Search Ideas
2048 ideas match your query.:
If you don’t think your child can ”easily” use his creativity to solve any family problem, [...].
I agree that Veritula deserves to scale to something huge.
Looking through the history of Wikipedia, I see that its core concept is that of “compiling the world's knowledge in a single location […]”. To be clear, I think the core concept of Veritula is to be a programmatic implementation of Popper’s rational discussion methodology; it then becomes a dictionary for ideas as a result. It’s also less about listing facts and more about listing ideas and their logical relationship (though criticisms do provide built-in fact-checking mechanisms). That said, with enough users, Veritula could become a place with a lot of knowledge.
The linked site traces some of the success of Wikipedia to volunteers: “The use of volunteers was integral in making and maintaining Wikipedia.” So early adopters such as yourself are crucial.
In addition, 9/11 apparently played a role in making Wikipedia famous:
The September 11 attacks spurred the appearance of breaking news stories on the homepage, as well as information boxes linking related articles. At the time, approximately 100 articles related to 9/11 had been created. After the September 11 attacks, a link to the Wikipedia article on the attacks appeared on Yahoo!'s home page, resulting in a spike in traffic.
Veritula could be a place where people break news stories and others can quickly fact-check and improve upon reports by revising them. An urgent story would draw a lot of users to the site, too.
Something like Wikipedia’s arbitration process could be interesting, too.
Something similar to Wikipedia’s page-protection feature to combat “edit warring” and “prevent vandalism” could address the issue of people posting criticisms in rapid succession to protect their pet ideas.
Your suggestion to look to Wikipedia for inspiration is spot on. Thanks.
See #449. Since this is a separate concern, not directly related to #337, you’d want to submit a top-level idea rather than comment on #337. The form for top-level ideas is currently at the bottom of this page. I obviously need to make this clearer.
the the title of the page
Minor quibble but there’s a double “the”. Consider revising your idea to fix this typo.
@tom-nassis asked:
[H]ow do we articulate and explain a computer and creative program with freedom, free will, choice, agency, and autonomy?
I think physical determinism (which the computer as a physical object must obey) and free will etc are not in any conflict because they describe different phenomena on different levels of emergence.
And I’d go one step further: not only do they not conflict, physical determinism is required for free will to exist. It is because computers obey physical determinism that they are able to run programs in the first place, including creative programs, ie programs with free will.
2) What is the demarcation between something that processes information and the human brain?
You wrote you “have no interest in objecting against” the notion that the brain processes information. Are you asking about how the brain differs from other information processors? If so, I suggest you edit the question accordingly.
1) What is the demarcation between something that processes information and something that does not?
See #513. Something that processes information must be given some information (at least one bit) and then follow some rule for what to do with it. Then, optionally, return the result. Like the OR gate, but unlike the light switch.
Or is there something I’m missing?
It’s not a comparison. The brain literally is a computer.
What you deride as a “deflationary concept” is, to me, a vital approach to getting rid of the kind of biological mysticism that states brains have some special essence that computers could never have. Which then causes some people to think computers could never be creative or sentient, say.
As I recall, people used to think similarly about electricity: they discovered electricity in organisms before they figured out how to harness it through technology. Until then, they thought only organisms could produce electricity because they had some ‘special sauce’ that technology could never have.
Once we accept that brains are computers, there is no room left for this kind of mysticism. It’s really just taking computational universality seriously.
Please don’t submit multiple criticisms in the same post. Submit one criticism per post only. Familiarize yourself with how Veritula works (#465) before you continue.
Yes, and I can accept that the brain is a computer.
But, we might make a number of subsequent moves.
The mind is a computer. An individual person is a computer.
And yes, "not the kind of computer people traditionally think of when they hear the term, like a laptop or desktop," as Dennis states in #498.
But, the term 'computer' implies deterministic connotations.
David Deutsch and others talk about the 'creative program' each human possesses. This also implies determinism.
I know that David Deutsch and Karl Popper strongly side with free will in the free will / determinism debate.
But how do we articulate and explain a computer and creative program with freedom, free will, choice, agency, and autonomy?
as Dennis states below
It was below when you wrote the comment, but now that it’s rendered it’s actually above! Will revise this part for you.
Well, discussions are necessarily a ‘social’ activity in that they involve at least two people, yes. I just don’t want Veritula to be yet another social network.
In a mixed society, people can prioritize truth seeking or fitting in but not both.
The mind is a computer. An individual person is a computer.
No, the mind is a program. A computer is a physical object; the mind is not.
In a Deutschian understanding, ‘person’ and ‘mind’ are synonymous. So a person isn’t a computer, either. A person is also a program.
The mind is a computer.
No, the mind is a program. A computer is a physical object; the mind is not.
You may consider it banal but is it false?
An OR gate takes two bits of information and transforms them into a single bit of information by following a specific rule. It clearly processes information. And if that’s true for an OR gate, why not for the brain?
Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right? Rules itself out.
I’d like that.
And yes inexplicit criticism is good! And not taking infinite criticism is bad. Someone should make a list of understandable pitfalls one ought to avoid when trying to apply critical rationalism.
(Logan Chipkin)
Inexplicit criticism is good, maybe you can make it explicit someday and we can continue.
Yes, it should. I am left with no counterargument but a mild sense of dissatisfaction.
(Logan Chipkin)
You mean to the question of existence, or in general? Cuz in general I’d think of it as a criticism.
(Logan Chipkin)
Since you agree (#539) that logic is part of philosophy, the law of the excluded middle should satisfy you as a philosophical answer, no?