Steering Humanity\'s Future with the Dialogic Web by Ray Luechtefeld

Ray,

Nice essay. I note your comment about M&M and ether above. Interestingly the later Michelson Gore Pearson experiment, larger scale with better equipment (1926 I think) firmly concluded an ether frame. That result has been as well censored and subjugated as Einstein's 1954 paper which is actually consistent with it.

We'll never really advance understanding while science remains led by myth and belief. History shows what really steers the future id scientific advancement.

I've found Millers experiments far more interesting, supporting a hypothesis I postulated applying J D Jackson extinction distances through the atmosphere; he found decreasing birefringence at lower altitudes, and the (still non-zero) M&M result at sea level.

I hope you get a chance to read mine (the previous ones prepare SR's interpretation consistently for the unification).

Best wishes. I feel your views are more forward looking than cataloguing our errors, though shouldn't we really better study and learn from the feedback?

Peter

Ray,

This must be a rather general vector from your doctoral thesis, steering the future with your obvious organizational skills and learning. Quite an impressive and extended development of an apparatus for collaborative steering. Most essays are heavy on what. Yours is heavy on the how, the most difficult part of this exercise. We know what needs to be done, but entrenched forces and their benificiaries -- though becoming less plentiful -- who now control, make it rather difficult to accomplish. You fill in the details quite neatly: education, internet medium, dialogic web, and a comparative endeavor that works -- Wikipedia.

My essay is heavy on what needs to be done and the forces that need to be neutralized. My how is not so detailed -- looking beyond (the orthodox) and within the mind -- the neural universe.

I would like to see your coment on my essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008

Jim

Dear Ray Luechtefeld,

Since you were developing communication hardware, you might hopefully appreciate my intention to advocate causality. May I ask you to check at topic/2021 my recent reply to Toth where I am defending my claim that ethics needs an inclusion.

I didn't derive this from Juergen Habermaas. Instead I refer to other as I consider rational thinkers like Alfred Nobel, Claude Shannon, Karl Popper, and Galileo Galilei.

Curious,

Eckard

Ray,

What a breath of fresh air to see moral science philosophy take a front seat. Our essays are based on the same theme that you nicely summed up, "In an ideal society the self - management of individual interactions would be achieved by the citizenry through free will, rather than through the imposition of law ..."

I agree that high level networked communication is integral to any system approaching that ideal; in addition, though, I think that the web of physical resources plays an equal part.

I am grateful for the extended deadline that allows me to rate you with a deservedly high mark.

Best,

Tom

Hello Ray

I wonder if it would be possible as an experiment to implement a human version of your dialog web in some discussion space. By human I mean that volunteer moderators simulate some of the role of your dialog agents. Or is the software ready?

We have some dialog space used for Lifeboat Foundation discussions that might work.

Hello Ray,

Thanks for your comments of May 29. Unfortunately, work requirements have not allowed me to reply before now. Your proposals for personal dialogic agents and dialogic web have merit. Best wishes for the finals judging and for future implementation of your proposals.

Laurence Hitterdale

Hi James,

It is possible, but would require a considerable effort. The question of whether the effort is worth it depends on the purpose of the experiment.

If it is meant to be a "valid" experiment (by which I mean, one that meets acceptable standards of scientific rigor, I have already done something like what you are proposing in my dissertation (see http://phdtree.org/pdf/25409619-model-ii-behavior-and-team-performance-an-experimental-design-and-intertextual-analysis/ ). I've also done some other studies that used various versions of the prototype software - see for example a few of them at:

Ricardo Romero, Richard Savage, Paul Figueroa & Ray Luechtefeld, "A Quantitative Study Of The Impact Of Automated Facilitation On Engineering Student Dyadic Task Completion," Presented at the 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference, October 2011 Rapid City, SD (refereed). (Available online at http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/papers/1276.pdf ).

Paul Figueroa, Richard Savage, Ricardo Romero & Ray Luechtefeld, "A Qualitative Analysis For The Facilitation Of Innovative Problem Completion Amongst Dyads Of Engineering Students," Presented at the 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference, October 2011 Rapid City, SD (refereed). (Available online at http://fie- conference.org/fie2011/papers/1278.pdf ).

Ray Luechtefeld, Steve E. Watkins, & Raj Kanwar Singh, "Expert System for Team Facilitation using Observational Learning," paper presented at the Frontiers In Education Conference, 10-13 October 2007 Milwaukee, Wisconsin (refereed) (Available online at http://fie- conference.org/fie2007/papers/1530.pdf ).

These three were done with the web interventions in a discussion board. I still have to complete write-ups on studies with the prototype that uses spoken interventions and speech recognition via mobile devices, and which is capable of crowd-sourced interventions.

That alpha prototype does not capture my latest thinking about the architecture of the "dialogic web", which is roughly similar in scope to an architecture of the "semantic web", though of course based on some completely different assumptions. While the semantic web is about working with clearly defined meanings, the dialogic web is about working with the multiplicity of meanings that compose everyday life.

If the purpose of doing the experiment is to prompt thought and build exposure, I might be interested in doing the human run-through, though it might make more sense to just do the programming. Since most of the conversational interventions that the dialogic web will use will be crowd-sourced (like Wikipedia) a human actor run-through will not necessarily reflect the final system. My goal in participating in this essay contest was to connect with others who would be interested in furthering the development of the dialogic web, so I'd certainly like to engage in conversation about that. You can best reach me at the IEEE email address on the papers linked above if you want to talk about it.

Does this respond adequately to your post? Let me know if I can provide more information.

Thanks,

Ray

dear Ray

Congratulations with your high community rating and admission to the finalists pool.

I hope that the discussions continue so herewith I have the pleasure to sent you the link to my contribution : "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS" and hope for your comment(s).

Good luck with the "final judgement" and

best regards

Wilhelmus