4 ms·

> And yet, we literally run our world upon this flawed (to a degree which we haven't the slightest idea) system, and seem to think nothing of it, if not worse.

> And yet, we literally run our world upon this flawed (to a degree which we haven't the slightest idea) system, and seem to think nothing of it, if not worse. Can you elaborate? Do you think there should be another "system" replacing it? A uniformization? In what ways?

mistermann 5y ago
I believe there should, or at the very least that it is an idea worth spending some "collective compute" upon. Have you ever noticed this pattern in reality where the same ideas get discussed (here and elsewhere) repeatedly, and each iteration of the discussion of a topic has large similarities across many dimensions? For example, many of the same facts, ideas, perspectives (with all their historic imperfections) can be found within each iteration of a discussion, perhaps with some new variations here and there depending on some event that has occurred. Some of these conversations have been going on for decades, if not centuries! As a thought experiment, imagine the existence of a system where there is only one "thread" per topic, and a "critical mass" of sufficiently intelligent, knowledgeable, and diverse (etc, etc) users exist who discuss the topic on an ongoing basis within this thread, such that knowledge accumulates over time, and repetition/etc is largely eliminated. Also imagine that when and where you identify architectural flaws in this general idea, the system is such that it recognizes these shortcomings, and addresses them (to an acceptable degree), an example of which might be that distinct threads are in some way merged with, or inherit from other threads (overriding certain aspects of them where it is optimal, etc), and improvements over time in one thread are automatically realized by other threads. Expanding this thought experiment to some obvious(?) end state design nearing "perfection", including similar ~cultural/behavioural design and enforcement aspects, as well as fundamental changes to things like the very structure of how we communicate with each other (and therefore contemplate) about ideas....if such a system was to physically exist within reality, is it possible that it may have a noteworthy effect on the future state of reality? (Another angle to think of it from is: did the development and widespread adoption of the scientific method and other advancements within humanity have an affect on the future state of reality?) Hopefully this gets the general idea across...despite being a fairly simple idea, it can be difficult to communicate it accurately (within the communication mediums we currently have access to). A very rudimentary example (but the best I've been able to find) of such a system is this: https://www.kialo.com https://www.kialo.com, but there are 5 to 10 different approaches I know of that are out there that come at the same general problem in unique ways. Kialo is currently far from perfect, but I think it brings a genuinely new form of thinking to the table in the way it structures and visualizes discussions...and think about how hilariously simplistic initial iterations of today's highly sophisticated products were when they were first introduced, and how back then very few of us could imagine with any sort of accuracy what would be achieved a few decades hence. Man's capabilities for imagination are hilariously flawed and inconsistent, and we seem to accept this shortcoming (and many others) as if it is immutable, without any concern for whether this belief (or, absence of belief) is actually true.
- spidersouris 5y ago
  Thank you for developing your thought! I totally agree that the "thread" system seems to be the best way to go to accumulate knowledge on a particular subject. Taking as an example my own experience, I've been jotting down my thoughts on several social, political and personal topics, dedicating myself to it entirely so that I can gather the thoughts of each side, but also read articles about it, to develop my own opinion with all that I've found. I also try to update them regularly to see if they're still in line with my current opinion, or if the latter changed. Now, as far as a collective knowledge accumulation system is concerned, this makes things far more complicated as you justly pointed out. I didn't know Kialo (thanks for the discovery), and I truly like the concept even though there are many flaws. The thing I disagree with the most is the pros/cons system, which incites one to have a radical opinion on every subject and prevents from having a nuanced view, something which I find particularly damaging these days as most people will tend to view everything as black or white and just put the gray part in the trash can. Sure, one can assert that a nuanced view is only made of some pros and some cons, but I would find it far more valuable if they were not separated. Still, I think Kialo benefits from great bases, and hopefully it might be used to build something even better. Regarding the user base, this is also something essential to take into consideration. If such a selective system ever exists, I still think it would be beneficial for the discussions to be viewable by everyone (without necessarily allowing anybody to post) just to avoid the "gatekeeping" effect and enable everyone to enrich their minds. With regard to this, though: > For example, many of the same facts, ideas, perspectives (with all their historic imperfections) can be found within each iteration of a discussion, perhaps with some new variations here and there depending on some event that has occurred. Some of these conversations have been going on for decades, if not centuries! Don't you think that for some topics, especially those which have been discussed for centuries, repetition can be useful to prove that the subject being discussed is still relevant in today's world, in spite of all that happened in that timespan? What I mean is that there are particular subjects, especially philosophical ones, that may need to be iterated again and again until we find credible answers and as we continue to evolve as a species and gain knowledge. I also think that talking continuously about a particular subject may help to raise new solutions, questions or thinking paths that would otherwise never have been discovered. (I think there are some parallels to be made with science here; there are several discoveries that were only found by long-drawn-out research done by intellectual geniuses, and without them, we would probably still not be aware of the theory of relativity to cite the most common example.)

mistermann 5y ago

I believe there should, or at the very least that it is an idea worth spending some "collective compute" upon. Have you ever noticed this pattern in reality where the same ideas get discussed (here and elsewhere) repeatedly, and each iteration of the discussion of a topic has large similarities across many dimensions? For example, many of the same facts, ideas, perspectives (with all their historic imperfections) can be found within each iteration of a discussion, perhaps with some new variations here and there depending on some event that has occurred. Some of these conversations have been going on for decades, if not centuries! As a thought experiment, imagine the existence of a system where there is only one "thread" per topic, and a "critical mass" of sufficiently intelligent, knowledgeable, and diverse (etc, etc) users exist who discuss the topic on an ongoing basis within this thread, such that knowledge accumulates over time, and repetition/etc is largely eliminated. Also imagine that when and where you identify architectural flaws in this general idea, the system is such that it recognizes these shortcomings, and addresses them (to an acceptable degree), an example of which might be that distinct threads are in some way merged with, or inherit from other threads (overriding certain aspects of them where it is optimal, etc), and improvements over time in one thread are automatically realized by other threads. Expanding this thought experiment to some obvious(?) end state design nearing "perfection", including similar ~cultural/behavioural design and enforcement aspects, as well as fundamental changes to things like the very structure of how we communicate with each other (and therefore contemplate) about ideas....if such a system was to physically exist within reality, is it possible that it may have a noteworthy effect on the future state of reality? (Another angle to think of it from is: did the development and widespread adoption of the scientific method and other advancements within humanity have an affect on the future state of reality?) Hopefully this gets the general idea across...despite being a fairly simple idea, it can be difficult to communicate it accurately (within the communication mediums we currently have access to). A very rudimentary example (but the best I've been able to find) of such a system is this: https://www.kialo.com https://www.kialo.com, but there are 5 to 10 different approaches I know of that are out there that come at the same general problem in unique ways. Kialo is currently far from perfect, but I think it brings a genuinely new form of thinking to the table in the way it structures and visualizes discussions...and think about how hilariously simplistic initial iterations of today's highly sophisticated products were when they were first introduced, and how back then very few of us could imagine with any sort of accuracy what would be achieved a few decades hence. Man's capabilities for imagination are hilariously flawed and inconsistent, and we seem to accept this shortcoming (and many others) as if it is immutable, without any concern for whether this belief (or, absence of belief) is actually true.

spidersouris 5y ago
Thank you for developing your thought! I totally agree that the "thread" system seems to be the best way to go to accumulate knowledge on a particular subject. Taking as an example my own experience, I've been jotting down my thoughts on several social, political and personal topics, dedicating myself to it entirely so that I can gather the thoughts of each side, but also read articles about it, to develop my own opinion with all that I've found. I also try to update them regularly to see if they're still in line with my current opinion, or if the latter changed. Now, as far as a collective knowledge accumulation system is concerned, this makes things far more complicated as you justly pointed out. I didn't know Kialo (thanks for the discovery), and I truly like the concept even though there are many flaws. The thing I disagree with the most is the pros/cons system, which incites one to have a radical opinion on every subject and prevents from having a nuanced view, something which I find particularly damaging these days as most people will tend to view everything as black or white and just put the gray part in the trash can. Sure, one can assert that a nuanced view is only made of some pros and some cons, but I would find it far more valuable if they were not separated. Still, I think Kialo benefits from great bases, and hopefully it might be used to build something even better. Regarding the user base, this is also something essential to take into consideration. If such a selective system ever exists, I still think it would be beneficial for the discussions to be viewable by everyone (without necessarily allowing anybody to post) just to avoid the "gatekeeping" effect and enable everyone to enrich their minds. With regard to this, though: > For example, many of the same facts, ideas, perspectives (with all their historic imperfections) can be found within each iteration of a discussion, perhaps with some new variations here and there depending on some event that has occurred. Some of these conversations have been going on for decades, if not centuries! Don't you think that for some topics, especially those which have been discussed for centuries, repetition can be useful to prove that the subject being discussed is still relevant in today's world, in spite of all that happened in that timespan? What I mean is that there are particular subjects, especially philosophical ones, that may need to be iterated again and again until we find credible answers and as we continue to evolve as a species and gain knowledge. I also think that talking continuously about a particular subject may help to raise new solutions, questions or thinking paths that would otherwise never have been discovered. (I think there are some parallels to be made with science here; there are several discoveries that were only found by long-drawn-out research done by intellectual geniuses, and without them, we would probably still not be aware of the theory of relativity to cite the most common example.)