Dennis Hackethal

Yes. Which doesn’t problematize most of her other ideas, fortunately.

But my guess is that any false idea could, if not corrected, result in humanity’s demise. So, should all of Rand’s ideas spread to fixation, we could have her to thank for going the way of the dodo.

Of course the fact that this ‘exist as foundationalism’ idea does not problematize her other ideas goes both ways - opponents of Objectivism cannot appeal to that idea as a wholesale refutation of Objectivism.

(Logan Chipkin)

Sounds like she treats existence as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.

I disagree. Existence is something to be explained.

(Logan Chipkin)

A discussion with Logan Chipkin. Shared with permission. Others are welcome to contribute.

Ayn Rand writes:

[A]lthough few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: “If there is no God, who created the universe?”
   To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.

In short, she argues that “the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated […]”. Which means that investigations into the origin of the universe are metaphysically invalid because they contradict the primacy of existence.

[H]aving a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.

Just so you know, although I’ve implemented the list of members, I do want to be clear that Veritula is not meant for socializing.

Done as of 6251b6a, see veritula.com/members.

Yes re OR gate.

Re light switches: as I understand it, they either inhibit or permit the flow of electricity. But there’s no information there, let alone processing of information. So the example is flawed, I think.

Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'

Done, see #510.

I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.

I think you’re right, that would be best.

How to Structure Discussions

Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors.

But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:

Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions

Or, if the discussion is wider than a single problem, you can treat it as a collection of problems:

Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on

Either way, discussions map onto Popper’s problem-oriented philosophy. If that’s what people want – I’m keeping discussion structures open and flexible in case they don’t.

And, as I wrote: “Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.”

I agree with @tom-nassis that it’s best if discussion titles are problem statements (#506).

You marked this as a criticism but it sounds like you’re agreeing with me.

Good idea. I’ve added this to my list of features to implement.

You suggest replacing discussion trees:

[I]nstead of […] discussion trees […] users would articulate problems and their solutions.

But then you also write:

Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions.

Which means you’d still have trees regardless. So that sounds like a contradiction.

As I recall, previous iterations of Veritula had explicit designations such as ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ but I decided against continuing those designations. It’s been years but I think it was too rigid and felt too much like ‘red tape’. It’s easier when the only check box in this regard is a boolean for ‘criticism’.

Can’t discussions already map onto the structure you suggest?

Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions

Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.

So I think people can already use Veritula in the way you suggest.

They can also use it like this:

Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on

It is under that definition. Not the kind of computer people traditionally think of when they hear the term, like a laptop or desktop, but it’s a computer nonetheless.

Since this is an idea for improvement, you’d want to mark it as a criticism. Try out the revision feature. Mark it as a criticism and then deselect my comment underneath the form to indicate that the revision addresses my comment.

Limitations of Veritula

Veritula can help you discover a bit of truth.

It’s not guaranteed to do so. It doesn’t give you a formula for truth-seeking. There’s no guarantee that an idea with no outstanding criticisms won’t get a new criticism tomorrow. All ideas are tentative in nature. That’s not a limitation of Veritula per se but of epistemology generally (Karl Popper).

There are currently no safeguards against bad actors. For example, people can keep submitting arbitrary criticisms in rapid succession just to ‘save’ their pet ideas. There could be safeguards such as rate-limiting criticisms, but that encourages brigading, making sock-puppets, etc. That said, I think these problems are soluble.

Opposing viewpoints should be defined clearly and openly. Not doing so hinders truth-seeking and rationality (Ayn Rand).

Personal attacks poison rational discussions because they turn an open, objective, impartial truth-seeking process into a defensive mess. It shifts the topic of the discussion from the ideas themselves to the participants in a bad way. People are actually open to harsh criticism as long as their interlocutor shows concern for how it lands (Chris Voss). I may use ‘AI’ at some point to analyze the tone of an idea upon submission.

Veritula works best for conscientious people with an open mind – people who aren’t interested in defending their ideas but in correcting errors. That’s one of the reasons discussions shouldn’t get personal. Veritula can work to resolve conflicts between adversaries, but I think that’s much harder. Any situation where people argue to be right rather than to find truth is challenging. In those cases, it’s best if an independent third party uses Veritula on their behalf to adjudicate the conflict objectively.

@dirk-meulenbelt argues that couples consider their first date to be the start of their relationship when it really wasn’t because you can’t ‘break up’ after a first date.

In other words, people choose somewhat arbitrary designations which aren’t morally relevant by themselves.

Heather, who’s publicly shared that she’s had an abortion, says people treat a zygote as a clump of cells only when they don’t want it. When they want it, then they consider it a baby. They can’t have it both ways.

Mostly done, apart from some polishing, as of 5f5c545.

Now that there are notifications, people should be able to @mention each other.

The more ideas there are in a discussion, the further the form for top-level ideas is pushed down. Then people don’t know how to submit a new idea and comment on an existing one instead, even if it’s unrelated, as happened with #448. So I need to make this clearer.