood that as a form of causal power, rather than as a separate criterion. I’m not sure he has ever been fully explicit on this point. But if he does mean it as a strict demarcation—that knowledge is only what causes itself to persist—then I’d agree with your criticism.
You make a good point. Maybe the definition ‘information with causal power’ on its own isn’t very good since virtually any statement can have causal power yet presumably even Deutsch would agree that merely saying ‘hi’ isn’t knowledge even though it can have causal power (eg prompting someone to say ‘hi’ back).
#1738·Edwin de WitOP, 16 days agoI don’t take this personally, and I understand your intention isn’t to attack or belittle. To keep our exchange enjoyable and productive, I’ll make an effort to be more attentive to spelling, terminology, and precision. That said, I’m generally less concerned with exact spelling or perfect terminology, since my focus is usually on parsing the meaning or reasoning behind a theory or criticism. I try to be as charitable as possible in interpreting what someone is trying to say, focusing on the intended idea rather than the precise wording. Still, I recognize that clarity of wording may matter more to others—especially in discussions—so I’ll do my best to be more precise.
Cool, appreciate it. Since you agree and plan to be more precise, should this really be marked as a criticism?
#1741·Edwin de WitOP, 16 days agoI think it does imply a conflict. I think every emotional sensation — including urges — arises from problems in the Popperian sense: two or more incompatible theories in conflict.
For example, consider hunger. One theory (Drive A) is that we don’t want to be hungry, while another signals that we are hungry (from ephemeral sense data (which could itself be viewed as a Drive, though that’s not important here)). The conflict between these theories produces the urge — in this case, the sensation of hunger.
I explain these conflicts in more detail, with further examples of Drives, Intuitions, and Statements, in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEcR_0GbzREAddition 01-09-2025:
In the case of hunger, the sensation was signaling an unaddressed problem, but as you correctly pointed out, not all emotions signal unaddressed problems. Emotions are a feedback mechanism that can reflect different stages of problem solving. For instance, joy may signal a resolved problem, and impatience might signal frustration with an ongoing one. Likewise, anxiety can serve as an early warning of potential obstacles ahead, while relief marks the successful removal of a previously pressing issue.
By the way, you don’t need to put disclaimers like “Addition 01-09-2025”. The versioning system records and displays all that information automatically :)
Elaborate and fix misquote
>joy[J]oy may signal a resolvedproblem↵ ↵ Butproblem […]↵ ↵ But then the conflict is gone. So I don’t think revision #1741 addresses#1730.#1730.↵ ↵ To be clear, when I asked about the conflict behind joy, I meant *ongoing* conflict.↵ ↵ Your addition seems to agree with my criticism, not address it.
#1741·Edwin de WitOP, 16 days agoI think it does imply a conflict. I think every emotional sensation — including urges — arises from problems in the Popperian sense: two or more incompatible theories in conflict.
For example, consider hunger. One theory (Drive A) is that we don’t want to be hungry, while another signals that we are hungry (from ephemeral sense data (which could itself be viewed as a Drive, though that’s not important here)). The conflict between these theories produces the urge — in this case, the sensation of hunger.
I explain these conflicts in more detail, with further examples of Drives, Intuitions, and Statements, in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEcR_0GbzREAddition 01-09-2025:
In the case of hunger, the sensation was signaling an unaddressed problem, but as you correctly pointed out, not all emotions signal unaddressed problems. Emotions are a feedback mechanism that can reflect different stages of problem solving. For instance, joy may signal a resolved problem, and impatience might signal frustration with an ongoing one. Likewise, anxiety can serve as an early warning of potential obstacles ahead, while relief marks the successful removal of a previously pressing issue.
#1630·Edwin de WitOP, about 2 months agoSynonymous indeed. In a previous video I labeled Deutsch's terms to make them easier to discuss and get a better sense for. You're correct that the specific mapping I use is:
Statements = explicit knowledge
Intuitions = inexplicit knowledge
Drives = unconscious knowledge
Another problem with the term ‘statement’ is that not every statement encodes knowledge. Only some statements do.
Recall Deutsch’s definitions of knowledge (paraphrasing from memory): information with causal power; information which, once instantiated, causes itself to remain instantiated.
The sentence ‘nice weather we’re having’ is a statement but doesn’t meet those definitions of knowledge.
#1790·Dennis HackethalOP, 11 days agoFeature to collapse all criticized ideas of a discussion? Useful for todo lists.
Or the existing search page could be filtered by discussion. For example, I could link to that page with an additional query param discussion_id=1 or something like that.
#1790·Dennis HackethalOP, 11 days agoFeature to collapse all criticized ideas of a discussion? Useful for todo lists.
Or each discussion could have a search/filter form to filter ideas not just by criticized or not but also content and potentially other attributes.