Search Ideas
2199 ideas match your query.:
Too complicated/ambitious for a first implementation. Start piecemeal. But could be a promising approach if reactions to ideas as a whole end up being ambiguous (#2166).
I can speculate ahead of time, but I might implement reactions and find that this is not an issue after all. And if it is, I can either retire the feature or improve it.
But this doesn’t address the scenario where someone wants to react to no particular paragraph but the idea as a whole.
Agreed, thanks. Fixed in #4095. “Since decision-making follows the same logic as truth-seeking, you can use these trees to make decisions, too.”
You could think up a design for a self-replicating machine and then build it. Assuming you made no critical mistakes, you have made a self-replicator that hasn’t self-replicated yet.
It is considered a replicator based on what it can do, rather than on what it has done.
I think the same logic applies because it’s not just memes that can have static and dynamic replication strategies – ideas in one mind can have those replication strategies, too.
I call a mind dominated by either replication strategy a dynamic or static mind, respectively.
Advocacy is not the same as telling people what to think.
Because decision-making is a special case of, ie follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, you can use such trees for decision-making, too.
This sentence is difficult to follow. Could it be made simpler or broken up?
Maybe there could be some type of guide for a user’s ideas generally. It takes him through all of his controversial ideas and let’s him either counter-criticize pending criticisms or revise his ideas, one at a time. And maybe the user could also choose to ‘abandon’ a controversial idea, in which case the guide would not show the idea again (unless maybe there was some new activity on the idea?).
Then people could occasionally check the search page for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally accept problematic ideas as true.
Some people work in professions where sharing certain opinions puts them at risk of being fired.
Also, there are people living under repressive regimes.
Some reputational concerns are legitimate, and Veritula should accommodate them to promote free speech.
People could use Veritula to establish that intellectual presence and put their name (real or not) behind their ideas.
Would it be any harder than verifying someone’s name? It’s not like I check people’s ID.
There are ways. For example, they could use an established account to reach out.
What if someone uses a well-established pseudonym/online identity? That can still carry a lot of weight.
See #4071: if a trusted member vouches for them, I can infer they’re not here to screw around.
When a trusted member vouches for someone new, they’ll probably meet those expectations.
@dennis-hackethal* Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.
The purpose of the law isn’t to minimise negatives and maximise positives. The purpose of the law is to uphold the rights of people.
Legalising drugs will bring lawful competition to cartels and gangs, breaking geographical monopolies that perpetuate other (actual) criminal activity.
People on drugs violate the rights of others way more often.