I really enjoyed this article.
There are several things that confused me. I’ll start with this:
For an idea data structure: It needs to represent any idea. Don’t have different data structures for different types of ideas. (Different data structures for details may be fine. You could have a generic idea type and then flexibly attach various types of additional information using any data structures.) Don’t have criticisms, problems, and solutions be three different things. They’re all unified epistemologically. The same idea – or at least its main content, with slight changes to some more superficial parts – can function in any role. “Don’t go to Taco Bell now; it’s closed.” is a criticism of the idea of going now. It’s also a solution to the question of whether going was a good plan. And it’s, in essence, also a problem : Since we won’t go to Taco Bell, what will we do? Or: how do we get Taco Bell given that it’s closed now? (Perhaps we go to sleep and go later, drive further to a restaurant with different hours, or break in.)
You interpret “Don’t go to Taco Bell now; it’s closed” as a single idea which can function as a criticism or solution or problem, but how do you know that these three functions are not in fact three different ideas? That is, why can’t something like the following be the case: If the context is e.g. that I just asked if we should go to Taco Bell or Denny’s, then the idea which I actually create in my head when I hear “Don’t go to Taco Bell now; it’s closed” is a solution, and not a problem or a criticism. If the context is different than that, then I create a different idea upon hearing the same sentence.
Thanks for the feedback.
Part 2 when?
I figured that some of my other confusions might be due to the same problem (which is basically that I think that you have a definition of ideas are that is more specific than what I know), so I wasn’t planning to ask more questions until I resolved my confusion in the first part.
If you’d rather not answer and just want to see some quick summaries of all the things that confused me, I’d be happy to do that too.
oh, the issues aren’t independent.
to reply, i’d discuss and ask about meta and methodological issues, like goals at the forum, and how your conversations end, not reply directly. ppl generally dislike and avoid those discussions. they’re not necessary but if posts are written for direct, immediate benefit to the author in the local context, then i just have to not reply to a fair amount of stuff without explaining, but you’re welcome to post lots (no reply isn’t a problem; the more posts i have to read, the easier it is for me to find some that work well to reply to).
22 posts were split to a new topic: Career, Physics and Goals (was: Artificial General Intelligence Speculations)