Dennis Hackethal
@dennis.hackethal·Joined Jun 2024·2,904 ideas: 1,929 adoptable, 975 rejectable
Founder Veritula.
Author. Software engineer. Ex Apple. Translator of The Beginning of Infinity.
dennishackethal.com
#1341·Amaro Koberle, over 1 year agoMurdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.
One can steal value without stealing physical property (as happens when you transfer someone’s digital money without their consent).
‘Lawbreakers get away with it all the time so it’s fine.’ How is that an argument?
#1336·Amaro Koberle, over 1 year agoTo keep someone from copying your work you have to infringe on the private property of that person by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned copying medium to instantiate a certain pattern.
‘To stop someone from murdering you you have to infringe on his private property by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned gun to shoot you’ How is that different?
Copyright encourages creativity because the most creative work is done by the original work’s creator, and copyright protects that creation.
Copyright encourages creativity because the most creative work is done by the original work’s creator, and copyright protects that creation. Without that incentive, many original creators wouldn’t publish their creations in the first place.
#1329·Dennis Hackethal revised over 1 year agoCopyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.
Another way copyright promotes creativity is that it doesn’t allow creations that aren’t sufficiently creative.
#1329·Dennis Hackethal revised over 1 year agoCopyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.
Copyright encourages creativity because the most creative work is done by the original work’s creator, and copyright protects that creation.
#1329·Dennis Hackethal revised over 1 year agoCopyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.
People can still publish fan fiction as long as they get the copyright holder’s permission.
Mark as criticism and remove inapplicable children
Copyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.
Copyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.
Improve wording
This isn’t marked as a criticism but presumably should be. (Though it need not be marked as a criticism anymore if it’s going to be followed up by multiple separate submissions as per #1324.)
This idea isn’t marked as a criticism but presumably should be. (Though it need not be marked as a criticism anymore if it’s going to split up into multiple separate submissions as per #1324.)
#1323·Dirk MeulenbeltOP, over 1 year agoThis is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions as much as without copyright.
I fail to see how fan fiction is at all damaging to an original creator.
We have found an example where copyright is bad.
Where is copyright good?
This isn’t marked as a criticism but presumably should be. (Though it need not be marked as a criticism anymore if it’s going to be followed up by multiple separate submissions as per #1324.)
#1323·Dirk MeulenbeltOP, over 1 year agoThis is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions as much as without copyright.
I fail to see how fan fiction is at all damaging to an original creator.
We have found an example where copyright is bad.
Where is copyright good?
This idea contains at least two claims and one question:
- Copyright stifles creativity.
- Fan fiction does not damage creators.
- “Where is copyright good?”
It’s unwise to submit multiple ideas at once as they each become susceptible to ‘bulk criticism’. That can unduly weaken your own position.
Try submitting the ideas again, separately.
#1321·Dirk MeulenbeltOP, over 1 year agoI am not allowed to sell my Star Wars fan-fiction. Why not?
Not a lawyer but I believe such fan fiction would be considered a derivative work.
Copyright protects original creators’ exclusive right to create derivative works. So, selling your Star Wars fan fiction without permission from the copyright holders would be copyright infringement.
See this article.
#1222·Knut Sondre Sæbø, over 1 year agoI know. But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation, so I think Rands distinction is useful until proven false. Programs run according to their rules, while consciousness seems to transcend "its own rules", which is why it can be creative. To create rules with self-awareness isn’t an incremental improvement that logically follows from what we know of rules and programs today (as I can see it). I see there was another thread on this topic though, so I’ll go in and drop my comments there!
#1222·Knut Sondre Sæbø, over 1 year agoI know. But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation, so I think Rands distinction is useful until proven false. Programs run according to their rules, while consciousness seems to transcend "its own rules", which is why it can be creative. To create rules with self-awareness isn’t an incremental improvement that logically follows from what we know of rules and programs today (as I can see it). I see there was another thread on this topic though, so I’ll go in and drop my comments there!
But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation […]
We do know that. From the laws of physics. From BoI ch. 6:
[E]xpecting a computer to be able to do whatever neurons can is not a metaphor: it is a known and proven property of the laws of physics as best we know them.
#1194·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised over 1 year agoWhat do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
@knut-sondre-saebo, you write in the explanation for this revision:
I think the the law of excluded middle is more a property or constraint of existence, rather than a cause. Since we can treat universe as being something as a given, the reason it can't be something else is because the law of excluded middle constrains it to be what it is.
Revision explanations are meant to be short, eg ‘Fixed typo’ or ‘Clarified x’. Since the quote above contradicts #521, it might be worth submitting it as a criticism of #521, or as a separate idea. It doesn’t really work as a revision because revisions are for incremental changes, not for introducing contradictions.
There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in Biology of desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind.
There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in The Biology of Desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind."
#1195·Knut Sondre Sæbø, over 1 year agoLogical possibilities and possible world frameworks, only works for potential states "inside" the universe right? The state of there being something or nothing in the universe doesn't have a "causal start", because the fact of something existing is an "eternal property" of the universe.
💯
#1191·Knut Sondre Sæbø, over 1 year agoI misread your text. I originally read it as the whole mind is a program (or programs).
I do think the whole mind is a program (or programs).
When you make a revision to address a criticism, be sure to uncheck the corresponding criticism in the revision form, section “Do the comments still apply?”. That way, #1134 won’t show up anymore.
I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.
Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.
Or am I missing something?
I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.
Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work. At least when it refers to all of existence.
Or am I missing something?
#1156·Knut Sondre Sæbø, over 1 year agoIf we talk about the quantifier nothing, you would look at the universe = all objects. So if you remove all objects the universe wouldn’t really «refer» to anything. But if you believe there exist such a thing as the object Nothingness, there could possibly exist a universe = Nothingness (as the object), which has some defined properties.
I agree that nothingness as an object makes no sense.
Regarding nothingness as a quantifier: if you removed all objects except for the universe itself, then the universe remains as an object. So then the set of all objects wouldn’t be empty. So even as a quantifier, nothingness doesn’t seem to work.
Or am I missing something?
#1194·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised over 1 year agoWhat do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
[…] it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist.
That isn’t a sentence.
#1132·Dennis HackethalOP, almost 2 years agoNothingness as a qunatifier
Typo. Consider revising your idea to resolve this criticism.
Knut has fixed the typo. @knut-sondre-saebo, be sure to check off addressed criticisms when you revise an idea. Underneath the revision form, there’s a list of criticisms that you can check and uncheck.
Nothingness as a qunatifier [sic], is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Wouldn’t the universe itself be an object, as would the set itself, so you’d never have an empty set anyway?
Nothingness as a quantifier, is the concept of a universe with no objects. This doesn't have any inherent contradictions in classical logic. It would simply be a world where all objects are subtracted, as in an empty set.
Wouldn’t the universe itself be an object, as would the set itself, so you’d never have an empty set anyway?