> I started with your first idea, that is (arguably, self-) referenceability of (conversations about) reality. I made a site intended to have ((('statement', 'r

> 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.