Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024·Ideas
Activity
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 revised 5 months 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, 5 months agoGotcha! Did my most recent edit now address the criticism that Joy isn't signaling an unaddressed conflict?
Yeah
#1801·Edwin de WitOP, 5 months 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, 5 months 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 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.
Another 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.
#1800·Edwin de WitOP, 5 months 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, 5 months 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 revised 5 months 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 :)
#1741·Edwin de WitOP revised 5 months 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, 7 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 revised 5 months 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 revised 5 months 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.
Feature to collapse all criticized ideas on a page? Useful for todo lists.
Feature to collapse all criticized ideas of a discussion? Useful for todo lists.
Feature to collapse all criticized ideas on a page? Useful for todo lists.
#1786·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoCycling through the revisions of a leaf reveals its gutter, which should be hidden since it’s a leaf.
Fixed as of 76b7ab4.
#1786·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoCycling through the revisions of a leaf reveals its gutter, which should be hidden since it’s a leaf.
Make sure cycling between a leaf revision with children and a leaf revision without children properly toggles the gutter.
Cycling through the revisions of a leaf reveals its gutter, which should be hidden since it’s a leaf.
#1780·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoHaving features to both collapse an idea and hide all its comments seems like an opportunity for unification. Why not just go with collapsing and remove the ability to hide all comments?
Sometimes you just want to hide the comments without collapsing the parent idea.
Because that would mean hiding each comment individually if you ever do want to hide all comments of an idea. And sometimes you just want to hide the comments without collapsing the parent idea.
Because that would mean hiding each comment individually if you ever do want to hide all comments of an idea.
#1781·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoBecause that would mean hiding each comment individually if you ever do want to hide all comments of an idea. And sometimes you just want to hide the comments without collapsing the parent idea.
Bulk
#1780·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoHaving features to both collapse an idea and hide all its comments seems like an opportunity for unification. Why not just go with collapsing and remove the ability to hide all comments?
Because that would mean hiding each comment individually if you ever do want to hide all comments of an idea. And sometimes you just want to hide the comments without collapsing the parent idea.
Having features to both collapse an idea and hide all its comments seems like an opportunity for unification. Why not just go with collapsing and remove the ability to hide all comments?
#1775·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 months agoInclude (preview of) content in idea URLs: '/ideas/123-first-30-or-so-chars-of-idea-here'.
Done as of fcf578c.