Search Ideas

Why should reacts persist through revisions?

How do you ensure the criticism is worthy of the bounty?

Not if I do reactions on a per-paragraph basis. I think that’s a new feature none of those sites have.

The way I picture it, as you hover over different paragraphs, a reaction button appears and moves between paragraphs. So it would always be clear that reactions are on specific paragraphs. The user would pick whatever paragraph they most wish to react to.

Then what does somebody do who wants to react to an idea as a whole? Do they react to the last paragraph?

For reactions to paragraphs, at least you could tell if the content someone reacted to has changed, and only then remove the reaction.

But presumably, the same is true for reactions to ideas as a whole. Reactions would have to be removed for revisions.

It isn’t clear what would happen during a revision. A paragraph might be changed or deleted. Too complicated.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.

I could implement reactions on a per-paragraph basis.

There’s value in others being able to react as well. Maybe an idea affects them in some way or they want to voice support.

There’s value in reacting to top-level ideas, too.

Another reason I want people to use their true names is that I want Veritula to be a place for serious intellectuals, not yet another social network where people just screw around. Part of being a serious intellectual is public advocacy of one’s ideas and public updates on changed positions.

When people use their true names, I expect higher quality contributions, less rudeness, fewer trolls, that kind of thing. More accountability generally means higher quality.

One feature I have planned is private discussions that only you and people you invite can see.

The word ‘therefore’ in this context means that lack of certainty is the reason error correction is the means by which knowledge is created. I’m not sure that’s the reason.

And it’s not actually clear whether ‘therefore’ refers to the part “This means that we can't be certain about anything” or to “all knowledge contains errors.”

You can avoid all of these issues by simply removing the word ‘therefore’. Simpler.

Fixed as of recently. Emails now quote the parent idea.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.

Please say more? Is it from the content or the grammar?

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge contains errors, and that nothing is obviously true but depends on what one understands about reality. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because all knowledge contains errors. Knowledge, therefore, grows by addressing the errors we encounter as we encounter them. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of which are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.

This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge contains errors, and that nothing is obviously true but depends on what one understands about reality. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because all knowledge contains errors. Knowledge, therefore, grows by addressing the errors we encounter as we encounter them. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of which are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.

This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.

All of my criticisms notwithstanding, I actually agree with your conclusion that it may be possible in principle for life to spread into space. Like you, I see why that would be hard but not why it would be impossible.

(To anyone inclined to criticize this idea: consider criticizing #2366 instead so the criticism chain remains intact – unless there’s specifically something about my idea here as distinct from Erik’s that you want to criticize.)

Their mode of replication differs, as each new guess in genes must be neutral or positive for the vehicle. [Emphasis added.]

I share the gene’s-eye view advocated by Dawkins: changes are to be judged by how they affect the replicator’s ability to spread through the population, not by how they affect the individual organism (or “vehicle”, as you called it).

This difference matters because sometimes changes hurt an individual organism while increasing a replicator’s ability to spread. If a replicator that reduces its organism’s lifespan is better able to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals, then that’s what it will do.

Their mode of replication differs, as each new guess in genes must be neutral or positive for the vehicle.

I think the word ‘as’ is strictly speaking false here. As in: even if it were true that each genetic change must be neutral or positive, that wouldn’t be the reason genes and memes have different modes of replication.

Assuming by ‘mode’ you mean ‘mechanism’, the difference is that genes don’t need to be expressed to be replicated whereas memes do. The reason for this difference is that one person has no direct visibility into other people’s brains to copy memes ‘wholesale’ – they can only make guesses based on the behavior they see. Whereas the enzymes involved in the replication of DNA do get to direct access to the entire DNA molecule.

[E]ach new guess in genes must be neutral or positive for the vehicle.

I don’t think that’s true. I remember Deutsch saying something like this but I think he’s confused about evolution.

Not every genetic change that isn’t an improvement or neutral is automatically deleterious. A replicator could go through a series of changes that temporarily reduce its ability to spread through the population until it undergoes another change that raises that ability above the original level.