Hi Mike,

What an awesome article, I really enjoyed it and your vision of how we might better build consensus. You obviously put a great deal of thought into how to maximize the fairness of consensus through networked drafting of consensus norms. This is a neglected area and I'm glad to see that someone is filling the void. I would love to see a longer work focused just on that which explains your reasoning and conclusions in greater detail, or better yet, that and the software to put it into practice. You have provided a very valuable idea for the future of humanity, and for that I would be wholly satisfied if you were to win this contest.

Now, I do have one quibble. It turns out that superluminal signaling has a long history, stretching back to the 19th century in the work of the ultimate modern scientific genius and pioneer, Nikola Tesla. Now, no one believed him then, but there have been numerous replications and other methods which have confirmed everything he discovered. I recommend reading "Transmit radio messages faster than light," by Ishii & Giakos (Microwaves & RF, 1991). This article describes non-transverse (i.e., longitudinal) electromagnetic waves and provides equations which show that they can be superluminal. Not only that, but they produced non-transverse radio waves and measured pulse transit times corresponding to 5.0242 x108 m/s in one experiment, and 4.43 x108m/s in another.

Now, marginal superluminality such as that would not change your first premise much, but other technologies involving tight gravity wave beams, found in experiments carried out in Russia by Eugene Podkletnov, demonstrated pulse velocities in excess of 64c! (64c was the limit of what they could measure, and the signal maxed out their instruments.) These signals were certainly robust--in one experiment they were able to punch a hole in a steel plate with them.

As you research this topic, you'll find a lot of talk about the distinction between group velocity and phase velocity, along with an argument to the effect that this distinction means that--even though superluminal phase velocities have been detected--no communicative signal can be transmitted superluminally. However, as Ishii and Giakos point out at the beginning of their article, this distinction is only relevant for analog signals. A digital signal can be transmitted at the phase velocity. Of course, all the cold water you will find being thrown around in an attempt to discredit the significance of longitudinal wave superluminality isn't even relevant to what Podkletnov and his team demonstrated years ago.

Now, in my opinion, even if you were to remove premise one and the paragraphs based on it, the thrust of your article would not change significantly. What you constructed from premise one was a nice idea, but it does not correspond to the true limitations of conceivable communication technologies.

All in all, I really found your article to be a valuable contribution, and I have rated it accordingly. I wish you all the best here and in everything you do.

Warmly,

Aaron

    Sure Valeria, I understand you weren't joking. But I think you spoke with a smile (which I detected in your words) and a smile is healthy and admirable.

    About those cruel beings: The moral theory states how a rational being should act (given). The beings find no fault in the moral theory and accept it as correct (given). Then they act cruelly in contradiction of the theory (given). It follows they act irrationally.

    Further they are very intelligent (given). It follows they are insane. Right? - Mike

    Dear Mike!

    I can accept (truly :) your pure logical conclusions if you wish. Right! However I'm a woman, so sometimes I'm not using pure logic to draw conclusion.:) Unfortunately, there are/may be very intelligent beings disregarding the moral (theory) and act insane.

    Bye - Valeria

    You're welcome, Toby; thanks in return for yours. Summary: A) answering about the feedback I seek; B) defending premise P2, supreme value on reason, and explaining how to attack it; C) defending principle M2, maximum of personal freedom; D) defending rational discourse as the horse to pull the cart; E) sampling what can and cannot be reasonably agreed; and F) planning my next essay draft.

    A. Robert says I "cover too much ground" to get my points across in the space available (Apr 30). I agree. That's a formal fault. If I could ask for more, I'd ask someone (despite the difficulty) to identify a content fault, i.e. one that invalidates the thesis, such as a principle that's unsupported in theory, or a practice that's infeasible. Or give the thesis a good denting in the attempt. Or reveal something new and interesting that's hidden to me.

    But these are tall orders, given how the thesis is overcompressed.

    B. No (to answer), I don't mean to imply in premise P2 (reason as a supreme value) that life itself has a purpose in reason.

    Yes, I agree we may value something despite it being incapable of reason. In P2, I don't mean to imply that the value on reason is exclusive of other values; we'll still have a great number of other values. The theorist might even try to deduce from that great number the supreme value of reason, as reason recognizes the value of things. Not knowing the value of something, we're in greater danger of losing it, or of failing to create it in the first place (artificial things). See also my answer (E) to Mark's May 3 post.

    For any who doubt the strength of premise P2 and wish to attack it: imagine that reason is lost from the universe leaving us behind mutatis mutandis. Now explain how we'd get along and ultimately recover unharmed. Then I'll agree that reason isn't supreme after all.

    Or identify some other value V whose loss from the universe implies the loss of reason itself. Then I'll agree that V is supreme above reason.

    Or identify some other value W whose loss from the universe we could not amend even while reason remained with us. Then I'll agree that W is co-supreme with reason.

    C. You say, "Just as we don't know what actions will lead us to success (interplanetary [should be interstellar] colonisation), we might not know what actions will lead us to failure (extinction)." Here you imply a symmetry that would neutralize the utility of a maximized personal freedom (M2). But I believe that symmetry is already broken by M2. Consider: "if a given action does not reduce anyone's freedom to act, then it can hardly reduce the likelihood of eventual success" (p. 2). By the same token, it can hardly increase the likelihood of eventual failure. A maximum of personal freedom "compatible with equal freedoms for all" is more likely to avoid extinction than to cause it. This is what breaks the symmetry you imply. So M2 still holds (by prudence) as a means to M0.

    D. I think the horse (to adapt your metaphor) already competent to pull. See figure F6. The introduction of guideways (attachment of harness) would enable the rational discourse of the public sphere on the left (strength of horse) to pull the decision systems on the right (cart). Currently we see the horse off chewing weeds instead of pulling the cart, or otherwise demonstrating its strength. But where you attribute this to the beast's incompetence, I attribute it to its being detached from the cart.

    E. "If everyone is rational and working from the same knowledge and understanding, what would anyone disagree on?" I think the best answer (if I understand) is the obvious one: we might reasonably disagree about those things it would be reasonable to disagree about, such as favourite flavours of ice cream (trivial example), or certain aspects of the future (less trivial perhaps) that make no sense to agree about. But there's at least one non-trivial aspect of the future (I argue) that we cannot reasonably disagree about, which is also a timeless constant, and therefore a destination to steer for. This is M0, from which I deduce a theory and means of future steering (aka morality).

    F. In my next draft (which I'm planning now), I'll try to fix the formal fault that Robert has identified by giving the text a lot more room to breathe, and letting it answer itself the questions you and others pose. I'm grateful to you all on this account because I've generally no access to critical readers.

    Mike

    Thanks in return, Jeff. I posted a review of your essay yesterday. I'll be rating it (along with the others on my review list) some time between now and May 30.

    Awaiting your answer, - Mike

    Erratum: A hole was punched in a concrete block, not a steel plate. A steel plate was also mentioned in the context of the same set of experiments, but it was not punctured, only dented.

    Hi Aaron, It needs a longer text, I agree. I plan to start writing one shortly. There's software already (Votorola), but it's only a prototype with wires sticking out.

    Thanks for sharing these superluminal findings (new to me). I guess they aren't generally recognized yet, so my premise can still appear to be secure. I'm sure it'll eventually fail regardless (what ever doesn't?) and with it my moral/steering theory. But maybe we'll have found other destinations to steer toward by then, maybe with the help of your foreknowledge machines.

    Warmly, with best wishes in return, - Mike

    Ah, but a woman reached the same conclusion long ago (see below). We're almost there, please follow the logic a few more steps: A naturally intelligent race as a whole is unlikely to go insane. Therefore we probably created these poor, demented creatures ourselves (as you suggested earlier). So the cruelty began with us. We put them through life and death experiments in the lab, tormented them with unnecessary suffering, and ultimately made them insane.

    Clearly we shouldn't do that. It's obviously wrong. We should restrict ourselves to creating our intelligent beings in the natural, old fashioned way (boy meets girl, etc). That's what the cold logic tells us, anyway. But it's also what the Romantic writer Mary Shelley told us 200 years ago, in Frankenstein. - Mike

    Dear Mike!

    Due to you mentioned on my essay page your possible misunderstanding me may arise from the language differences, thus I'm using here a reference for some relevant English words meanings (WordWeb7 http://wordweb.info/) You can download and use it free. It can give much help even if you have a native English. I'll mark with W7 in the text. And, I apologize for my present longer comment here again. But, I feel we've picked here something which is more important than to shrunk the thoughts into short statements and answers not completely understood.

    That is expectable as you write "...A naturally intelligent race as a whole is unlikely to go insane..", very because a 'naturally and unconditionally structured living natural system or organism acts for its whole balanced self-sustenance even being been unconscious about it '. (As I stated earlier in my above longer philosophical post written to you). However, what you presume in your this cited statement requires conscious awareness, and intelligence (W7: 1. The ability to comprehend, to understand and profit from experience) at many levels of arrangements of nature. I mean, the 'nature' (both psychical and physical manner and every meaning by W7) interweaves us at many levels both individually and being a socially healthy (optimally ordered) or disordered working organism.

    I only wish to point out to that: Both the applying of moral (W7: adjective: 1. Concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behaviour and character based on those principles. 2. Psychological rather than physical or tangible in effect. ) laws requires intelligence, and altering even with positive intent or to encroach on the naturally unconscious balance of an organism also necessitate intelligence and knowledge.

    Unfortunately, ones being moral or not would mean: Intelligent ones may act either wrong or right, conforming or refusing standards of behaviour - both allowed! And unfortunately too, the impact is mainly psychical (W7: 1.Affecting or influenced by the human mind,2. Outside the sphere of - presently mutually accepted - physical science ) then draws physical or tangible effects and consequences.

    Albeit the effects and consequences may be irrational, insane etc. expectable foreseen by intelligent ones, unfortunately the bigger problem is if those are in charge who act on the wrong side rejecting moral and do black magic/science using very cold logic with a consideration basically for getting supremacy over the Nature and their own nature.

    My personal opinion is: To act moral much more depends on conscious intent (seeing, re-learning or rearranging our knowledge and steering our race, society as a whole and healthy and balanced organism), than intelligence and irrationality. Basically this was the message of my essay and our conversation.

    You are right in that: An adequately intelligent rational being (added by me) - with a positively charged conscious intent to be moral is able to apprehend - that is beyond reason to overcome the naturally given supremacy of nature from which every knowledge is arising! That is beyond reason developing such kind of technologies to govern us by any kind of sophisticate artificial intelligence or computers in which some ones may put them with an eventual goal to destroy the whole natural system into a virtually natural environment (heaven)! This is not only irrational, driven by insane minds, but seems impossible! Because the Nature involving our nature and encompassing us as a larger whole can resist owing to the Nature unconditionally and unconsciously can attempt to do balance, either we recognize, comprehend it how it is done or not. However we can understand it, and we can consciously resist going insane.

    I'm willing to talk with you further if you wish to do it here or at my given email.

    Bye - Valeria

    Thanks Valeria, this is helpful. It looks like we're speaking of different things, especially in regard to morality. You speak of two different conceptions of morality, and I speak of a third. First you speak of morality as broadly defined in dictionaries. With such a broad definition, I agree that a wrong action (morally wrong) needn't always be an irrational action. Okay.

    Second, you speak of your own conception of morality, as you might define it in your own moral theory. Here again, a wrong action needn't always be an irrational action. Okay.

    But for my part, I speak of morality as defined in my essay. I present a theory that (not unlike Kant's) binds morality and reason together in a context of action, such that right = rational, and wrong = irrational. This is a different conception of morality. Maybe you accept it, or maybe you reject it; but the question is, Would those cruel, hyper-intelligent beings (the ones you spoke of) accept it?

    Yes, suppose they accept my moral theory. Then (it follows) their immoral actions are irrational. Further, in being both hyper-intelligent and hyper-wrong, they are probably insane.

    Or no, suppose they reject it. Then have they a reason for rejecting it?

    No, suppose they've no reason; they just reject it and, turning their backs (hmmmf!), refuse to talk about it any more. Here again their actions are irrational (and we suspect insane).

    Or yes, suppose they've a reason for rejecting it. What might that reason be?

    You see, I'm just asking you to find a fault in the moral theory. If there's no fault, then hyper-rational/immoral beings are impossible. - Mike

    Thank you for writing this beautiful essay, Michael. The accompanying diagrams are similarly beautiful and very helpful in making your thoughts clear. I find the recombinant text and guideway system appealing. My main question is this: if rational discourse is valued, how does this system ensure that rational discourse is maintained (as opposed to attractive rhetoric, bribes, threats, etc.)? Are there additional systems that would need to be put in place to maintain this?

    Thanks for your entry!

    Jeff

    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