Search Ideas

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.

My charitable interpretation:

“Less and less possible” is a loose way of saying something like “more and more difficult to achieve”, or “occurs less and less often in the multiverse”.

My charitable interpretation:

“Less and less possible” means something like “more and more difficult to achieve”, or “occurs less and less often in the multiverse”.

My charitable interpretation:

“Less and less possible” means something like “more and more difficult to achieve”, or “a smaller and smaller occurrence in the multiverse”.

“([T]hey say)” presumably means he is paraphrasing people who get it wrong.

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.

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 what separates explanatory knowledge from other types of knowledge.

… any replicator’s primary ‘concern’ is how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.

Why “at the expense of its rivals”? Isn’t the concern to spread at all, regardless of the outcome of rivals?

… any replicator’s primary ‘concern’ is how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.

Why “through the population”? Doesn’t this presuppose a replicator needs to exist within a population to do what it does? The first replicator spread with no population to spread into.

What happens when you fail to commit to these values?

I think forgiving yourself could be another core value. Something like 'when I make mistakes, I will pick myself up at the earliest possible time and keep going.'

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).

I’ve asked Gemini to explain it:

1. Auto-Closure (Insertion State)

When the user inputs an opening delimiter, the system immediately injects the corresponding closing delimiter and places the caret (cursor) between them.

Input: (

Buffer State: (|)

Logic: insert(openingchar) + insert(closingchar) + move_caret(-1)

2. Type-Through (Escape State)

If the caret is positioned immediately before a closing delimiter that was autopaired, and the user types that specific closing delimiter, the system suppresses the character insertion and instead advances the caret.

Context: [text|]

Input: ]

Buffer State: [text]| (Not [text]])

Logic: if (nextchar == inputchar) { movecaret(+1); preventdefault(); }

3. Atomic Deletion (Regression State)

If the caret is between an empty pair of delimiters, a backspace event deletes both the opening and closing characters simultaneously, returning the buffer to the pre-insertion state.

Context: (|)

Input: Backspace

Buffer State: |

Logic: if (prevchar == open && nextchar == close) { delete_range(caret-1, caret+1); }

4. Selection Wrapping (Transformation State)

If a text range is selected (highlighted) and an opening delimiter is typed, the system wraps the selection rather than replacing it.

Context: |selected_text|

Input: [[

Buffer State: [[selected_text]]

Logic: surroundselection(inputpair)

5. Markdown-Specific Heuristics

Obsidian applies context-aware logic for Markdown syntax (e.g., * or _). It often checks word boundaries to determine if the user intends to bold/italicize or use a bullet point.

Context (Start of line): | + * + Space -> Bullet list (autopair disabled/consumed by formatting).

Context (Middle of line): word | + * -> word | (autopair enabled for italics).

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?

I have an … unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible …

This preference is not unconscious. 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.)