Search Ideas
118 ideas match your query.:
I don’t think any of this addresses my original criticism that calling people “embodied agent[s]” is dehumanizing. It sounds like we’re studying rats. So what if cog-sci is dehumanizing? That doesn’t make it better.
This is also borrowed from cognitive science.
Yeah, the cog-sci guys don’t understand Popper or epistemology generally. They seem to view minds and brains as input/output machines. But that isn’t how that works.
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.
That has nothing to do with brain regions. An AGI running on a laptop would use the same phrases.
Several typos here. Please use more care when you write ideas.
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 perspectival knowledge)
The act of making different types of idea jibe ((propositional ideas, feelings etc. ), doesn’t seem to me to be best explained as a rational process. They don’t have a shared metric or intertranslatability that would enable comparison. If feelings and other nonrational mental contents cannot be reduced to explicit reasons, then the process of integrating them cannot itself be arrived at through reasoning alone. This doesn’t mean reason cannot critique feelings or other nonrational content, only that the integrative process itself operates differently than rational deliberation.
This is also borrowed from cognitive science. But what's I meant was to point to the fact there is "pre-conceptual" models, desires, attential salience etc. that impinge on and filters input to 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.
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.
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 perspectival knowledge)
perspectively knowledge
I’m not sure that’s what you meant to write. Adverbs don’t go in front of nouns. Maybe something about perception?
It sounds like you have a different conception of knowledge and rationality from Popper’s/Deutsch’s.
There’s a unity of knowledge. Knowledge isn’t fragmented the way you suggest. Rationality means finding common preferences among ideas, ie making different types of ideas jibe. Why should that not be possible for the types of knowledge you mention?
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.
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.