Mike,

An endless continuum is either the absolute, as in a flat line, or infinite, where all the positive and negative curvatures, waves, forces, actions, etc. eventually cancel out to that flat line.

Rational behavior is expressed as a force. For the individual organism, or what functions as an individual, like an ant or bee colony, rational behavior is to last as long as possible and propagate as widely as possible. Normally this action is balanced by conflicting activities in the environment, so the various such wave actions do not overwhelm the context with any one action. The situation now is that one species, us, has managed to reach the point where the wave action of our collective rational behavior threatens to splash much of the useful water out of the tub, leaving significantly less resources for our descendants to play with, which is not conducive to the endless continuum of our existence. So the question now is how to move to the next level. After thousands of years of 'going forth and multiplying, do we develop that sense of internal balance and express our forward momentum in ways which are not overly destructive of our environment.

In the context of your thesis, what are the ideas we start debating and collectively deciding. I try to focus on one particular aspect of our collective function in my entry.

Regards,

John

Dear Michael

I thoroughly enjoyed your essay which was so well constructed and written that I do not have any real criticism.

In the introduction to my essay A Space Age on Earth , I, too, mention the function of myth making and the decision making process as it relates to the perception of humanity's place and purpose in the universe. "As knowledge increased though a process of making finer and finer discriminations about the nature of reality, the prevailing models of understanding were consequently modified or replaced by newer ones in order to have a more precise and believable explanation of where we came from, who we are and what is our ultimate purpose." AND "When Earth was perceived of as the entire universe it gave rise to myths and religions that continue to permeate and influence society into the present time."

I found that your essay eloquently describes this "age old" process and I especially liked your concluding section: "Forever retelling the myth: the material practice of rational being" where you write:

"The future of humanity is necessarily of mythic construction, our ultimate existence hinging on our ability to invent and evolve a story so convincing it becomes immortal." Bravo!

Interestingly, your diagram on page 7 (Figure 8 ) reminded me of another "knowledge/myth" conceptual diagram from a previous epoch that is embedded into the American Indian medicine wheel symbol - a circle divided into quadrants by a central cross which also happens to be the Greek astronomical symbol of the planet Earth - the globe with equator and a meridian.

The image can be seen here. A symbol I also incorporate into The Space Option logo.

As shown, the four equidistant points representing (N/S/E/W) as well as (Mind/Physical/Emotion/Spirit) are located on the circular diagram representing a conceptual decision making process that proposes to bring harmony and balance into the processes of life:

1. DECISIONS lead to...

2. ACTIONS which influence our...

3. EMOTIONS which then influence our ...

4. VALUES which in turn influence our...

1. DECISIONS and so on.....in perpetuity

I intuitively felt this graphic depiction of ancient knowledge and the associated processes relates well with your more contemporary construct as both relate to "steering the future of humanity".

Looking forward to hearing more from you in the future and with best regards,

Arthur

    Dear Michael!

    I found your essay title interesting conveying something similar message to be considered as I'd tried to point out to that in my essay.

    I've not yet been able to read it over with perusal and taking a deserving comment.

    However at the first glance, I welcome the 'morality principle', but I can a bit disagree with the further 'myth-making' and looking into the 'stars'. At least the phrases need to be reconstructed.

    As far as, I also skim read your 'Votorola' about page (much in your essay an abbreviation from that - I find it very interesting and I will look at the software too, as an IT women also :) I feel, I'm able to understand your thoughts and concepts, however all is quite complex for first sight and even for non technical average understanding. (As I read above in some comment).

    I'm also not sure the voting system can work well as negotiated someone's else sent me and written on your wiki page.

    I'm ready to discuss with you further, but I find non-relevant doing that longer here. You can reach me the given e-mail in my essay.

    I can further offer you an annotation tool(it works stable for me tested on Win8 ff28)

    Kind regards,

    Valeria

      In the context of my own thesis (to answer your question), the overguiding idea is the mythic one of where we come from and where we're going. I agree the environment matters here. Please see my answer (E) to Mark's May 3 post. I think it applies both to the living and non-living environment (not always clearly distinct).

      If you watch "Temples of Time" (which I recommend), note the overall mythic structure which is also a natural structure; the whole film comes and goes like a wave, or like a breath. - Mike

      I see your mistake, Peter (though I don't share your sense of humour). You're looking for a complicated answer, but really it's quite simple. Please imagine (p. 1) ...

      A child is looking at the night sky. His mother points, "Do you see that star?" she asks, "That's where we come from. We also have people there, and there," she says, pointing to other specks of light, one by one. Then she gestures across the whole of the starry sky, "This is where we live," she says, "We will always live here."

      She just told a myth. A myth is a story of 'ultimate origin and destination' (see abstr). Far from being false, this particular myth will always be true. Therefore the promise it contains will be kept. She knows this. She knows this precisely because the limit of light speed (C) serves as an interstellar 'barrier to extinction events' (abstr). You see, it isn't complicated.

      And please don't make light of it. The moral view is important. Humanity matters. Thinking only of physics can lead to bad consequences. We might instead tell the story of the child at Hiroshima crying for her mother, with her skin half burnt off. If we steer humanity into the shithole of extinction, then we let that child die for nothing. Either way, you see, these mythic stories tell us exactly who we are.

      Mike

      Mike,

      Sorry to not watch Temples of Time. I don't have the correct download and with this satellite connection, downloads are more trouble than they are worth. Problems of living in the country.

      I agree the guide of civilization is the myth, the narrative, the history. One of my favorite sources of understanding the foundations of western civilization is Gilbert Murray's Five Stages of Greek Religion

      It lays out the various stages of belief systems and how they evolve out of and develop from prior stages. One of the main reasons the story of Jesus proved to be so powerful in this tradition was that it reflected the ancient tradition of the year king. This was to make an individual male a symbolic king for the year, then in the spring bacchanalia, the women would tear him to shreds and bury the pieces in the fields as a fertility rite. So the story of a man declared as king being executed during the spring festivals of the Jews had a strong resonance. Now there are significant differences. While the Greek tradition was primordially organic and female and fertility oriented, the Story of Jesus was much more of a civil conflict between an older and corrupt order and the birth of a new God and order. In a sense then, this was a step over that bridge between being one with nature and its endless cycles of birth and death, to one of civil order and its linear progression upward, to uncorrupted stability. The myth evolves according to function.

      As a side note, consider this article. It lays out the fundamental civil split between Samaritans and Judeans. While this article doesn't consider that aspect of it, it should be considered that Jesus and his disciples came from north of Jerusalem and this had to have still been a major issue in his day. Consider also that for all his pacifist teachings, Jesus' main transgression was to physically attack the "moneychangers in the temple."

      Could it have been that the historical story of Jesus was much more of a percolating civil conflict and not so much a religious rebirth?

      For one thing, it would have been swept under the rug by both the Jews, who were doing that anyway and the Christians, under much external influence, had little mythological need for an internal Jewish issue, but one between the healthy new order and the decrepit old one

      Now this might be something you don't agree with, but I think it offers an interesting possibility and an example of how the myth is molded from the clay of convenience, to become the necessary vessel of social narrative.

      The question than becomes; Where are we going and how will the myth evolve?

      Will we continue on this path of exponential growth and continue directly for the stars, since that is the only space large enough to contain this multiplying process? Or is there a reset in the future and nature does rise back up(think sea levels) and consumes this male denominated and dominated culture, to possibly use whatever mutated dna survive, possibly as central nervous system to a global organism, aka, Gaia?

      Many aspects to consider in this subject.

      Regards,

      John

      Michael,

      We are all eyes and ears and our minds try sorting the signals from the noise and generally it is pretty subjective, but the reason we are having this discussion on a physics forum and not a literature forum is due to nature's propensity to have the last laugh.

      Regards,

      John

      Dear Michael!

      I had the opportunity to read your essay. Which is inevitably well written, well thought out, huge work. Even more you have a concrete project giving a sophisticate software which is based on your conceptualized 'Moral theory' and voting system.

      What I feel behind,you are tying to give a live-sample concerning this essay contest relevant theme - How should humanity steer itself as much individually freed and as being a societal structure.

      I'll appreciate your entry with an admiration. but based on the present written Fqxi rating rules (to rate the entries by the degree to which they are relevant and interesting, as more specifically described below, with 1/3 weight given to relevancy and 2/3 weight given to interest..).

      But, I do not expect you to reciprocally rate or read at all, my essay! (Keep in mind - you wrote it - "A candidate who speaks for her voters no longer speaks for herself ...')

      In regard of this essay contest given rules, my freedom is too to choose for reading and/or rate one whose essay attracts my attention concerning those conveyed thoughts which either fits into mine and/or that can further broaden my and the larger scale view. My freedom to decide too, wishing to become a winner thus being concerned getting more rating (which is not so much chance for me because I'm not an fqxi member), or my goal may be disseminating thoughts which may help each others. Not only my essay relevant or not, but my several comments/posts conversations I put quite because I wished to know about.

      Your freedom seems to follow your statement "(D)Just those action norms are valid to which all possibly affected persons could agree as participants in rational discourses." (as you put it out in your wiki page and in this of your comment given me ) e.g. you will read and rate one's essay who reciprocate you. I keep your freedom being a bit more constrained by your own rule, than what this essay contest allows for learning something or see an other people view.

      (My Note: This is not the right place to technically evaluate whether this front-end 'forum or blog motor' is the best one to oversee and follow those participants' thoughts and their posts and conversations whom one keeps important. I hope, those who are behind for the eventual evaluation and decision making process have a better back-end area for filtering and gathering the relevant thoughts and persons which/whom they keep surely important). And due to my morality principle inside, I won't give a lowered rate just because I have some disagreement. If I rate your essay I will keep only the above mentioned rules.

      Do not take my words as a criticism, much rather I intend them for thought sharing and some counter opining.

      1. "..I invite you to consider a strangely opposite view in which morality, by leaning upon a universal, physical constraint of nature, can enable us to break free of contingency and.."

      (P1)

      Let all communications be limited to light speed

      There is a long run philosophical debate whether the mind/spirit is over the matter or reversely. Due to my philosophical vein too, let me abbreviate some thoughts from my earlier writing (never published)

      - Mainly Hegel formulated that the spirit's existence is the unity of theoretical activity and its experiential realization which he put under the process of recognition. He stated that the spirit able to control the nature and under progress of cognizance it is able to ascend oneself. Before him Kant found and critiqued a profound contradiction in the a priori, antecedent knowledge gained by intuition which he deemed to be possible only when the human mind participates actively in his own reality creating (experimental) process: But if there is something transcendent truth above and beyond our logical reasoning of all of our experiences that the metaphysics seeks for, it would be probably unknowable applying only the pure understanding of mathematical principles which are based on abstract logic. While the antique materialism interpreted the spirit to be most reasonable part of the soul psyche which is pervasive in the whole of body, the after materialistic philosophy put the nature into the first place and the spirit remained secondary. -

      Kant's thoughts incorporate your full logic to which you established your 'rational being' and his/its moral concepts theory.

      Let me disagree with your (P1) premise.

      Neither the nature nor the human perception is constrained, can be limited to communicate at a light speed. You surely can't prove the pre-cognition and FTL non-local thoughts communication, as Kant also did not understand the a-piori knowledge, albeit it exists. This is because the whole structure or actual stratum of the physical arrangement of the never created forever self-organizing nature (crystals, animals, plants) has an energy imprint or encompassing field flowing from inside/outside. This imprint also can be conceptualized 'as a starry field' too, as a self-reforming structure giving birth for an everlasting life. Because it is a long hold interpretation in the collective thoughts field, surely this is why you can formulate the 'forever retelling myth looking into the starts', however this conception need to be changed to somehow 'rationally' being understood not only being the subject of blind faith or myth. This energy field also may be conceptualized as an all-encompassing thoughts field (involving the physical structure of stratum of nature too) and all knowing self-contained information. All communicate at all levels without 'speed'. But, as Hegel discerned that the spirit's - what we would name all encompassing all pervading existential field living inside/outside and has a physical arrangement too we name nature - is the unity of 'a theoretical activity' and its experiential realization which he put under the process of recognition. He stated that the spirit able to control the nature and under progress of cognizance it is able to ascend oneself. Which means that an advanced human or humanity who has the grasp of it and can understand itself as a spirit living inside and outside and simultaneously in a physical body arrangement too, should has a control over the nature and himself. This also means he has the ability to control his thoughts and every information in it, and can arrange as per any kind of abstraction about his spirit (being a quark, line spark, star, trees,.. etc.) Even he can change his naturally given bodily form. WHAT YOU WOULD THINK ABOUT THE SPIRIT THE THOUGHT IS NOT RESTRICTED TO SPEED OF LIGHT. The speed of light is a theoretical abstraction too. THIS IS THE ONLY TOTAL FREEDOM WHAT ONE WOULD DISPOSE OF, and a TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY WHAT TO DO WITH IT!

      Thus, the thought as a kind of form of the energy and information is not limited to the speed of light at all. Even if your claim for that thoughts there be reduced/limited to the speed of light handleable in or through a satisfactorily arranged physical body should be a reasonable requirement because' ".. sometimes a limitation is a good thing, especially in human affairs. ..that the best we might hope for is some kind of limiting arrangement that served to protect 'differing groups of human beings.."

      2. You propose "..we can deal with in terms of present-day moral theory.." however: Pls. see our present day theoretical physics and those beyond reason possible technological development are just on a counter track of how to allow and achieve a collective freedom and moral of thoughts. We are just trying to develop such kind of technologies - how to control the thoughts at every cost. We are on the culmination of information warfare literally fighting again such entities who are out of grasp very because of our limited thoughts.

      3. I can agree "... The tipping points between success and failure are many, and each hinges on the freedom of an individual whose identity is unknown!"

      4. I can agree too - but (P2) Let reason be the supreme value.

      Furthermore your thesis, inevitably worth for further deeper examination, because always that was a very crucial question - how to maintain a collective free will in a hierarchically structured organism as a society. At natural level there is only collective free will 'working' for the whole so, - the reason be the supreme value. However, I do not think the collective consensus being established by rules of voting and collectively editing draft texts even serious non academic peer reviews where "(D) Just those action norms are valid to which all possibly affected persons could agree as participants in rational discourses" will be enough to resolve the actions brought by such thoughts taken by entities out of our present moment grasp.

      I was a bit longer than just a few sentence, but I couldn't be shorter to mention.

      I offer again my own written annotation toolwhich has many capabilities and features also for highlighting (albeit if a page often change you will lose the previous highlights position but the content will remain in the database) Just try it if you think. I do not expect any review also for that. I'm glad if you can keep it useful for yourself.

      Kind regards,

      Valeria

      Thanks Valeria, You give a thoughtful review.

      You generally prefer to speak frankly (you say) without worrying how your essay might be rated as a consequence. Me too, I feel the same. I no longer worry about the ratings. You said, "you will read and rate one's essay who reciprocate you. I keep your freedom being a bit more constrained by your own rule, than what this essay contest allows for learning something or see an other people view." To explain, I like sincere critique. Not everyone wants to give that, or receive it, so I made my policy explicit: I want frank reviews and that's what I give in return. It's worked pretty well, so far. I still read other essays, I just don't review them.

      I answer your points:

      1. I agree premise P1 (limit of light speed) can't be proved, only falsified. And people do try to falsify it, but none has yet succeeded; so it feels like a strong premise.

      2, 4. You warn we might in future develop artificial beings more intelligent than we, but less moral. They'd undermine the steering practice by rejecting the moral theory and instead enslaving us, or destroying us. Do I understand you?

      Why would they reject the moral theory? What possible reason could they give?

      3. I'm happy you agree, "The tipping points between success and failure are many, and each hinges on the freedom of an individual whose identity is unknown." I'm a poor philosopher and my arguments are simple (maybe too simple), but they work for me.

      So it was your own highlighter you recommended. Thank you! This was the first time I used one. It was far from perfect. If I need it again, I'll try Sticky Plus instead.

      Mike

      Dear Mike!

      Thank you receiving my review, which wasn't truly a critique. Only a frankly speak :)

      1. About falsifying the P1 (limit of light speed) premise: I'm not a physicist at all, so I'm not able anyhow describe and prove it, however I frankly have concrete experiences about the non-local (not restricted to time and space and light speed) thought communication a.k.a generally called - telepathy. So I can agree in that with you: in normal average human matters sometimes this kind of experience and communication may be much rather disturbing than helpful.

      2.4 I answered these points on my essay page too.

      "You warn we might in future develop artificial beings more intelligent than we, but less moral. They'd undermine the steering practice by rejecting the moral theory and instead enslaving us, or destroying us. Do I understand you?

      Why would they reject the moral theory? What possible reason could they give?"

      There may be much. However, it seems almost sure that the artificial beings come into existence by human creation at first. There may be humans rejecting the moral theory using artificial means for supremacy purposes. As a consequence their creatures as their artificial likeness may also reject the moral laws not only for enslaving or destroying us, but eventually themselves. (See: Terminator film series, and I also suggest to watch Eureka TV series mainly season 5. The latter is more closed to our present human understanding.)

      3. Perhaps, if that individual may be known the tipping points between success and failure may be much less.

      I wrote my StickyPlusHighlighter Firefox extension for any research purpose. Feel free to try it for your any goal.

      I rated your essay.

      Kind regards,

      Valeria

      Thanks for answering, Valeria, and for rating me. (I wouldn't tell people when rating them because they might back-calculate the value of your vote. I couldn't do that in your case only because I received a bunch of high and low votes all at the same time. Just so you know.)

      1. I've no experience of telepathy, but I believe you speak sincerely, and I admire your sense of humour on the topic.

      2, 4. I replied to Ross on this point (May 8), but didn't really explain my thinking. So here I try to explain: The moral theory states a principle of action for rational beings, which is to respect personal freedom (M2). To kill or enslave would obviously violate that principle. So either these cruel beings (the ones you warn of) are irrational and therefore not intelligent, or they think the theory invalid and non-binding on them, and therefore have a reason for thinking this. What reason? Why do they think the theory is invalid?

      My argument here (based on Kant's insight) is that immoral behaviour is necessarily irrational. Therefore we've nothing to fear from an alien intelligence (artificial or natural) insofar as it's rational.

      3. Yes, or the unknown tipping points would be less. But then morality might fail, or at least my theory of it, because it depends on not knowing. It's like blind Lady Justice who treats all equally because she cannot see their differences.

      Mike

      Dear Mike!

      About rating: I told you my sincere stance about it lengthy. I haven't concern who calculates what, and why. I only wished to know you about my admiration.

      1. I keep the good humour is an admirable gift. I'm lucky because I get much :) However my telepathic experiences are not a joke. I keep it to be a natural ability never proved with accepted science, which may be controlled by conscious intent and further extended by any means. (just google - synthetic telepathy).

      2. "The moral theory states a principle of action for rational beings, which is to respect personal freedom (M2)." I can agree. However I think your further statements and explanations are not so logically direct deductions.

      What or who would be exactly considered to be a 'rational being'? What does exactly mean the notion 'rational'? Is a rational being consequently having moral? I think these questions require more clarification yet. Yes, Kant was the father of arguing these very crucial matters. But, I did not find his concrete statement you argue here " immoral behaviour is necessarily irrational"

      You ask, and mention..."...they think the theory invalid and non-binding on them, and therefore have a reason for thinking this. What reason? Why do they think the theory is invalid?..."

      Mike: Not everything has a pure reason! I think, Kant is crucial here, because he felt/experienced it by instinct, but he wished to explain to himself being rationalized. Perhaps, that may be why he wrote the 'Critique of pure reason'.

      About your question: I think,...they have no rational reason only they may be simply 'cruel' ones and likely they are thinking they are not bound by moral. Simply, there are ones having no moral, but this does not mean they are not quite intelligent, and they are irrational, on the contrary they may be quite sharp ones. Okay? I just warn, there may be such ones, who can act for beyond reason supremacy over the nature and their nature, and I think a moral theory won't stop them.

      Kind regards,

      Valeria

      Hi Mike,

      First of all, thank you again for your comments and critique of my essay. I see that you've been fairly successful in getting other entrants to critique your essay. I will give you my thoughts, which echo those of others, but is there anything in particular you would like me to give you feedback on?

      Others have commented on your premise that "reason is the supreme value". I think I take a similar position to others in thinking that reason is a means rather than an end. Reason can't exist without something to do the reasoning. Is life just a means to reason? Do we value things, such as animals and plants, that cannot reason?

      I see that taking reason as the supreme value means that we value the endless continuity of rational being (M0). We could possibly take, by definition, that morality relates personal action to a universally collective end (M1). But I don't think it follows that we should have a "maximum personal freedom compatible with equal freedom for all" (M2).

      Just as we don't know what actions will lead us to success (interplanetary colonisation), we might not know what actions will lead us to failure (extinction). I'm not sure that maximum personal freedom is a good idea without: a) knowledge of what outcomes might result from available actions, and b) values that adequately assess the preferability of each outcome. Nevertheless, freedom of thought is something I think is fairly safe.

      I like your development of ideas of how to find a consensus while maximising freedom of thought and expression. I'm not sure if it might be putting the cart before the horse though. Does the system encourage people to be rational, or assume that they already are? Perhaps the first direction humanity should steer is toward being composed of rational individuals.

      Though we may ask other questions then: If everyone is rational and working from the same knowledge and understanding, what would anyone disagree on? How much we value certain outcomes or actions? Can we all rationally accept the same values?

      I agree that freedom of thought is important and allowing people to dissociate themselves from their ideas by using "pipes" is a good way to have a rational debate about ideas. So, given that this essay is your text or pipe. What would you change in your next draft?

      Toby