Tom Nassis

@nick-willmott, you objected to "a brain is a computer." Would you also object to "a mind (a person) is a program?" Why or why not?

✅

Nick, I think your criticisms are indirectly addressing my concerns.

Would you say the framing of "The brain is a computer" does more to obscure and mislead than to illuminate?
We can invoke the word "computer" to say that the brain processes information.
But if that's all we're saying, then I'd say the word "computer" brings so much irrelevant baggage that it might be counterproductive.
Is this why you object to using the word "computer?"

Yes, and I can accept that the brain is a computer.

Therefore, 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 below.

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?

Veritula deserves to scale to the size of Wikipedia.

But it never will, unless its users innovate.

How can the global success of Wikipedia inspire Veritula?

I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no?

Thank you, Dennis.👍

✅

✅

To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general.

I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).

Makes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general. I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).
And yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.

But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.

Veritula should have a section with a list of all its current members.

For now, people just have profiles.

But having a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.

And would promote a greater flow of communication.

I'm still getting a feel for this platform. I'm wondering whether it would help promote wider and deeper engagement if Veritula was organized in terms of problems and their solutions. So instead of discussions, discussion trees, and broad topics such as 'Abortion', users would articulate problems and their solutions. Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions. This approach might also make Veritula even more Popperian. All life is problem solving as Popper says.

Hi all! This platform looks like an awesome idea!
This discussion says, "Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions."
I wanted to ask about how many members are here. And whether it's encouraged to invite more people, in order to add more and more conversations.