Search

Ideas that are…

Search ideas

Guess: We can generalise economics further and let it be subsumed by epistemology.

When we choose to try to solve certain problems, we always make trade-offs from a place of scarcity. Likewise, our conjectures wouldn't evolve without the competition enabled by scarcity in our minds.

#2284·Erik Orrje, about 5 hours ago·Criticism

Wait, I've probably misunderstood but in #2228 it seemed like you thought pruning was needed for scarcity, which is needed for competition between ideas and their evolution.

And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.

And now you say the meta algoritm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?

#2283·Erik Orrje, about 6 hours ago·Criticism

Superseded by #2281. This comment was generated automatically.

#2282·Dennis HackethalOP, about 7 hours ago·Criticism

Rational Decision-Making

Expanding on #2112

If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.

If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?

#2281·Dennis HackethalOP, about 7 hours ago·Revision of #2117· Battle tested

Superseded by #2279. This comment was generated automatically.

#2280·Dennis HackethalOP, about 14 hours ago·Criticism

Rational Decision-Making

Expanding on #2112

If an idea has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.

If an idea does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?

#2279·Dennis HackethalOP, about 14 hours ago·Revision of #2117·Criticized1oustanding criticism

You say that trade-offs and scarcity are fundamental to biology. I agree, and this implies economics as a more fundamental science than biology or evolution. It still applies in our computer models, where biological details may not.

#2278·Dirk Meulenbelt, about 16 hours ago·CriticismCriticized1oustanding criticism

Undestanding does not flow from explanatory knowledge the way you imply. I understand Dutch and English, but a lot of my understanding of it is inexplicit.

#2277·Dirk Meulenbelt, about 16 hours ago·Criticism

By the same logic, wouldn't neo-Darwinism also disqualify as a strand, since it's subsumed by Popperian epistemology?

#2276·Erik Orrje, about 19 hours ago·Criticism

I don’t think the meta algorithm is necessary for the evolution of ideas. After all, there is no meta algorithm across minds, yet ideas (memes) evolve across minds. Inside a single mind, the meta algorithm is inherited from our non-creative ancestors, where (among other things) it acted as a fail safe against erroneous behaviors.

#2275·Dennis Hackethal, about 19 hours ago·CriticismCriticized1oustanding criticism

Yeah nice, seems true. There's no objective explicit/inexplicit ratio for knowledge, it depends on the person's background knowledge.

#2274·Erik Orrje, 1 day ago

May have misunderstood, but do you mean that explanatory knowledge corresponds to truth, whereas biological/evolutionary knowledge doesn't?

I think that was refuted by Lucas Smalldon and others: https://barelymorethanatweet.com/

#2273·Erik Orrje, 1 day ago·Criticism

Hmm never thought of that, interesting! I think since the disease involves continuous loss of brain volume, hardware decay seems like the best explanation.

In general I think it makes sense to speak of diseases in neurology (e.g. Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, stroke) as bad hardware and psychiatric disease as bad software. But it could very well be that some of those diagnoses are miscategorised.

#2272·Erik Orrje, 1 day ago·Revision of #2237·Criticism

Most people (except in Alzheimer's, etc.) don't run out of memory in the brain. If there's no scarcity for the space of ideas, why do they have to compete?

#2271·Erik Orrje, 1 day ago·Revision of #2223·CriticismCriticized1oustanding criticism

Yeah that's definitely a possible medical condition, e.g. in psychosis or after having ECT. Don't think it's the best explanation for Alzheimer's though, where the loss of brain volume is so apparent.

#2270·Erik Orrje, 1 day ago·Revision of #2254·Criticism

Alright, I remember the meta algorithm from your book but can't recall if you adress this criticism: If there's no need for a meta algorithm in biological evolution, why must there be one for the evolution of ideas?

#2269·Erik Orrje, 1 day ago·Criticism

Superseded by #2267. This comment was generated automatically.

#2268·Erik Orrje, 1 day ago·Criticism

Wait, do you view the pruning as separate from the mere competition of ideas, or simply its hardware consequences?

#2267·Erik Orrje, 1 day ago·Revision of #2253

Superseded by #2265. This comment was generated automatically.

#2266·Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago·Criticism

One of my previous comments notwithstanding, don’t be shy to mark ideas as criticisms whenever you point out a shortcoming. Otherwise, you won’t know later on which ideas you can adopt. In the context of Alzheimer’s, this sounds like a criticism.

#2265·Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago·Revision of #2262·Criticism

In Darwinian evolution, competition and pruning are the same phenomena.

That doesn’t sound right. Not all competition is necessarily deleterious.

#2264·Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago·Criticism

Wait, do you view the pruning as separate from the mere competition of ideas…?

Yes. When I say ‘pruning’, I’m referring to a specific mechanism of a meta algorithm in the mind. For more details, see my book A Window on Intelligence, I think chapter 5. There is no such meta algorithm in biological evolution.

#2263·Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago·Criticized1oustanding criticism

One of my previous comments notwithstanding, don’t be shy to mark ideas as criticisms whenever you point out a shortcoming. In the context of Alzheimer’s, this sounds like a criticism.

#2262·Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago·CriticismCriticized1oustanding criticism

I still see epistemology as distinct, and I'll try to make my case for it. Epistemology explains how humans create explanatory knowledge — unlike biological evolution, which also produces knowledge, but not explanations. Explanatory knowledge is special because it allows us to understand the world. Deutsch even suggests that this kind of knowledge tends toward convergence — a unified theory of everything — implying a deep connection between reality and its capacity to be explained.

Economics, on the other hand, isn’t distinct in the same way. It deals with trade-offs and scarcity — principles already fundamental to biology. Life itself is about managing limited resources and the trade-offs that come with them. Evolution, in turn, discovered increasingly effective strategies for doing so — including cooperation, exchange, and other relationships between and across lifeforms that facilitate these trades.

#2261·Edwin de Wit, 1 day ago·Criticized2oustanding criticisms

In that same vein, why couldn't we class biology (evolution) under epistemology?

#2260·Dirk Meulenbelt, 1 day ago