Search Ideas
1637 ideas match your query.:
I understand that you don’t want to introduce bias, but it just doesn’t follow that jurors have to be selected by force. You can make it voluntary without introducing bias.
Why would it automatically be an elite profession? Just adjust your selection process accordingly.
No, again (#3300), if you make it worth their while, plenty of people will show up voluntarily.
If you make it worth their while, you will have plenty of people signing up voluntarily.
A duty is an unchosen obligation. It’s an expression of mysticism. Immanuel Kant is responsible for spreading this anti-concept.
Accounts of the origin of replicators (such as RNA World) involve proto-replicators. By the time the first ‘full-fledged’ replicator came on the scene, it was already part of a larger population of proto-replicators.
I suppose it’s theoretically possible for the very first replicator to exist in isolation until it replicates for the first time. But that’s what it does right away anyway.
I’m using standard neo-Darwinian phrasing. Compare, for example, BoI chapter 4:
The most general way of stating the central assertion of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is that a population of replicators subject to variation (for instance by imperfect copying) will be taken over by those variants that are better than their rivals at causing themselves to be replicated.
And, same chapter:
[T]he knowledge embodied in genes is knowledge of how to get themselves replicated at the expense of their rivals.
See also several instances in chapter 15 in the context of meme evolution.
Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene has a ton on rivals (alleles), too, for example (chapter 2):
Ways of increasing stability and of decreasing rivals’ stability became more elaborate and more efficient. Some of them may even have ‘discovered’ how to break up molecules of rival varieties chemically, and to use the building blocks so released for making their own copies.
Rivalry means competition, win/lose outcomes. If one replicator spreads, it will be at the expense of its rivals (if any), eg taking up niches that rivals would otherwise have taken up.
That’s fine if you want to interpret it charitably, but that isn’t a criticism. Maybe you’re implying that I’m not being as charitable as I should be. That would be a criticism, but it should be made explicit.
I realize that. I don’t see how that’s a criticism.
Based on what you write in #3270, it sounds like you’re talking specifically about forgiving oneself, not forgiveness in general.
I have an … inexplicit/unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible …
This preference is neither inexplicit nor unconscious, at least at this point. You have made it explicit, and you are aware of it, otherwise you could not have written about it. Maybe you meant to say that you sometimes enact this preference automatically/uncritically/mindlessly? (I think those three words basically all have the same meaning.)
…this part seems entrenched…
Well, both preferences are entrenched as a result of the conflict between them being entrenched.
We could just as well say that the other preference, the one for letting your nails grow normally, is entrenched.
I’m sensing a bias in favor of explicit preferences and against (what you think are) inexplicit/unconscious preferences.
If you carried a nail clipper or nail file with you at all times, would you use them instead of your teeth?
I haven’t used Obsidian, so I don’t understand what you are requesting. Is it that, whenever you open a bracket, you want the closing bracket to appear automatically?
It’s interesting how connected these virtues are. Rationality, honesty, integrity, justice, all relate to each other or even fall out of each other. For example, you can’t be honest and irrational, you can’t be a rational liar (with some exceptions), you can’t be dishonest and conscientious, etc.
Maybe the underlying, most fundamental principle is rationality. Or maybe it’s the law of identity, and all of these virtues are different expressions of it. Not sure yet.
… within their own lives.
Grammar. Do you mean ‘one’s own life’? Or simpler ‘one’s life’ (which you say later on, “one's life and circumstances.”)
Fallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false. As a result, we inevitably make mistakes; all of our knowledge is tentative.
Nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. No knowledge is beyond revision, even if it claims to be.
Knowledge grows by correcting errors in our knowledge. We correct errors by guessing solutions to problems and then criticizing and testing those proposed solutions.
We should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the means of error correction.
This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.
There was no need for this revision. #3047 already polished everything. I’m restoring that version.
Before you revise an idea, be sure to check if it has already been revised.
When you do decide to revise an idea, be sure to check off addressed criticisms in the same revision.
#3048 slipped through the cracks somehow.
You don’t need to do anything else for this idea for now.
This is done as of 9b5788c but it’s still free for now. Will make it a paid feature after some more testing and polishing.
What do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.