An end to steer by, and a means by Michael Allan

Aaron Feeney

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.

Michael Allan

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

Michael Allan

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

Gyenge Valeria

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

Michael Allan

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

Jeff Alstott

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

Gyenge Valeria

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

Gyenge Valeria

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

Michael Allan

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

Michael Allan

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]

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 ((:-)

Michael Allan

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

James Blodgett

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.

Michael Allan

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

Gyenge Valeria

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

Gyenge Valeria

Mike I drop the link again. I mistyped it.

Kantian Terminology, First Critique

If it doesn't work again just google the title.

- Valeria

Michael Allan

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

Gyenge Valeria

Okay Mike, let's keep in touch :) - Bye Valeria

Ray Luechtefeld

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

Michael Allan

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

Ray Luechtefeld

Thanks for your response Mike, I just want to dig a bit deeper into the questions...

A) I agree, we are not completely devoid of reason. When we can abstract away the emotional connotations, as in math and the study of physics, we are able to be rational. But, as the "global warming" deniers illustrate, even something as purely rational as the physical phenomena of the greenhouse effect involving CO2 in the atmosphere can be overlaid with emotional overtones. Generally areas that are threatening or embarrassing are prone to "irrational" defensive reactions. Suggesting that we "get in the habit" of applying that to the steering problem is great, but it is not "actionable". The question I have is "what exactly and specifically should be done to ensure that we "get in the habit" of applying rationality to the steering problem." Having worked on many engineering projects I know that "fix it" is not a useful suggestion. Determining what needs fixing and exactly how to fix it is the difficult part. So, how should we ensure rationality?

B) "Solutions for polysemy" implies that it is a problem. I actually see it as a "feature", as we say in engineering design. Reducing polysemy to a single meaning would take away its power. The "problem" is acknowledging and valuing the multiplicity of meanings and then structuring action that embraces them all. Legalese and technical jargon are reductionist, referring, as Roland Barthes said, to the "Author God", who can impose a unitary meaning. It seems to me that we must accept multiple voices and meanings, e.g., that profit motivations are strong, that caring for Earth's climate and ecosystem are valuable, that meeting human needs are critical, and that efficiency of production is desirable, etc. While some may see these as contradictory, a dialogic perspective will see that there is value in all of them, but that allowing any to dominate would be dysfunctional. So my question is, how might you incorporate this perspective into your suggestion?

Thanks,

Ray

Michael Allan

You're welcome, Ray. I expand on my answer to A, but am stuck on B.

A. As a naive undergraduate in science, I was disappointed to learn that scientists are no better than anyone else. They've the same faults as others, including a tendency to irrational behaviour. Whatever makes science a rational pursuit, therefore (which by and large it is) cannot be the scientists. Nor the experimental method, because non-experimental fields of scholarship proceed on a more-or-less rational basis, too. What they all share in common is a process of validation that works through a public discourse of peers and a general expectation of rationality. Somehow the cream rises to the top in that kind of bottle.

If it works for scientists, then I feel confident it'll work for any other broad swathe of the population. I defer to Habermas on this, as he's my authority on the public sphere (the bottle I speak of). I haven't yet expanded my reading much further.

Irrational bottles exist, too. A modern election run through the mass media is an example of a process that tries hard to bring out the worst in people. But those people aren't the problem. They've as much capacity for both rational and irrational behaviour as scientists. Give them the same access to the public sphere, therefore, and they'll be just as protected from sources of manipulation, such as the mass media and its "emotional overtones". The public sphere is essentially impenetrable to force, and critical of force. So this is what I propose.

B. You say polysemy isn't a problem, but an opportunity. The only problem then is my unfamiliarity with it; I'm uncertain how to take advantage of the opportunity. Maybe in the mythopoeic overguideway where the text is likely to be aesthetic in its form, and logic (plot, character development, etc.), as myths generally are. These aspects will be largely the work of artists, of course. I imagine they'll employ polysemy to its full effect, as they're the experts on that kind of thing.

Otherwise I'm uncertain how to take advantage of it.

Mike

Ray Luechtefeld

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your response. In response to a), I read somewhere the criteria for situations where "wisdom of the crowd" works and where it doesn't. I think that might help clarify the "somehow cream rises to the top". For B), there is an excellent online guide called "the beginners guide to semiotics" that you can google to learn more about the topic. I also heartily recommend Bakhtin and Roland Barthes. And, if you want some real mind-blowing (as in, your head will explode trying to understand it - it's OK, I don't mean that literally) stuff you can read some of Julia Kristeva's work.

Thanks for the conversation, and I hope that you have gained as much from the comments from others and their essays as I have.

Best wishes,

Ray

« Previous Page Next Page »