Search Ideas
1940 ideas match your query.:
Ben replies that “it is one thing conjecture a theory, it is another thing to compare theories to choose which one to proceed with (tentatively)”; that HTV is meant to help with the latter.
Don’t know why the sudden reference to the rather esoteric topic of sentential logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic Nor does Brett explain what’s wrong with it.
This isn’t merely an issue of what we call things. The difference between rationality and creativity isn’t semantics.
Ben points out to Brett that “the step of conjecturing ideas (or criticisms) is not itself rational or irrational. rationality comes in when it comes time to decide what to do, given your state of knowledge. it is about acting according to your best ideas, rather than coming up with ideas”
My response:
I disagree. Popper suggested measures of corroboration and verisimilitude for rational preference formation *given* a set of *already-created* theories (see quotes and explanations in my answer here: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/137784/relevance-of-poppers-theory-of-corroboration/140003#140003). This is the tradition of preference formation David follows in BoI. Again, we need to take care not to fudge rationality and creativity.
I explain:
Veritula is more advanced. X only has nested commenting, like most other sites. But it has no way to distinguish between comments and criticisms and no way to count pending criticisms. It doesn’t tell you which posts you can rationally adopt. It has no version control, no clear version history, no diffing, no ability to revise most ideas outside a narrow window.
I’m not aware of any other site like Veritula that tells you which posts we can rationally adopt. No site on the market has that capability.
Worth noting that Ben had already linked to an explanation of Veritula in response, but Brett doesn’t seem to read any of the links we send him. I can tell because he keeps having more objections or questions the links already address/answer.
Veritula doesn’t discount that. As I point out to Brett, it “lets us submit new options at any time, and it offers writing tools to make that as easy and enjoyable as possible. It actively encourages the creation of new options.”
If we can have a purely deductive process to tell whether we’re being rational or not, that’s a very good thing. The opposite of something to be concerned about.
I’ve experimentally turned off pretty text wrapping in paragraphs. I’ll give it some time to see how ideas look around the site now. If they look worse on the whole (orphans etc), I can always undo fd699cd.
It’s because of text-wrap: pretty;
Chromium renders it properly. Desktop and mobile Safari doesn’t.
How to Be Rational: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2091272979791659054
As I wrote to him in response, rationality and creativity are different things. They’re related, and there’s overlap, but you don’t need to code creativity to code rational preference formation. You can outsource creative input to the user, as programs usually do.
Brett doesn’t know this is a common objection I’ve addressed before. For example, I wrote a variant in #1976. My paper also addresses it (last objection in section 5).
Brett is confused about HTV. It says nothing about pending criticisms. As I replied to him, it says to prefer, “between rival theories at a given state of a discussion, those we find the most difficult to change without breaking their ability to explain what they purport to explain.”
The blog post already sidesteps that issue by granting the user the ability to input some HTV score without having to give any reasoning. That still leads to all sorts of trouble.
Since you agree that a revision was necessary, I’ve submitted a counter-criticism of #5292 so that this branch of the discussion tree is consistent (#5323). Ideas are immutable; opening a new branch won’t automatically fix broken branches.
The branch now reflects that your action was rational.
Generally speaking, when a revision addresses a criticism, we don’t submit a counter-criticism.
Let me stress ahead of time that this kind of housekeeping may not seem the most fun, but is indispensable in keeping consistent discussion trees. We can learn to enjoy it. We benefit from this kind of housekeeping by being able to look up which ideas we can rationally adopt.
Naval, who’s inspired by Deutsch, says good products are hard to vary, too: https://nav.al/good-products
Gives iPhone as example.
But HTV is also about art (BoI chapter 14).
A piece of art is a kind of end product. And we could write code to produce art.
AFAIK it creates no physical dependence and you don’t build a tolerance.
I was wrong to submit this criticism in this form; it should be only about the lack of dependence. Otherwise the criticism chain is inverted for #5203.
What’s not to love?
#5203 already says: causes people to wake up early. (Can corroborate.)
