Search Ideas

If we use the correspondence theory of truth, then truth consists of explanations that correspond "perfectly" to reality. In that sense all our statements are false: we don't have those explanations that perfectly correspond, all our actual statements are approximations, or deductions from approximations (1+1=2 is a deduction from a set of explanations, but that set is not entirely true - since the set is inconsistent and incomplete)

correspondance

typo

https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/error-prevention-error-correction-s-forgotten-b

Veritula implements a recursive epistemology. For a criticism to be outstanding, it can’t have any outstanding criticisms itself, and so on, in a deeply nested fashion.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

def criticized? idea
  outstanding_criticisms(idea).any?
end

def outstanding_criticisms idea
  criticisms(idea).filter { |c| outstanding_criticisms(c).none? }
end

def criticisms idea
  children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end

This approach is different from non-recursive epistemologies, which handle criticisms differently. For example, they might not consider deeply nested criticisms when determining whether an idea is currently criticized.

https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/physical-vs-moral-explanations

As a convenience, this checkbox is now checked automatically for criticisms.

What does “battle tested” mean?

One of @edwin-de-wit’s ideas recently got the blue label that says “battle tested” – well done, Edwin! – so he asked me what it means.

It means that the idea has at least three criticisms, all of which have been addressed.

The label is awarded automatically. It’s a tentative indicator of quality. Battle-tested ideas generally contain more knowledge than non-battle-tested ones.

When there are two conflicting ideas, each with no outstanding criticisms, go with the (more) battle-tested one. This methodology maps onto Popper’s notion of a critical preference.

The label is not an indicator of an idea’s future success, nor should it be considered a justification of an idea.

You can see all battle-tested ideas currently on Veritula on this page. Those are all the best, most knowledge-dense ideas on this site.

Your new comment notwithstanding, I invite you to be more critical of your English. I’ve pointed out several issues already (which, to your credit, you did fix), and you’ve since made more mistakes (eg see #1729, and in a recent DM you wrote “criticizems”). A typo of that magnitude plausibly indicates deeper issues.

Again, I don’t mean to get too personal here – forgive me if that’s how it comes across.

[E]very emotional sensation — including urges — arises from problems […]

If that’s true, a conflict is behind every positive emotion as well. What’s the conflict behind joy, say?

(If you’re wondering why I’m marking this a criticism even though it’s phrased as a question: it means that a satisfactory answer would address the criticism; such an answer should itself be marked a criticism.)

For example, if one of your core value is non‑coercion […]

Should be plural ‘values’

This should be marked a criticism.

I pointed out a circularity in #1655. Instead of resolving the circularity, you posted another idea repeating the same circularity. That makes no sense.

Even if I was somehow mistaken about there being a circularity, repeating the same idea doesn’t correct that.

Please read the discussion ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ in its entirety before continuing here.

Well, if you have empirically found that your new labels have helped you explain these concepts, then I’d normally be inclined to agree with you. But then I saw this part:

These labels already have a meaning that is more commonly associated to sensations in the mind.

But you use your labels with new meanings they aren’t commonly associated with. Like calling sudden sadness a drive, as I point out in #1704. Nobody would call that a drive.

Is this maybe because you’re not a native speaker? I don’t mean to get personal here, I’m just trying to look for alternate explanations.

A sudden feeling of sadness isn’t a drive. That makes no sense.

An “urge” only arises when a Drive comes into conflict with something else

That’s not what an urge is. An urge is “a strong desire or impulse” according to my Dictionary app. A strong desire or impulse doesn’t imply a conflict.

Since you agree, you should update #1679 accordingly.

For example, if your core value is that non‑coercion […]

There’s a word missing. Presumably ‘of’.

My dictionary app says for ‘statement’ (bold emphasis mine):

the expression of an idea or opinion through something other than words: their humorous kitschiness makes a statement of serious wealth.

That’s the opposite of what you mean. Another reason not to introduce new terms.

Statements are just that: statements. My dictionary app says a statement is (among other things) “a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing”.

Some written words on a page or recordings of a voice don’t by themselves produce feelings. Expressions don’t produce feelings. If they’re just sitting on a page, they’re not even inside a mind where they could produce feelings.

A poem might move you to tears but it’s not literally the written words that move you to tears. It’s some knowledge inside you that does.

Why is this a block quote?

Relevant: #1689

https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/fun-criterion-vs-whim-worship

Deutch

Deutsch

If you have alternate suggestions, I'm of course eager to hear them!

My suggestion is to just stick with Deutsch’s terms. He is already using “the nearest existing term[s]” to what he means. That implies that there’s already a change (in usage, not in words).

Changing the words on top of his change is going to be difficult without moving further away from what he means, even if you explain your changes. It’s just going to confuse people and make the concepts harder to discuss, not easier.

You set out to make the concepts easier to discuss but I think you’ve inadvertently caused the opposite effect.

Statements can also produce feelings.

I don’t think statements produce feelings. I think values produce feelings, regardless of whether those values are held consciously or unconsciously, explicitly or inexplicitly:

Emotions are produced by man's [value] premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.

By the way, I wonder if this is where Deutsch got the different categories. He’s read Rand.