Essay Abstract

Claiming that humanity has an essential end in the cosmos, I propose a means of attaining it. The limit of light speed is small enough, I argue, and the interstellar distances large enough, that together they form a barrier to extinction events; life can radiate across that barrier (just), but death cannot. Assuming a rational, purposeful morality and a supreme valuation on reason, I deduce (M0) that morality must purpose the endless continuity of rational being. This becomes the material end to steer by. The formal means to this end I then derive by analysis: (M1) that morality relates personal action to a universally collective end; and (M2) that it promotes a maximum of personal freedom compatible with equal freedoms for all. From these 3 principles of a moral theory, I proceed to elaborate the corresponding practices, beginning with the present. Modern society is regulated by laws and other text-based norms. Therefore the key capability at present is to compose consensus texts without limiting anyone's freedom of expression. I describe 3 inventions that together would enable this: recombinant text, transitive voting and vote pipes. The combination I call a 'guideway'. I explain how a network of norm and election guideways, if introduced to society, would engage with its pre-existing legislative, electoral and other decision systems to form a primitive steering mechanism. This would immediately generate a demand for consensus on the overall course, including our ultimate origin and destination. I propose to meet this demand by introducing a further guideway - namely a myth-making, or 'mythopoeic' overguideway - to complete the means of steering. Recalling the claimed, material end, I conclude that the future of humanity is necessarily of mythic construction. The essential, material practice of rational being is the perpetual telling and retelling of its own, immortal myth.

Author Bio

Michael Allan is a software engineer in Toronto specializing in collaborative social media. His current work is based on project Votorola.

Download Essay PDF File

I haven't gotten a chance to really go in deep with your essay, but I wanted to add (before I forget!), that I've been working on a project that sort of supports a collective myth-making for the world. My idea has been to help people move from their complaints about the world and their lives to their highest dreams and goals for their world and lives, using a sort of mental composting process. My initial work in this program has been writing a self-published children's book (Speaking Up for Little People) and small, hand-made zine. But I'm about to publish another book aimed at younger adults (college age, and a bit older), and I'm starting now to work on something more general. Perhaps a video. My process will simply be one of inspiration, encouraging others to share their own ideas of a better world/life with anyone and everyone. It won't be anything as organized as it looks like you are proposing (or at least not intentionally!), but I believe it will be helpful, nonetheless.

    Hi Turil, I read your essay earlier (and your blog). It's right on top of my list of essays to comment on. I'll get to that soon, now that my own is finally posted.

    Speaking of which, my essay (among others) has immediately attracted a very low score. Does anyone know what the reason might be? Are my arguments flawed perhaps? I'm looking for sincere critique, please. - Mike

    Hi Michael,

    A really fascinating approach to the question. Its interesting to me that there is not an imposed destination but a democratic guiding and myth building steering the course. I don't know if I'm thinking about it in the right way but I am remuinded of the Wisdom of Crowds The Wisdom of Crowds, book ,James Suroweicki, Random House 2004

    Wikipedia Wisdom of the Crowd

    It seems that the crowd often has a better idea of where it should go than the typical individual, (judging by the Maze example from the book) though also "The wisdom of the crowd effect is easily undermined. Social influence can cause the average of the crowd answers to be wildly inaccurate, while the geometric mean and the median are far more robust."Wikipedia

    Good luck, Georgina

      MA

      Do I understand correctly, your transitive voting is a means to omit the political party system of the US two party and of the European multiple party systems?

      You also seem to agree with the goal of survival as the most senior goal with other goals subordinate to and to support the survival goal?

      I have thought of writing a book proposing a new constitution (why not? Everybody seems to be doing it.) My entry in this essay contest was meant to be one of the first two chapters. The suggestion is planned to be the legislature is composed of members that each state government whatever its form (totalitarian, democratic, etc) appoints rather than voter elected. Further, the senate seats would be bought by or auctioned to special interest groups. The money would go to the federal budget and only the state governments would be taxed. I still haven't figured how to stop the federal authority from borrowing or exceeding budget.

      Would this fit into your idea with a few levels missing?

      Hodge

        Thanks Georgina,

        We both suspect that the wise crowd isn't always so wise. When it comes to steering by myth, law and other norms, for example, where we need assurance of a valid cause and purpose, I recommend instead that the "hand on tiller" be that of the reasoning individual (p. 3). All the crowds in the world might be happy with a normative course, but if any individual cannot reasonably agree to it, then that course is invalid (Habermas, D). The design of the steering mechanism should assure us of a correction in that case. This is what steering is about. At the top of page 8, I try to describe how it might play out in practice under the guidance of individual 'G'.

        If you submit an essay, then I owe you a reciprocal review. - Mike

        The scopes differ greatly, as you suggest. I don't speak of parties. And I speak of survival (continuity of life) only at the scope of rational being as a whole. - Mike

        Michael, maybe you could offer a simplified version of your idea for collaborative work that describes the experience from the user end of things. For example, when I want to share my idea for making raw vegan carrot spice nut-cheesecake, and I want to allow others to openly collaborate on the project, improving it to allow for variations and adaptations (for when one might be out of cashews, for instance, which I've yet to find a good replacement for!), while also maintaining my own ideas about the recipe, what would I do, and what would I see? (Is this a process that could be explained in a few sentences, so that I might be able to share them with the children I sometimes teach, and they might be able to also contribute to the drafting process?)

        Also do you think that it might be even more useful for us to use images and other more generally symbolic elements (sounds, colors, etc.) to create our drafts, rather than text, since language is so non-universal? (Have you seen the TED talk with the guy who invented a better way to communicate universally, as an outcome of trying to make software for severe Autistics to "speak" with?)

        (Also, in answer to your low score, I have two thoughts, one was that most of us initially found a score around, from some unknown person, so that seems normal, and also I'd say that it might be too challenging for many people to follow the middle part, especially without a clear reason for doing so, as you didn't really introduce it with a clear idea of what it would accomplish, at least from my point of view.)

          Mr. Allan,

          Excellent contribution. I believe that a lot of the detailing listed out in your work would mesh very well with the strategy and tactics tree I have mentioned in [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2036]my essay[/Link] I appreciate greatly the uber-goal of the continuity of the rational being. It has a certainty to it.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #12

            Thanks for the suggestions, Turil. The short answers are all yes's (though I never found a replacement for cashews, either). - Your last point interests me. Please be more specific. E.g., "At point P, there is a lengthy passage on the topic of T, but for no apparent purpose." - Mike

            PS - I added your essay to my review list.

            Dear Mr. Allan,

            I was quite impressed by your essay, especially by the magnificent graphics. I do have one minor quibble that I hope you will not mind me mentioning.

            You wrote: "Nothing can travel faster than light."

            INERT LIGHT THEORY

            Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at the constant "speed" of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent "speed" that is less than the "speed" of light. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract.. As a surface can only travel at the constant "speed" of light, and that speed cannot be exceeded, a surface cannot peel away from a sub-surface. As a sub-surface is attached to a surface by a random fluctuating energy field, a sub-surface cannot reduce its inconsistent speed to the point where it becomes inertial. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

            I use the term "speed" of light merely to make it easier for the reader to understand my theory. Actually light cannot move because it does not have a surface. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the "speed" of light. When it strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed cluters of sub-atomic particles prevalent in spaces that collectively, actually form a surface.

            In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

            Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

            With warmest regards,

            Joe Fisher

              Dear Joe, If you could be a little bit stronger in your critique, without basing it on your own thesis, then I could probably reciprocate. - Mike

              Dear Mike,

              There is nothing stronger than reality. You cannot reciprocate to reality with abstraction. I have no need for you to reciprocate.

              Regards,

              Joe Fisher

              Michael,

              I do not know how appropriate this is, but I must report that I had an experience similar to yours. When my essay was published, it appeared with a score 1, and I noticed that this was the case for several others - all serially scored 1!

              I suspected this was a sort of strange general policy by one community member to have most essays (but not all?) work hard to climb the hill. Mine succeeded, to some extent, but I would really be curious to know what has really happened.

              Tommaso

                Yes, unfortunately the rating system is flawed. It's like throwing a bunch of lobsters in tank without banding their claws. I no longer hope for a prize, just a sincere, critical appraisal from anyone who shares an abiding interest in the steering question - in return for the same from me. So I drafted a policy on reciprocal reviews. Please note that I posted a review invitation on your own page, earlier.

                Also note that I seconded your thoughtful comments on Parry's essay. (Alas, the notification system here is unreliable, too.) - Mike

                We have discovered just one of the many major faults of the competition-based, zero-sum game approach to life! Trying to rank/score others as a way to make decisions about resource allocation only gets in the way of healthy information sharing.

                It's not bad enough for me to give up sharing my unique thoughts and observations and research entirely, but it certainly is discouraging to have ranking that seems irrational and entirely lacking useful feedback.

                I guess I can say that my comment "it might be too challenging for many people to follow the middle part, especially without a clear reason for doing so, as you didn't really introduce it with a clear idea of what it would accomplish," related to my experience as a reader of not knowing specifically how your highly detailed breakdown of the consensus process was going to be useful to me. The details might indeed be very useful to someone who's designing these sorts of structures for collaborative work, but that's not me, and I imagine it's not most of the folks who are voting in this essay contest. So, perhaps, it's just that your offering isn't getting the most appropriate audience? I will note that you've got a fairly high rating right now, higher than most. So at least some folks seem to appreciate your offering.

                I'll note that now that there are so many papers to review, it's impossible to give each of them the time and energy they deserve. And without knowing which ones are going to be most meaningful to me, I end up reading a lot of papers that I'm just not interested in, and that drains my energy even more. Which is unfortunate for everyone!