Search Ideas

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.

Why does neo-Darwinism qualify as a strand, if it can be understood as a component of Popperian epistemology?

Economics is simply at the intersection of evolution and epistemology.

While a lot of what’s involved in understanding a language is inexplicit, it is not possible to come to understand a language without ever dealing with it explicitly.

This is part of what separates explanatory knowledge from other types of knowledge.

Based on what you write in #3270, it sounds like you’re talking specifically about forgiving oneself, not forgiveness in general.

I am a life-long nail-biter. I am thinking a habit like nail-biting can be thought of as an addiction in this way.

I have a preference for letting my nails grow normally, and a preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible (which I often enact by biting my nails automatically/uncritically/mindlessly).

Is “the refusal to ignore certain criticisms” not a case of treating ideas justly?

I’m having trouble with the idea that honesty is a prerequisite of rationality. This seems to imply honesty somehow comes before rationality.

I think it is more accurate to say rationality and honesty are interdependent, and from there you can deduce that rationality depends on honesty (in a way that maybe it doesn’t depend on justice).

One of the definitions from Merriam-Webster is 'to cease to feel resentment against (an offender).' Resilience is defined as 'an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.' When you fail against your own value, you are offending yourself.

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?

… in relevant all situations …

Typo/grammar

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?

Mendoza City, roughly 60–80 minutes away, has decent private hospitals (Hospital Español, Hospital Italiano). For Level 1 massive trauma, you might need a medical evacuation flight to Santiago (Chile) or Buenos Aires.

Uco Valley is a high-trust agrarian bubble; violent crime is low, and neighbors look out for each other. Mendoza City (1 hour away) has standard Latin American urban crime risks (theft, robbery). You must maintain "situational awareness" when leaving your estancia.

Corruption has historically been endemic, but the current administration is aggressively purging regulatory capture. However, legal enforcement can still be slow, and the judiciary is not fully independent of political winds.

The cultural and legal trend is rapidly moving away from "hate speech" regulation and towards US-style First Amendment interpretations.

Milei's administration has authorized semi-automatic rifles for civilians again (reversing a ban) and streamlined the "Legitimate User" (CLU) process.

Pepper spray is legal and unregulated.

Argentina is not a tax haven. Becoming a tax resident (living >12 months) triggers a Global Income Tax (Progressive up to 35%), and a Personal Assets Tax (Wealth Tax) on worldwide assets.

Argentina has mandatory schooling laws, but the constitution guarantees the "right to teach." There is no specific law explicitly banning homeschooling, nor one regulating it. It exists in a "tolerance" void. Milei's "Omnibus Law" proposed explicit legalisation, but the situation remains administratively "don't ask, don't tell."