Dear Mike!

I understand you, and I can accept your morality principles and theory! Albeit I keep that being moral i.e. acceptation of any definition, description, law about 'moral', mainly depends on one's conscious intent and decision.

You ask: "Would those cruel, hyper-intelligent beings (the ones you spoke of) accept it?" I don't know!

Please understand. There is no fault in either of moral theories itself!

But, you are wrong in that conclusion "If there's no fault, then hyper-rational/immoral beings are impossible"! That is not so! Whether those cruel, hyper-intelligent beings accept moral or not doesn't depend on how a moral theory is defined. It only depends on whether they want to accept it or not!

This is not a definition of 'my moral theory' - this is unfortunately a fact! Okay?

There may be one driven into insane very because one doesn't want to accept what he knows. He is propelled toward doing wrong=irrational (as you define) things even if he is very intelligent to know very well what he does is irrational, and insane.

What is his reason to do this? The basic antimony inside himself. Simply, He doesn't want to know or accept what he knows! This is much more a psychological disorder than what the pure logic can lie for being moral.

The most of us can accept and wish moral laws being anyhow defined, and can act using that laws! However I warned, and mentioned quite lengthy to you the biggest problem is, if there may be only few ones or only one, but high in charge doing irrational things rejecting moral anyhow defined, but affecting the lives of most of us.

Bye - Valeria

Mike - I will use an another word antagonism (instead of antimony, although the latter may has hidden meaning) - bye

Thanks in return, Jeff. It was a pleasure to work on, and the critique and feedback are valuable to me.

Habermas says the sought-for rationality already lives and breathes in the public sphere (a realm of reason). Just introducing the guideway should suffice to tap that rationality and bring it to bear on the decisions of the administrative system (a realm of power). Toby's analogy of May 22 is relevant here, along with my answer D: we harness the "horse" of the public sphere to the "cart" of the decision system, and then we expect it to pull. We see it already pulling the cart of science, whose theories are all validated by the public sphere. Why not harness that same horse to the cart of social norms (laws, plans, budgets, etc) and validate these, too?

The analogy fails in one sense, however, because we cannot ever apply force (harness, bit, whip) to the public sphere. All we can apply there are affordances. Here I think the engineer's job is mostly to ensure freedoms (and especially to avoid limiting freedoms already possessed), and then to let the rational discourses of the public sphere ensure themselves.

We do require additional systems (in answer to your 2nd Q) beyond the guideways. For example, we require a vote mirroring inter-network (not discussed in the essay) to prevent the guide being trapped (whether by vendors, authorities or chance) in a guideway design that doesn't suit his/her needs.

I expect bribery (vote selling and buying) and threats to be ineffective in guideways. Vote sellers may shift their votes after taking the money, perhaps re-selling them to other buyers. This makes vote buying a poor investment. Both bribery and threats (e.g. from employer, union, church) should be exposeable by statistical pattern analysis of vote shifts and dispositions in correlation with facts (known buyers and sellers, workforce structure and dynamics, and so forth). See footnote 2 for more information and links to past discussions.

Mike

Well, sure, they can accept or reject the moral theory. But they must act with reason or they're irrational. That's really all I claim. The rest is just a misunderstanding.

Then too, I'm not competent to carry an argument like this against any kind of determined opposition. That's for the philosophers, not technologists like me, and you.

So let's pretend we've each convinced the other. ;-)

Mike

  • [deleted]

  • Post #97

Mike - we are not in disagreement at all :D

I state only, there is a reason which (you and me also keep that) is irrational, but may exist. There may be one who may not able to overcome the antagonism inside him/her. This means very exactly there may be a determined opposition what is unfortunately not only a resolvable thing for philosophers, theologians, but a very crucial problem for technologists too. The latter ones I mean, who are trying to build a sophisticate AI who/what probably never will fail, never would be driven to insanity based on he/it may be programmed acting only by lay in laws which only allow to do and act rationally or morally. But, what if, there may be established a condition for him - how to resolve a determined opposition. This is why I warned! Pls. See our truly humanness lies on we are capable to decide sometimes just in time without hesitation even if our decision will entail an ineligible result which is not necessarily - irrational -, for what any quite sophisticate AI even so based on quantum computation of predictability of all events won't be able. (If was so he might be quite human to fail :) (see my comment on REALITY, ONCE by Joe Fisher's essay)

Okay? Are you understanding me?

Valeria ((:-)

Dear Valeria, I accept that we've no disagreement. It's only the language barrier and the complicated topic of discussion. It reminds me of the story William Golding tells (Thinking as a Hobby), of how he and Albert Einstein happened to meet one day, but were divided by language (though even more than we). They stood together on a small bridge in an Oxford park, overlooking a stream:

'But Professor Einstein knew no English at that time and I knew only two words of German. ... I would have given my Greek and Latin and French and a good slice of my English for enough German to communicate. But we were divided ... For perhaps five minutes we stood together on the bridge ... With true greatness, Professor Einstein realized that any contact was better than none. He pointed to a trout wavering in midstream.

He spoke: "Fisch."

My brain reeled. Here I was, mingling with the great, and yet helpless as the veriest grade-three thinker. Desperately I sought for some sign by which I might convey that I, too, revered pure reason. I nodded vehemently. In a brilliant flash I used up half of my German vocabulary. "Fisch. Ja. Ja."

For perhaps another five minutes we stood side by side. Then Professor Einstein, his whole figure still conveying good will and amiability, drifted away out of sight.'

Mike

Your essay has great graphics and interesting ideas. I like your invocation of myth. Your charts are an interesting way to diagram things, and to think about them. However, many of your charts seem to simply describe more or less standard democracy, and the parts that don't seem based on goals that do not seem quite as axiomatic as you make them. For example, you establish personal freedom as a supreme goal, but then you mention limits. Don't limits make it less a supreme goal and more a matter of satisficing competing wants within the context of a grey area? I suppose that everyone writes their own page in their own head, but I would think that an elected official would not want to publish thoughts with which his constituents would not agree, and so those parts of his page would generally stay in his head. If he chooses to be a politician and wants to be a successful one, he compromises his personal freedom to say whatever he wants. Can you build a different set of motivations and contingencies? How does your myth pathway work when competing with many preexisting and contradictory myths? My feeling is that you have good ideas and a potentially valuable way to diagram them, but they need field testing to see if they work in practice.

    Mike: Let me say, you asked some quite concrete questions regarding to both topics (your and mine ones). I exerted myself to answer those so exactly sometimes unfolded sometimes simply as I could. If you do not understand me, you more times refer to the 'language barrier' may be the problem. That is not the problem. The problem is you are thinking in else way than me. You are inclined to respect only as so as '...Modern science respects objective 'logical reasoning...' (see at Wikipedia under Outline of science and go further to Logical reasoning). However this kind of thinking only sometimes even neither brings consensus or satisfactory results.

    I'd like to point out: You are tending to draw direct conclusions such as "I'm not competent to carry an argument like this against any kind of determined opposition". Determined opposition may exist. It is given, as you used to say. I think, your conclusion is not the right one. A possible conclusion may be drawn from our conversation, you probably would review and refine the fundamental premises based on only logical reasoning to which you have established your thesis. I arguee not the resolution you have given only some of its explanations. Furthermore my words are not a criticism at all, only some counter opinion that may exist. The 'determined opposition' lies in whether you accept or not some counter opinion coming, but those are basically for there be something (i.e. your work and thesis) better and better. The simple yes/no 'determined opposition' also given for every decision making.

    Btw:

    1. you may read more 1. Kant's Account of Reason > Notes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and note Kant's view of logical reasoning.

    You may study further Kant's object oriented view and thinking about concept vs intuition 1Kantian Terminology, First Critique

    2. Einsten was truly remarkable, because he was able to overcome the barrier of logical resoning. Sometimes he dared to establish concepts taken directly from imagination or intuition (1. Instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes), 2. An impression that something might be the case). You may read some of his famous quotes

    Albert Einstein Quotes - BrainyQuote

    Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein

    I wondered: Whether how a conversation between them on same topic, on same language about space-time should had progressed.

    Anyhow we will be in progress I like our discussion :)

    Best wishes for you, for your further works.

    Bye - Valeria

    Best wishes in return, Valeria. I too enjoyed our discussion. We've exchanged addresses, so let's keep in touch. - Mike

    Thanks for your critical reading, James. I propose composing a myth that everyone could freely agree to. This would be a novelty because none of the traditional myths ever attracted an unforced consensus. Consensus was forced in the past. Later force was lifted and consensus was lost. We'd now be inclined to think of myth (like religion) as a lifestyle choice, "Which myth do I prefer?"

    But that's not the question. Rather the question is, "What myth could we all reasonably agree to?" Here the traditional myths are all unlikely competitors, at least in their canonical forms.

    You claim that I limit freedom in contradiction of moral principle M2 (a maximum of personal freedom compatible with equal freedoms for all). Where?

    Mike

    Hi Michael,

    I'm sorry it has taken me a while to comment on your essay. I have a few questions:

    You assume rationality, but there are tons of studies that show that people are not rational (look up the Wikipedia article on decision-making biases, for example). How do you reconcile this with your essay?

    Also, it seems that your whole structure ignores the polysemous (having multiple meanings) nature of language. Only in the hard sciences have words been pinned down to a rigidly defined meaning (mass, velocity, etc.). Elsewhere language is layered with innumerable fabrics of meaning, both shared and personal. How does your description of a movement toward consensus take polysemy into account?

    Thanks,

    Ray

      Hi Ray, No problem, I'm always grateful for feedback. I answer about A) our rational capacity, and B) polysemy.

      A. Well, you must admit we're not completely devoid of reason. I try to assume only what we actually have. (Please see my answer D to Toby's post of May 22, and Jeff's of May 26.) In engineering, math, science, humanities, and other fields, we managed over the centuries to make some progress that required reason. What I suggest is to get in the habit of applying some of that to the steering problem.

      B. I guess we'd use existing, standard solutions for polysemy, which would therefore depend on the context. A legislative consensus would employ legalese, for example; a planning consensus, the appropriate technical jargon; and so on.

      I answer on the surface, but maybe you've a deeper problem in mind? If so, please re-phrase your questions.

      Mike

      Dear Michael Allan,

      I'm not sure I would define reason as the supreme value, but it's a good working premise.

      We agree on (M2) promoting a maximum of personal freedom compatible with equal freedoms for all.

      Your M1 relates to collectives and I have more problems with "collective", which, while really existing, is an abstraction that has different order of reality from the individual. I live, eat, breathe, experience, think, create, etc. etc. The "collective" is a very different entity. If it is like a beehive, it is the overwhelming reality, almost a hive mind. If it is humanity, it is approximately 8,000,000,000 humans, very different from the hive. My essay focuses on maximizing personal freedom and warns about a "collective" based on two classes.

      I like your statement:

      "But people are numerous. They can explore many paths simultaneously; so that, if a given action does not reduce anyone's freedom to act, then it can hardly reduce the likelihood of eventual success. Success depends on opportune discoveries to which the formal theory is blind"

      Very nice. Douglas Singleton and I have both applied physical theories as metaphors to say the same thing.

      Also like your image of the individual as hero, hand on the tiller,... and I like "a recombinant text allows for, but cannot in itself formalize and express a consensus."

      I'm not sure I've absorbed your "transitive voting" but I have spent quite a bit of time trying to design systems whereby an individual's vote is related to the effort and expertise that an individual has invested in understanding the issues being voted on. Like you, I believe this is best implemented by some formal system that is blind to individuals, while somehow measuring effort and expertise. This relates to your "public sphere" on page 5.

      I do like "in all such instances, the first demand of reason will be the question, Why? From what cause and what purpose would we execute this plan? Or enforce this law?"

      Excellent!

      I also think that a mythopoeic perspective is appropriate, although I am unsure that a 'guideway' to make myth is. Loren Eisley was a good "mythopoet" without guideway.

      I am of the opinion that myth as you define it is more likely to arise from individual (Jesus, Buddha, Einstein,...) and be refined and reinforced by a collective.

      Thanks for putting the amount of thought that you have into such systems and let me encourage you to continue to do so. I hope you will have time to read and comment upon my essay.

      My best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Michael,

        I found your essay ambitious and complex. You certainly have put a lot of thought in optimizing the process of consensus-building, which is vital, of course, if humanity is to successfully steer the future! I am not sure I was able to follow all the intricacies of your arguments and of your diagrams, but this is certainly due to the limitations of a 9-page essay.

        I particularly liked your opening paragraphs, where you explained how the limit of light speed and the huge distances between star systems form a barrier to extinction events: it is an often encountered statement that humanity will never be safe from extinction before it colonizes other star systems, but you have presented this idea in an original and interesting fashion.

        I also like the way you framed your discussion about optimal consensus-building around the larger theme of "mythopoeic overguidance". I fully agree with you when you say that "the future of humanity is necessarily a mythic construction, our ultimate existence hinging on our ability to invent and evolve a story so convincing it becomes immortal." Your reminded me that the power of myth is one of the important aspects that must be taken into account if, like I propose in my essay, we are to construct a successful Futurocentric Education Initiative.

        Good luck in the contest!

        Marc

          Hello Michael,

          If I can get to your essay this week, I will of course give you an honest appraisal, as that is my standard approach. That is all I can promise at this time.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

            But now I see that I failed to properly answer your point (A), and neglected entirely to answer your point on non-expert voters (D). I try to make amends:

            A (cont). Here I follow your suggestion of describing M1 in terms of a real actor ("morality relates personal action to a universally collective end"). When I take a moral stance in regard to a situation, I thereby relate the action of some individual (could be me, or someone else) to a goal that is universally shared. To consider the situation in a moral light (right vs. wrong) is to draw a line saying, "This personal action is related to that universal end."

            D. You say, "I'm not sure individuals should be voting on specific technocratic legal details beyond their expertise."

            But a vote outside the legislature is just a form of speech. And if "should" is moral here, then principle M2 applies and requires us to maximize personal freedom (p. 2), including freedom of expression in regard to legislative details. So we appear to be morally bound to allow each individual to vote on such details wherever, whenever and however he/she wishes, wherever that is feasible.

            Mike

            You're welcome, Edwin; thanks in return. I spoke in these forums already with Douglas, but I'm unsure whether he sees the similarity in our approaches. Anyway, here I answer about A) "collective"; B) votes based on "effort and expertise"; and C) the need for the overguideway despite the overguide being an individual.

            A. I employ "universally collective" only in the technical sense of a property that applies to all elements, or to the whole set. So the possible ends of humanity are "universally collective" because they apply to the whole; as with the end of extinction, for example.

            I agree we shouldn't think of the collective as a kind of subject "writ large" (Habermas). Robert de Neufville neatly dismisses that notion in his essay, "if humanity were a single person... [steering] would be relatively easy." (p. 5)

            B. About "systems whereby an individual's vote is related to the effort and expertise that an individual has invested". That's an interesting problem. I'm curious how other designers would approach it. We've sketched something (Christian and I) that we call the "resource accounting framework" (RAC). To understand the basic idea, you need only recall how votes flow "like raindrops down the branches" of those trees I draw (e.g. p. 4), and how they aggregate in the lower branches and roots to reveal the picture of consensus and dissensus. Now just add resources that flow along with those votes, as though dissolved in solution. By resources I mean things like money, materials or labour (including expertise) that are contributed or pledged to the issue. For what little documentation we have on this, see Resource accounting framework and Account.

            Here the crucial thing to know (not mentioned in the essay) is that the individual viewer of the guideway (forest) is free to filter and re-weight the currently flowing votes (and resources) as he/she pleases in order to yield a personalized view of the on-going results. Such freedom is possible only because the guideway is a purely informative system, not a decision system. The guideway itself outputs no official results. Decisions (if any) are always separately ratified in an external decision system, which is usually simpler in design. Still, there's no reason why it couldn't borrow some of the RAC infrastructure and bring resources directly into the decision.

            C. I too think the myth-making overguide will most often be an exceptional individual, rarely a team of two or more, and certainly never a collective "hive mind". But I suspect the scale of this individual's contribution will often be unrecognized at the time. And crucially each person must remain free to step into the role of the overguide, which must always be open and informal. (In this sense, the system engineer blindly sees each person as the overguide.)

            But the formal overguideway is still needed for the sake of maximizing everyone's freedom. The mythic destination must be chosen according to "the unforced force of the better argument" (Habermas), which means a consensus formed in rational discourse. Only then can we effectively steer humanity via all those normative guideways and decision systems (fig. F9) and do it without force. By following the overguidance freely and with eyes wide open, one cannot be steered, but must oneself be steering. (In this sense, each person actually is the overguide.)

            Mike

            Thanks, Marc. I wish I could've made the technical descriptions a little less dense, but I'm happy the main ideas came through. They haven't been exposed to critique before, which I think they need. So I'm working to give them room to breathe by rewriting the essay as three separate papers.

            I've added you to my review list and look forward to reading your own entry. - Mike