I view my PKM as an extension of my brain. I transfer thoughts to the PKM, or use the PKM to bring thoughts back into working memory. You can make the distinction if you like, but I find it more useful to focus on the similarities.
As for meta-meta-thoughts, I’m content to let those emerge… or not. It could be that my unaided brain can only manage thoughts and meta-thoughts, but with a PKM boosted by AI, we could go up another level of abstraction.
I’m having trouble visualizing any ‘PKM’ system that has any recognizable similarity at all with the method of information storage employed by the human brain, though this is not fully understood either. Can you explain how you organize yours in more detail?
We’re using language to have a discussion. The fact that the Less Wrong data center stores our words in a way that is unlike our human brains doesn’t prevent us from thinking together.
Similarly, using a PKM is like having an extended discussion with myself. The discussion is what matters, not the implementation details.
Isn’t that exactly what is in question here? Words on a screen via LessWrong, the ‘implementation details’, may or may not be what’s preventing us from having a cogent discussion on meta-memes…
If implementation details are irrelevant a priori, then there should be nothing stopping you from clearly stating why you believe so, one way or the other.
I don’t see this as a theoretical question that has a definite answer, one way or the other. I see it as a practical question, like how many levels of abstraction are useful in a particular situation. I’m inclined to keep my options open, and the idea of a theoretical infinite regress doesn’t bother me.
I did come up with a simple example where 3 levels of abstraction are useful:
I was looking for real-life examples with clear, useful distinctions between levels.
The distinction between “books about books” and “books about books about books” seems less useful to me. However, if you want infinite levels of books, go for it. Again, I see this as a practical question rather than a theoretical one. What is useful to me may not be useful to you.
If a clear delineation between ’books about books’ and ’books about books about books’ does not exist, how can we be so sure of the same between meta-thoughts and meta-meta-thoughts, which are far more abstract and intangible? (Or a meta-meta-rationality for that matter?)
But before that, I can’t think of even a single concrete example of a meta-meta-book, and if you cannot either, then that seems like a promising avenue to investigate. If none truly exists, we are unconstrained in imagining what it may look like.
I copied our discussion into my PKM, and I’m wondering how to tag it… it’s certainly meta, but we’re discussing multiple levels of abstraction. We’re not at level N discussing level N-1, we’re looking at the hierarchy of levels from outside the hierarchy. Outside, not necessarily above. This reinforces my notion that structure should emerge from content, as opposed to trying to fit new content into a pre-existing structure.
I view my PKM as an extension of my brain. I transfer thoughts to the PKM, or use the PKM to bring thoughts back into working memory. You can make the distinction if you like, but I find it more useful to focus on the similarities.
As for meta-meta-thoughts, I’m content to let those emerge… or not. It could be that my unaided brain can only manage thoughts and meta-thoughts, but with a PKM boosted by AI, we could go up another level of abstraction.
I’m having trouble visualizing any ‘PKM’ system that has any recognizable similarity at all with the method of information storage employed by the human brain, though this is not fully understood either. Can you explain how you organize yours in more detail?
We’re using language to have a discussion. The fact that the Less Wrong data center stores our words in a way that is unlike our human brains doesn’t prevent us from thinking together.
Similarly, using a PKM is like having an extended discussion with myself. The discussion is what matters, not the implementation details.
Isn’t that exactly what is in question here? Words on a screen via LessWrong, the ‘implementation details’, may or may not be what’s preventing us from having a cogent discussion on meta-memes…
If implementation details are irrelevant a priori, then there should be nothing stopping you from clearly stating why you believe so, one way or the other.
I don’t see this as a theoretical question that has a definite answer, one way or the other. I see it as a practical question, like how many levels of abstraction are useful in a particular situation. I’m inclined to keep my options open, and the idea of a theoretical infinite regress doesn’t bother me.
I did come up with a simple example where 3 levels of abstraction are useful:
Level 1: books
Level 2: book reviews
Level 3: articles about how to write book reviews
In your example, shouldn’t level 3 be reviews of book reviews?
EDIT: Or perhaps more generally it should be books about books about books?
I was looking for real-life examples with clear, useful distinctions between levels.
The distinction between “books about books” and “books about books about books” seems less useful to me. However, if you want infinite levels of books, go for it. Again, I see this as a practical question rather than a theoretical one. What is useful to me may not be useful to you.
If a clear delineation between ’books about books’ and ’books about books about books’ does not exist, how can we be so sure of the same between meta-thoughts and meta-meta-thoughts, which are far more abstract and intangible? (Or a meta-meta-rationality for that matter?)
But before that, I can’t think of even a single concrete example of a meta-meta-book, and if you cannot either, then that seems like a promising avenue to investigate. If none truly exists, we are unconstrained in imagining what it may look like.
I copied our discussion into my PKM, and I’m wondering how to tag it… it’s certainly meta, but we’re discussing multiple levels of abstraction. We’re not at level N discussing level N-1, we’re looking at the hierarchy of levels from outside the hierarchy. Outside, not necessarily above. This reinforces my notion that structure should emerge from content, as opposed to trying to fit new content into a pre-existing structure.
So have you conceived of some new way to identify level 3 books?