Search Ideas

Erik has since fixed this typo.

Memes and genes are the same type of knowledge. Since we can "let ideas die in their place", we can make faster iterations and expand the environment to which the idea is adapted (including potentially the whole universe). There's no need for correspondance, just more reach and adaptation across contexts.

Most people (except in Alzheimer's, etc.) don't run out of memory in the brain. The reason most people don’t (permanently) run out memory (of either kind) isn’t that memory isn’t scarce, but that there’s a pruning mechanism in the mind. And there’s competition.

Thanks for clarifying

Typo in discussion title: “correspondance” should be ‘correspondence’.
@erik-orrje You (and only you) can update the title here.

Typo in discussion title: “correspondance” should be ‘correspondence’.
@erik-orrje You (and only you) can update the title here.

I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and/or has more reach), similar to biological adaptation.

I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and with more reach), similar to biological adaptation.

CR is an evolutionary theory. There's no need for correspondence in Darwinism. Therefore, we don't need it in CR either.

This may make it harder for me to discuss sensitive topics (e.g. navigating personal relationships, health issues, etc.) since it may reveal things to people who know me personally, things that I may wish to keep to myself, that I would only discuss online behind a pseudonym.

Using my true name here causes me to take more care in what I write. I’m not hiding behind an identity I can discard.

People often say there are safety issues involved in using your true name online.

@dennis-hackethal Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.

I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?

I believe I came across it while exploring your blog. My ‘Popperian Wikipedia’ idea was particularly sharp in my mind in that moment, so I was very excited to see how you had set things up here. I think a tremendous amount of it is transferable.

My vision is for an online encyclopedia that contains complete articles describing the totality of a perspective, with articles for alternate explanations readily available. I see many problems with this idea but I think it is worth exploring.

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

Veritula emphasises making one point at a time for ease of criticism and discussion, which is useful in a forum but makes absorbing the totality of an idea a little more tedious compared to a quick glance at an encyclopedia article. (It is possible I have misunderstood some aspect of Veritula here.)

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

One thing that Wikipedia articles are very good for is providing well-structured information on a given subject. Discussion threads are not so well structured (the order of information is not based on how high-level or foundational it is, like an encyclopedia entry would be, but rather on the nested chronology of whatever discussion happened to take place.)

Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?

Yes, sure.

The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.

There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.

I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.

I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?

Wait, I've probably misunderstood but in #2228 it seemed like you thought pruning was needed for scarcity, which is needed for competition between ideas and their evolution.

And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.

And now you say the meta algorithm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?

And now you say the meta algoritm/pruning is not needed for the evolution of ideas?

Right. Pruning helps it along but isn’t strictly required. You may be misunderstanding natural selection. It is merely “the non-random differential reproduction of genes.” (From The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.) More generally, it’s the non-random differential reproduction of replicators, including ideas.

In other words, selection in and of itself doesn’t even imply that any individual replicator dies (though in practice, they usually do). It just means there’s a difference in the rate of reproduction between different replicators. That difference arises without any pruning.

And you equated pruning with the meta algorithm.

I did not equate them. I said in #2263 that the meta algorithm does the pruning: “When I say ‘pruning’, I’m referring to a specific mechanism of a meta algorithm in the mind.”

I went ahead and implemented this feature since it was a good suggestion.

You can edit your discussion here.

I started a discussion earlier, and what I wrote in the “about” section of the discussion was not written well. I would like to revise it. Is this possible? If not, is there an intention to make this possible eventually?

Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology? Larry Sanger (a founder of Wikipedia) has said that he now thinks Wikipedia should have competing articles on the same topic to allow for the fact that people disagree.

The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.

I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.

Please see #2298 for a link to an article outlining various other reasons for getting sunlight. Vitamin D is not the only reason to get sunlight (or some artificial equivalent).