Hi, Mike. Thanks for your recent comment on my paper, I'm looking forward to reading more!

You said "You imply that two species of rational being are mutually exclusive, but why?"

My main suggestion is that a system that selects for 'rational being' will probably result in gradual human extinction, simply because AI and other technologies will likely be more rational and more efficient than humans. This becomes an issue only in the context of competition, such as for energy resources, but this seems higly likely if AIs multiply due to either self-replication or the needs of commerce or industry.

Therefore I wonder if a bettter system/moral principle might be the continutation of life and humanity, which implies the continutation of rationality (and probably the development of safe AI), but as a means rather than as an end?

Michael,

That is a very interesting and well thought out plan. I think though that you really need to step back even further to get a more complete picture and some of these issues might fall into place of their own accord.

For one thing, humanity shouldn't be an end in itself, but one more tool, one more bridge between what came before and what will come after.

One of the essential fallacies running through western thought is that the ideal constitutes an absolute, but in fact it is a simple collection of preferred characteristics. The absolute is a ground state. The universal state of oneness is not a singular entity, one, but the median in which all positive and negative cancel out. The flat line on the heart monitor. As such, it is the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. In order to project ourselves upward, we necessarily have to push downward. And we do that as best as possible and it is a process of expansion and contraction. This dichotomy manifests both aspects of how we progress, as expansion is forward, but unfocused, while the contraction stage draws inward and back, but consolidates down to that which is most stable and focused. This is the political dichotomy of liberal and conservative, in that liberalization is an encompassing expansion of energy outward, while conservatism is a distillation of the lessons learned and the rewards gained. In nature it's the dichotomy of spring and fall. Since this manifests on the personal level as birth and death, we need to put it in a broader context of the full cycle. We exist as manifestations of the energy propelling us forward and the structural integrity holding us together. As the energy continues to push and thus stress the form, eventually it breaks down and is replaced by a newer form that often grew up as a patch over the weaknesses of the prior form, since that is where the energy was most expansive. So it is not a straight line, but a lot of bouncing around on the level of the particulars, with the larger manifestations best expressed thermodynamically, like waves across a medium of parts jostling each other.

Our awareness is like that energy constantly pushing forward, while the thoughts it generates are the forms which coalesce and then recede in its wake. Memory is our ability to be able to construct coherent streams of these thoughts, collectively known as history and as you point out, myths.

One of the themes I keep pushing, to the frustration of some, is that we look at time backwards. As one of those individual points of reference, we experience change as a sequence of encounters and events and so we model time as the point of the present moving along a vector from past to future, which physics further distills intellectually as measures of particular durations to use in its math models. The basic larger reality is that it's the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past. Probability into actuality. Tomorrow into yesterday. This makes it much more like temperature than space.

Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. With temperature we think of the collective effect, yet it consists of a multitude of individual velocities/amplitudes, but with time we think of those individual changes and measure their frequency, but cannot decern the measure of the universal rate of change. That is because, just like with temperature, it is a cumulative effect of those many actions.

Now our minds are composed of two sides, with the left described as a linear processor, responsible for rational, linear, causal logic, while the right is considered a parallel processor, responsible for emotion and intuition. Essentially they function as a clock and a thermostat. Like time, the serial function takes one step at a time and derives a causal route. The right side functions much more as a scalar process, with all the information available pushed into it and the response as what rises to the surface, like that wave through the medium, or the whistle of a boiling pot. Sometimes it results in insights and connections and other times it will boil over with frustration and anger as a response to too much input, or boredom from too little.

Now this relation is fundamental to our existence as mobile organisms, since we must first process a larger context and then proceed to navigate a path through it. Plants, on the other hand, don't move, so they function primarily as thermostats, with a very residual need for any serial processing.

This then goes back to that relation between expansion and contraction, as the expansion is much more a thermodynamic, non-linear process, while the contraction, on the intellectual level, is to consolidate that narrative sequence of connections necessary to derive a sense of order for our linear selves and thus project a subsequent course. The problem is that sequence is not necessarily causal. Each event is composed of input coming from all directions, while we only approach it from one direction. One rung on a ladder isn't the cause of the next, nor, in a wholistic sense, is one footstep on the ladder cause of the next. Causality is energy transfer. So one day doesn't cause the next, rather the sun shining on a rotating planet causes this sequence of events called days. Which come into being and dissolve, ie. go future to past. Yet because our rational function is necessarily linear, we try to impose this sequencing onto the larger reality and so our sense of order grows from prior, less informed states, as the basis for future input and observations and so we keep imposing models onto reality which she only partially considers. Then to compensate, we make them more complex, because one doesn't question the myth.

Eventually though, the pot boils over and all our stories melt into on big origin myth for the next leg of the big expansion cycle. So it ultimately is only the energy which is conserved and yet it must continually manifest form, but keep changing it, so energy goes past to future forms, as these forms go from being in the future to being in the past. Without action, nothing exists, but with action, nothing exists forever.

Regards,

John Merryman

    Thanks very much, Mark. In summary: A) Any beauty must come from the technology, not my writing; B) I agree the tooling needs a methodical description; C) I mean extinction of the network is barred, not the local nodes; D) I clarify "essence of humanity" and ask you to re-evaluate; E) I agree about the value of life, but think it implied in the supreme value of reason; F) I ask you to explain your concern about the principle of freedom; and G) I clarify my use of Habermas's principle D, and ask if you still see a problem.

    A. I'm very pleased you see beauty in it; I wanted to share that, above all. I think it comes from the technology (theory, design) because I've no talent as a writer. It's actually that recognition that led me to working on recombinant text, and eventually the rest.

    B. I agree the core inventions of the guideway internals (recombinant text, transitive voting, vote pipes) would benefit from adding a simple, methodical description. Above all, I felt I needed a description in terms of the theoretical requirement of maximizing freedom. Then space constraints took over and prevented me adding any other clarifying viewpoints. I think it's like Robert says, I just "cover too much ground", too much that's novel. It needs more structure in the delivery, as you suggest, and therefore a bigger delivery van.

    C. I agree there's no assurance against haphazard, local violence. So a collision of colonists at a target star might, as you suggest, escalate beyond reason and destroy a stellar civilization (an event that we already fear today). But the larger network of civilizations would continue to exist, slowly expanding among the stars. This is the only assurance. (I should clarify this in the text.)

    D. Humanity is the only rational being we know, objectively speaking. Maybe we'll never know another. Still, I write about the future of rational being as a whole, not humanity in particular (see p. 2 where I cite Kant). By "essence of humanity" (p. 1), I really mean "essence of rational being". With this clarification, do you still see a danger in speaking of essence?

    E. You don't so much attack the supreme value of reason (P2) as defend the value of life, which leaves me room to agree. I think life is implied by reason. Reason cannot reproduce and maintain itself outside a social space, which in turn depends on a population of reproducing individuals (life). This is the necessary physical form of rational being. Further, I think rational being as such is bound to respect and honour its own cause within life at large, "To see a world in a grain of sand", as Blake says, "And a heaven in a wild flower". I feel we should be patient with ourselves therefore, and give reason the necessary time to work. *

    F. Here I don't understand you, Mark. How does a principle of maximizing personal freedom (compatible with equal freedoms for all, p. 2) contribute to slavery, or any other unfreedom? I admit that a principle doesn't guarantee its practice, but neither does it undermine it.

    G. Habermas's discourse principle (D, p. 3), when applied to laws, actually is a principle of democracy within a theory of democracy. So when you say it's "contradictory to the principle of democracy", I take it you mean contradicted by the practice of democracy. In other words, you are pointing to the existence of actual laws that are "invalid" when judged according to D. But this should come as no surprise. Few (least of all legislators) would suppose that all laws are de facto right laws. Some are struck down as illegal, some plain wrong by any standard, and most others flawed in ways that would be unacceptable if only we had the resources to fix them (which rarely we do). What D is telling us, at least in practical terms, is the direction each such law would have to take (again according to the theory) in order to move toward validity. Do you still see a problem here?

    Mike

    * Which reminds me of William Canning's beautifully structured, unnarrated film: Temples of Time (1973). Play at 480HQ for the best sound. Watch closely during the wild-flower sequence.

    Michael,

    Speaking of myth and reason seems incongruent though myth is certainly part of our current culture, religion carrying a great deal of weight in decisionmaking. But we do separate reason and faith in our world. Does the myth have to support the reason and steering applications and consensus building.

    I have a vision too that might require myth and reason:

    Humankind and the material world around us is the stuff of stars. It is fitting that, like stars, living and dying, we recycle that stuff, giving more substance to those that follow. Our lives have always been a quest to find life's origins, a pursuit often sidestepped by hubris we collect on the way. We find a future by finding ourselves and understanding our world, a world that grows as we mature.

    Real growth speaks to vision, to imagination, to working together, and to using resources wisely. For example, a comparative modicum of NASA funds ($446M) is earmarked for discovering Earth's birth process - and its parents, so to speak. The Dawn probe is looking for answers by studying the proto planet Vesta and the dwarf planet Ceres. Understanding Earth's origins and adding to our knowledge of the Universe can only embolden our commitment to preserving Earth's life lines.

    Jim

      Thanks for these questions Armin, and the chance to explain. I answer in two posts. Here's a summary of the first: 1) I explain the literal necessity of endlessly retelling the myth; 2) I explain how "Life could radiate... but death could not"; 3) I further justify the premise of a supreme value on reason; and 4) I suggest that answers 2 and 3 may help you follow the theoretical deductions.

      1. Yes, I mean this literally - "The essential, material practice of rational being is the perpetual telling and retelling of its own, immortal myth" (ab.) - not figuratively. For an interstellar network of civilizations to maintain a slow expansion into the galaxy and beyond, it must constantly remind itself of the reason for this expansion. This requires an endless telling and retelling of its own myth (where we come from and where we are going). Suppose this retelling stops. Then the reason for expansion is lost, and with it the assurance of expansion and hence of survival. You see, barring a fluke of the universe, rational being cannot be maintained in a continuous line without a modicum of interstellar expansion (p. 9); distance and the limit of light speed combine into an effective extinction barrier only when we maintain a sufficient dispersal across that barrier. So the retelling of myth is necessary to rational being.

      I'm not sure I understood "stand in". Please repost if you still have a question about that.

      2. "Life could radiate across that barrier (just), but death could not." (p. 1) You counter that death too might radiate and "undo" life, but death is a relatively poor self-radiator, self-propagator. Picture an interstellar network of civilizations expanding from the Sun throughout the Orion Spur and beyond. I claim that no mode of extinction could feasibly expand in pursuit and destroy all those civilizations - like a perfect interstellar plague, or a galactic earthquake. While that sort of hazard is conceivable, it's not plausible (see my reply to Tommy, May 1, A).

      3. "(P2) Let reason be the supreme value." I justified this premise in the text (p. 2) by its utility in expanding the moral argument to its proper scope. Here I agree with Kant that an ethics co-extensive with humanity would make no sense.

      A further justification might hinge on our desire to exist. Nature (P1) allows rational being the choice of existing forever in a continuous line, a choice open to no other form of life. We alone can choose between rational being and non-being. If we choose rational being (and why wouldn't we?), then it makes sense to interpret this choice as a supreme valuation on reason, because reason is the basic difference between rational being and non-being.

      I think this premise is strong, though the strength isn't immediately obvious. An artist could show how reason is alive in the mutual gaze of mother and child, and this alone might carry the day (as it carried much of Christianity). A narrow objectivity would see these two as dumb machines, but there's another view, the necessity of which is felt by everyone. Kant's insight helps here. He explains how freedom is subjectively necessary to reason despite its objective impossibility in nature (4:446-63). "Reason must view herself as the authoress of her principles, independently of alien influences, and must consequently, as practical reason, or as the will of a rational being, by herself be viewed as free... From this stem all judgements about actions such that they ought to have been done even if they were not done." (4:448, 55)

      So I think reason offers a strong, defensible value-premise in moral theory.

      4. Given my answers above (2, 3), it might now be easier to follow the deduction of M0 from the two premises, and thence M1 and M2. The arguments are there, just (as Robert implies, and I admit) much condensed. - Again, thanks for the chance to explain.

      (continued in next post)

      Continuing from previous post: 5) I outline the essay structure; 6) I explain details of recombinant text; 7) I reiterate the purpose of pipes; and 8) I agree the rationale for overguidance should be more graphic, and offer a kind of picture.

      5. For each principle in theory (M2, M1, M0), I devote a separate section of the essay to the corresponding practice; 3 sections in all. That's the gross structure of the essay, which I should've emphasized better. Does knowing this help?

      If not, please be specific about where you're stuck. See also my answer to 7 below.

      6a. One creates a recombinant text (a population of drafts of size N) just by writing something down as the first draft. As I mention to Robert (May 3, C), the pattern of a recombinant text is pretty much synonymous with that of literary freedom. So you write down your idea of the plan, or whatever, in your own draft (N=1); then I write down my idea (N=2); and so the population grows from scratch.

      6b. You have authors X and Y modifying the same draft, as in a wiki. But a wiki is not a recombinant text. In a recombinant text, each author would normally modify his own draft and therefore the conflicts you mention would not occur.

      7. Actually, it would be quite normal for a person to identify somewhat with a piped position (say a downstream draft) and advocate or campaign for it. She might even be elected the pipe minder of that draft, a kind of administrator. But because the draft is piped, she can simultaneously draft her own personal version of the text upstream, which might differ on key points. So the pipe is basically a device to prevent a candidate (one who receives votes, as anyone might) from being trapped downstream by her own voters in "a position that is not properly her own" (p. 4). It isn't a device to prevent identification or advocacy.

      So here maybe is an instance of what you were looking for in 5 above - a "chain of reasoning from the table [here the principle of personal freedom M2] to the concrete implementation [here the device of the pipe that frees]" - evidence that the theoretical principles M1 and M2 are implemented in practice as an actual steering mechanism.

      8. You suggest something more graphic and concrete is needed to explain the rationale of overguidance (pp. 7-8). I agree. It's actually a simple concept at heart, and I should've emphasized this. So picture an analogy for the plain guidance of laws, plans and other norms in modern society (i.e. an incomplete steering mechanism) as a long and arduous journey that we undertake, on the order of the D-Day invasions, or the Apollo missions, but without any idea of the destination. Feel the senselessness of that, the difficulty of justifying the tremendous effort and maintaining the necessary morale. Enter the idea of overguidance, "Let's agree where we're going and why."

      It seems obvious, but I think modern society was born blind in this particular eye. When we threw out the logic of Christianity during the Enlightenment (in Kant's day), we threw out the baby with the bath water. There's much in it that we still can't dispense with.

      Mike

      You're welcome Ross, thanks in return. - Well, I'd simply defend the premise of a supreme valuation on reason. The full realization of that value requires an interstellar network of civilizations, something that can only be strengthened, never weakened, by the addition of other civilizations, human or non-human. This I argue in the essay and in the comments.

      To the extent your hypothetical AI-creatures are more rational than we, I feel we've less cause to fear them than ourselves, even if we're all crammed into the same local niche. Genocide is never a rational response to competition, only a sign of mental weakness or collective insanity.

      I'll re-read your essay shortly and see if I can't think of a question or two for that gentle interviewer to ask. - Mike

      James, while I agree Earth's origin is a mythic theme, I don't understand why you confront me with faith and religion. 'Myth' I describe (p. 1) and define (p. 7) as a normative story of "where we come from and where we are going", one that's backed by rational discourses in the public sphere. Are you confusing my essay with someone else's? - Mike

      Michael,

      Years ago, I ran a successful consulting service that helped author an organization's story with the objective of the story being to encapsulate culture, tradition, goals and aspirations that would rally both insiders and outsiders. So, your idea of steering with a myth intrigues me to no end. I would love to find a way to make your idea real.

      Inventing a story so "convincing it becomes immortal" is easy to say, however, than do. The easy part I found was the history if it was well documented and recent. The future was another question altogether due to one overriding consideration: The different places different people were coming from - this seems to be the same as what you imply in seeking "consensual norms." We tried all sorts of voting patterns to build consensus but, while everyone agreed on the very far long term, the closer we looked the more the differences. Your legislative example seems to depend on a majority agreement and may work but we were seeking 90% agreement.

      While I totally subscribe to your idea of a myth steering, almost automatically, to an acceptable future, I am concerned about its implementation. Any concerns on the implementation of your model?

      I look forward to your comments on my essay here.

      - Ajay

        Michael,

        " An end to steer by,...

        The material principle of the theory (M0, Table 1) follows almost directly from the two premises: while the laws of nature (P1) enable rational beings to assure themselves of a continuous existence, as opposed to extinction, that same continuity would also be necessary to fully develop and realize the supreme value (P2). So we take that continuity as the material end of morality. Here we are treating morality as a purposeful, constructed facility on which the full weight of our most cherished value may come to rest. Thinking like engineers, therefore, and wary of failure, we must now design a structure to bear that load."

        Guess then I read too much into what you were writing. Sorry.

        Regards,

        John

        Hi Michael,

        I know you're waiting until you have an opportunity to comment on my article again and rate it. You will see that I'm putting the following postscript on everyone's page, so I thought I would also share it with you. It is especially pertinent in your case because you're the expert on voting systems. (That was my favorite part of your article so far, I really learned a lot.) Have a good one.

        Warm regards,

        Aaron

        P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

        10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

        9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

        8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

        7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

        6 - slightly favorable indifference

        5 - unfavorable indifference

        4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

        3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

        2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

        1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

        After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

        The following is a general observation:

        Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

        Michael,

        "(M0) Morality purposes the endless continuity of rational being"

        Rationality is a process, of decision making, not a stable destination. Proposing it as the highest good also assumes good as a form of unambiguous ideal. While our religious and cultural models treat good and bad as some form of cosmic dual between the forces of righteousness and evil, they are actually the biological binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. What's good for the fox, is bad for the chicken and there is no clear line where the chicken ends and the fox begins. Then, like computer programing, lots of these binary choices add up to the larger reality. Not only are there many shades of grey, but all the colors of the spectrum exist between black and white.

        So then when we get into a rational process of decision making, what might be a good at one level, even lots of goods added together, can equal a bad on another level. Such as when we have an economy based on growth in a finite ecosystem, the result is a bit like those bacteria racing across the petri dish. If you were to really pick apart the decision processes people make, they chose that which is beneficial to themselves, because if they didn't, someone else would take advantage of the opportunity.

        As you recognize, top down proscriptions and prescriptions don't work, but simply inspire people to want to keep climbing to the top to be in the position make such judgements, so it does have to be some form of bottom up decision making process. I just think that; One) we need to recognize there will always be winners and losers and if there was a sense that losing a conflict wasn't terminal, nor winning one absolute, then it would be a more organic process, in which the layers of options and results tend to settle to their levels, rather than a mechanistic result, where a one, or a few winners dictate to the rest.

        Also; that the only real end result that matters is maintaining a habitable planet. I think the entries advocating for extra-terrestrial solutions really don't have a firm grasp on the realities of the size and inhospitality of relatively empty space. We haven't been back to the moon in half a century and are mostly cluttering up low earth orbit with a lot of junk.

        Regards,

        John

        PS, Here is an interesting essay, comparing eastern and western logic.

        Dear Mike

        I am very pleased with your suggestion and would be very grateful if you give me another translation to recognize the shortcomings that I have made.

        I did see copies of your text - I would love to look forward to establish a regulation for your future and especially: "Maximizing PERSONAL FREEDOM: Necessary Inventions" - you'll find it at "The Optional" in my essay.Attachment #1: 1_NHIM_V_BT_BUC_V_GII_PHP_TNG_TH_CHO_TNG_LAI.pdf

          If you don't mind John, I added you to my review list. I'll read your essay shortly.

          You say my "endless continuity of rational being" is a process and therefore not a stable destination. But the qualifier "endless" makes it stable in theory. Are you claiming that an endless continuum cannot be realized as a practical matter? Please explain. - Mike