“Can you live your life 100% guided by reason?”

Even if knowledge is unified at some fundamental level, we might not be able to live by means of this unified knowledge alone (because of how we function or pure complexity). Living life might require operating through other «kinds» of knowledge which are pre- cognitive. You cannot ride a bike or maintain a relationship by thinking through quantum mechanical or propositional theories to word.

This is also borrowed from cognitive science. But what's meant by embodied is only that there is "pre-conceptual" models, desires, attential salience etc. that's processed and taken up into concious cognition. An example is how brain regions originally used for moving the body through 3D space are repurposed cognitively to "move around" in idea-space. Some anecdotal evidence for this: notice how many movement metaphors structure propositional thinking. We say we're close to the truth, we under-stand, we grasp a concept, we arrive at a conclusion.

Okay. When your revision addresses a criticism, remember to uncheck each version of the criticism underneath the revision form. Try revising the idea again and uncheck the criticisms you’ve addressed. Otherwise, your ideas look more problematic than they are.

Fixed it. I meant to write perspectival knowledge, whcih is a term used in cognitive science.

It sounds like you have a different conception of knowledge and rationality from Popper’s/Deutsch’s.

Rationality means finding common preferences among ideas. Why should that not be possible for the types of knowledge you mention?

Calling people “embodied agent[s]” like they’re barely superior to video-game characters is dehumanizing and weird.

perspectively knowledge

I’m not sure that’s what you meant to write. Adverbs don’t go in front of nouns.

Living according to reason and rationality alone is impossible, because propositional knowledge is only a subset of needed knowledge for an embodied agent (the others being procedural, participatory- and perspectively knowledge)

It leaves room for something, but it’s not clear what.

Well, he did say “partly”, so that leaves room for personal responsibility.

I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.

Should take personal responsibility and not blame the tool.

If your goal, like mine, is to live a life that is 100% guided by reason, which basically means (#2844) to never adopt ideas that have pending criticisms, you could use Veritula to identify ideas of yours that have pending criticisms so you can either reject those ideas or address the criticisms.

To that end, I suggest you submit a single idea you are confident is correct, and then try your hardest to criticize it. Depending on the idea, I may join you.

It’s a good goal to perfect an idea to the point you’ve mastered it, addressed all objections, understand the objections better than your opponents, etc.

If this sounds up your alley, I recommend starting with something easy. Zelalem tried writing a summary of fallibilism which, after 13 revisions, still contains mistakes.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be part of the solution.

This would work well for some open threads, but not others (like anything I have left unaddressed on Veritula).

Idea: Keep a document tracking open threads, updating it every night. Every morning, feed it to Gemini Flash and have it coach me on what I could work towards resolving today.

Closing threads is a common problem in my life. I should look for ways to increase my propensity to resolve/finish things I start.

The solution needs to allow for the fact that not everything needs to be resolved, that having some open threads is inevitable, and that some of those threads are acceptable to leave open indefinitely.

As I think about this, I notice that—once I solve a given problem with a new idea—I have no habit to consciously acknowledge that a problem has been solved, much less to write down that it has been solved. The ex-problem fades from my mind as I set my mind on a new problem.

I could try to make it a habit to explicitly acknowledge when I do find solutions to problems. If the solution is found on Veritula, it would be natural to acknowledge it here too.

I like the idea of explicitly acknowledging progress in this way, because it might help me become more prideful in the Objectivist sense.

I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.

It does. For example, you could post an idea saying ‘I have decided to do X.’ Like in your discussion on where to move.

You can also indicate resolution of top-level criticisms by archiving them when they have pending counter-criticisms. The meta discussion is an example of top-level ideas reaching resolutions in this way.

Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for how you want to use Veritula?

This seems like a good idea.

See revision #2945.