[PLUG-TALK] Internet's Long Memory

[glen e. p. ropella]

Thus spake Russell Senior circa 02/09/2009 05:32 PM:
> Ah, and maybe I heard this somewhere ;-), but then the looker-upper
> would have the responsibility of establishing the credibility of their
> sources, which might be a good locality for that to reside.

It's true that the looker-upper will, by default, care about the
credibility of their sources, by definition of "looker-upper". ;-)  So,
it already resides there to some extent.  What I'm arguing for is the
added effort of the foister to cite their sources.  Actually, I'm not
even arguing for that.  I'm arguing for something _much_ weaker.  The
foister should merely state whether they think they made their idea up
or whether it's a modification of something they saw somewhere or
whether it's a complete repeat of something they saw somewhere.

It's really no big deal.  It's _very_ easy to distinguish them in your
own mind.  Sure, even if you think you invented something, you may not
have.  But we're all human.  All I ask is that you make a _small_
attempt to distinguish when you speak.

That _attempt_ is important.  And that attempt can _only_ reside with
the foister, not with the looker-upper.

Had Michael Robinson written: (paraphrased from the archive), in his own
text, not preceded by the ">", that would have satisfied my criterion
for an attempt.

> Fundamentally, I am just way less interested in the source of the good
> idea than in the good idea itself.  Maybe I should start all
> conversations with a disclaimer of any personal credit, in case I say
> something smart.  Once you find a source of good ideas, naturally
> you'll be interested in going back to them.  But whether they are the
> original source is less important than that they continue to flow.

Ahhh, but there are no such thing as "good ideas".  There are only
people and their brains.  A "good idea" is merely a particular
physiochemical/electrical pattern in one or more people's brains.

It's the _people_ that are important, not the idea.  Ideas are
meaningless without the people's brains in which they live.  Hence, you
should be much more interested in the people than in the idea.  Hence,
you should be much more interested in the source of the good idea than
the good idea, itself (in its abstract and useless form).

Now, you _might_ argue that what you're really interested in is your
_self_ and the physiochemical/electrical patterns you can induce in
_your_ brain.  Hence, you're not interested in other people's brains,
only your own.  I can empathize with that.

But the best way to induce those patterns in your brain is to interact
with other people who have similar patterns in their brain.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, http://ropella.name/~gepr