Search Ideas

Just having the child take the lead on problem solving, on the assumption that he’s more rational, is not a reliable way to quickly get a great solution.

If you don’t think your child can ”easily” use his creativity to solve any family problem, [...].

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?

The mind is a computer.

No, the mind is a program. A computer is a physical object; the mind is not.

You mean to the question of existence, or in general? Cuz in general I’d think of it as a criticism.

(Logan Chipkin)

Good point - philosophy, then.

(Logan Chipkin)

I would think that the solution comes either from physics or from philosophy that comes out of some physical theory.

(Logan Chipkin)

I would be amazed if that is why there is something rather than nothing.

(Logan Chipkin)

Is non-existence really existing if there’s nothing at all?

(Logan Chipkin)

I think that’s just a word game.

(Logan Chipkin)

Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right?

I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.

If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the latter has been physicalized in the first place.

(Logan Chipkin)

I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.

If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the former has been physicalized in the first place.

(Logan Chipkin)

Sounds like she treats existence as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.

Ayn Rand writes:

[A]lthough few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: “If there is no God, who created the universe?”
   To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.

In short, she argues that “the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated […]”. Which means that investigations into the origin of the universe are metaphysically invalid because they contradict the primacy of existence.

You suggest replacing discussion trees:

[I]nstead of […] discussion trees […] users would articulate problems and their solutions.

But then you also write:

Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions.

Which means you’d still have trees regardless. So that sounds like a contradiction.

Heather, who’s publicly shared that she’s had an abortion, says people treat a zygote as a clump of cells only when they don’t want it. When they want it, then they consider it a baby. They can’t have it both ways.

Mostly done, apart from some polishing, as of 5f5c545.

The more ideas there are in a discussion, the further the form for top-level ideas is pushed down. Then people don’t know how to submit a new idea and comment on an existing one instead, even if it’s unrelated, as happened with #448. So I need to make this clearer.

Now that there are notifications, people should be able to @mention each other.

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)

  The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’

• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)

  It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions

• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas

  As part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.

• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea

  Underneath each idea.

• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

  So that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.

• 06d3241 List contributors at top of version history

  Comma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance. Eg see here

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)

  The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’

• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)

  It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions

• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas

  As part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.

• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea

  Underneath each idea.

• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

  So that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.

• 06d3241 List contributors at top of version history

  Comma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)

  The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’

• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)

  It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions

• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas

  As part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.

• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea

  Underneath each idea.

• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

  So that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.

The following commits should address this:

• 3af3966 Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)
• 6c70cea Underneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)
• d20d386 Explain that users can revise each others’ ideas
• c5748e3 Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s idea
• e0fbd41 List user under each revision in version history

Dirk Meulenbelt says the concept of revising someone else’s idea is not intuitive.