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

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

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

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

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

      Mike

      Hi Michael,

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

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

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

      Thanks,

      Ray

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

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

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

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

        Mike

        Dear Michael Allan,

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

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

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

        I like your statement:

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

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

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

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

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

        Excellent!

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

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

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

        My best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Michael,

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

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

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

          Good luck in the contest!

          Marc

            Hello Michael,

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

            All the Best,

            Jonathan

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

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

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

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

              Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Mike

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

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

              Thanks Jonathan, I couldn't ask for more. If you do find time, then please leave me at least D-Day itself to read your own essay.

              Hoping for your speedy recovery, - Mike

              Mike -

              Thanks for your comment on my essay - I hope my reply is helpful.

              I found your essay difficult to follow and perhaps unnecessarily complex, but my sense is that the tools you are suggesting, reflecting an integration of game theory, media and social dynamics, may be extraordinarily useful and practical in working towards a positive future for humanity. They deserve further investigation. I did not feel, however, that your background and analysis leading to the proposed tools was well grounded. I felt there was a forced formality to the P1 - P2 and M2 - M1 - M0 sections that, for me, interfered with the more convincing "poetic" elements of your essay. Also, I tend to disagree with some of your principles. P1 (limit of speed of light), for example, appears not to be fundamental according to findings in quantum physics (what Einstein famously called "spooky action at a distance."). There are forms of communication that are not constrained by the speed of light. P2 is also a principle which seems limited - if you accept that the human experience is something that includes both reason and emotion, and potentially transcendence.

              I would also suggest that the process of moving from your principles to the moral postulates is not one of deduction, but draws heavily on analogy and inference. I always felt that Kant was often guilty of such overstatement. Inference is fine - we just need to be honest about it.

              The strength of your essay was in the mythopeotic framing of the issue - and in the very practical suggestions you are making for improving our social decision making. I was not able to understand all the technicalities of your proposals, but would like to spend time trying to learn more. Is Habermas the place to start?

              Thanks - George

                Dear Mike,

                I like your essay. It is well written, well informed, well illustrated. I find interesting the connection between collaborative technology and freedom. This offers a fresh perspective on the relation between individual freedom and collective. One question, which is not related. Good luck in the contest!

                Best regards,

                Cristi

                  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

                  • [deleted]

                  • Post #117

                  Hello Mr. Allan,

                  This is Margarita Iudin

                  I read your essay without rating it. I stopped rating essays because I feel confused about how the authors rate each other.

                  Before I read your essay I liked how you organized your comments. Now I want to say you that you submitted very good essay.

                  These are my remarks

                  1. the essence of humanity, words, just words

                  2, E. Kant moral values, reason, it is always good to mention Kant

                  Mythopoeic overguidance, sounds heavy, even negatively, why?

                  Mythopoeic

                  I remember once I encountered the word mythopoetic in relation to Einstein

                  4. What laws of nature do you mean?

                  5. endless continuum of rational being

                  what about escaping from the physical body, destruction of the body, cleansing and rebirth of a soul I am not sure we understand each other

                  6. procedural theory, procedures, software computing terminology

                  7 Strange understanding of what freedom is

                  Seems to be a flight of imagination

                  8 a primitive scheme of voting,

                  preliminary, because all of them would be preliminary

                  In TDSB school grade 10 students learn about 3 levels of the Canadian government and that the voting as an important feature of democracy

                  The voting procedures may work properly, democracy itself does not work

                  Where are the responsible citizen-voters ? Why voters are unable to make competent decisions?

                  Think about the voting in Ukraine

                  8 I like your approach to myth and storytelling

                  http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2096

                  Imagining the future humanity by Margarita Iudin

                  Please read my essay on your convenience and share your opinion.

                  Good luck,

                  M Iudin

                    You're welcome, George, but I don't understand your own critique. I'm probably your only source on the subject of mythopoeic overguidance and tree-form guideways, as I think nobody else works on this technology. And this is my first attempt at an intro. But I'm happy to answer your questions if you've any... I've some for you, please:

                    You're the first to dismiss the moral theory tout court and I don't understand your reasons. Can you point to a particular fault? You imply that the prohibition against faster-than-light communication (P1) cannot stand because some other theory is indifferent to whether it does or not. But that doesn't make it likely to fall. We've plenty of empirical evidence of communication at and below light speed, but none faster. Or where is the evidence? Or the consensus that it's likely to be forthcoming?

                    Or please explain in a few sentences why the other premise (P2) is unlikely to stand. How is emotion more likely than reason to be the supreme value in the universe?

                    Or point to a particular logical conclusion (whether deduction or inference) that's invalid, and briefly explain the error or omission you see. Without such an explanation, I cannot understand why you dismiss the theory. Please also see the summary of past critique that I've answered. - Mike

                    Thanks Cristi, good luck in return.

                    Did you have a question, or was that a typo?

                    Mike

                    Typo. I had a question, but I realized the answer is implicit in the essay.

                    Best,

                    Cristi