4 ms·
I started with your first idea, that is (arguably, self-) referenceability of (conversations about) reality. I made a site intended to have ((('statement', 'res
by Nowado 6y ago
I started with your first idea, that is (arguably, self-) referenceability of (conversations about) reality. I made a site intended to have ((('statement', 'response'), response), ... response) structure. Bunch of problems, including user input interaction.
After some time that's how I explain what I'm building:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25788274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25788274
if there's some way to contact you, I'd be super happy to send you an introductory video and some alpha version.
For the original problem, I think the flatter the ontology, the better. I find short videos to be great explanation tools for example - 3Blue1Brown is absolutely insane. But it can be just linked in text after someone asks specific question. I think what is being attempted here is kind of doing philosophy and philosophy is done by giving responses (often: 'you are having wrong argument' responses).
I've seen approach of making argument follow some traditional form (like enforcing using predefined logic to structure points), but I would like to have it as an emergent application. Extension from some subcommunity. It's just a very costly solution - it works perfectly fine when you need to explain management methodology in corporate setting, for example. Lots of resources, expensive mistakes. And I've seen some attempts at providing just that, for example (warning, in Polish) https://mysljaknaukowiec.pl/dyskusje https://mysljaknaukowiec.pl/dyskusje
In a way, that is a methodology debate. Making a tool for checking 'what is' is one approach, making smaller tools that let people fail/iterate upon ideas faster is another.
- mistermann 6y ago> I started with your first idea, that is (arguably, self-) referenceability of (conversations about) reality. I made a site intended to have ((('statement', 'response'), response), ... response) structure. Bunch of problems, including user input interaction. Within this process, did you have a step that decomposed each comment to extract the constituent entities and behaviors, and then append them to an overall model (which subsequent comments would refer to)? This is not an easy task at all, and expecting average users to be able to do it is likely expecting too much. However, if this is what's needed to return sanity to the world &/or vastly improve our collective understanding of reality, then so be it. > After some time that's how I explain what I'm building That's a good idea. I was thinking about something similar to that, except rather than picking items from a personal list, users could pull an idea(s) from a common "tree of knowledge and ideas" or something like that, and then frame their comment around or in the context of those (often complex) ideas*. > For the original problem, I think the flatter the ontology, the better. I find short videos to be great explanation tools for example - 3Blue1Brown is absolutely insane. Wouldn't it be nice to have a new, rich multimedia-based language for communicating complex ideas in forums, rather than being stuck with this crap, "low signal/high noise and ambiguity". I added contact info to my profile, I would love to see what you are working on - I think this space is well overdue for some innovation, and maybe I have some ideas that might fir into what you're working on.