The Relevance of Truth

Oh yeah, I forget. Unless you are a bona fide member of the Coalition of Truth [you and Wendy, right? ] nothing you say has any relevance to the Truth at all.

And how do you know this? Well, as with James, you merely believe it. What encompasses the optimal or the only rational “trustable information” in regard to it. What encompasses “progress” in addressing it? Obviously: whatever you assert it to be.

But, okay, in regard to MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, what is the Truth in regard to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with here. An issue that is debated over and again between liberals and conservatives at ILP.

Now, James was always chickenshit when it came to bringing his own moral and political value judgments down to earth. The things he would do in order to keep the exchange up in the clouds when he reconfigured his own TOE from the world of science and math to world of moral and political conflicts.

And so far [with me] you are no less a chickenshit here yourself. I’ve even provided you with an intellectual scaffold in which to explore your own values:

Or, sure, a scaffold of your own.

Just name the issue – re MSNBC/CNN/Fox – put it in a set of circumstances and let’s finally get this thing started.

That issue gets into James’ SAM Co-op - where everyone gets to live in whatever bubble they have faith in - not needing to worry about what other people choose to believe.

In this case though, since we are only talking about the issue of information and confidence in it (not necessarily living conditions) everyone involved gets -

  • Problem solved and rational people don’t have to worry about your irrational issues and you don’t have to worry about their “intellectual contraptions”.

See, didn’t I tell you: chickenshit.

Just like the master.

How about each person creating their own website where they host their own arguments and invite others to examine them? It’s easy and it’s cheap, even if you’re from a developing country; but if for some reason you don’t want to pay for a website, you can get a free blog.

It’s much more desirable to have your own website (paid or free, blog or forum) than to write on Internet forums and social networks owned by people you know nothing about for the simple reason that it allows you to be your own boss. You have a lot more control over your content as well as over who gets to participate and how.

Each person chooses the rules (i.e. what’s allowed and what’s not allowed on their website) and how to enforce them. It’s completely up to them. Others are free to accept the terms and participate or leave.

Once enough people are doing that sort of thing, people will start organizing all of the available information in useful ways (e.g. by creating catalogues of arguments on various subjects – encyclopedias that are alive.)

It shouldn’t be too difficult.

But before one can do that, one must have an argument. And in order to have an argument, one must 1) become aware of why one thinks what one thinks, and 2) find a way to express it in language.

It might be the case, and I actually think it is the case, that the best way to survive in modern times is by believing in lies.

If that is true, and if the highest goal of each one of us is to survive, then we really should stop doing what we’re doing (which is believing what is true) and start doing what we’re not doing (which is believing what is false.)

The problem seems to be that we cannot adapt to reality. We simply can’t help ourselves. So there must be something wrong with us, right?

But before we can say there is something wrong with us, we must first compare how we perform in relation to other people.

Are we the only ones who have trouble adapting to reality? Perhaps we’re not. Perhaps it’s a universal phenomenon. And if it’s a universal phenomenon, then it’s a problem that characterizes human species as a whole and not merely us.

But what we’re going through is not a universal phenomenon, isn’t it? So I guess there really must be something wrong with us? ):

Well, not necessarily.

Other people might be doing what is necessary to do in order to survive without necessarily doing it because they want to do it.

And if that’s the case, if they are doing something they do not really want to do, how can you say they are victors?

In fact, how can you say they are doing better than us?

How is it desirable to do what they are doing?

Who wants/desires to do what they don’t want/desire to do?

Isn’t that an obvious contradiction?

People don’t merely want to survive. They also want to perceive they are surviving. So even if the former is achieved, they are not victors if the latter isn’t achieved as well.

I had that thought too, at the time when the early kinds of the so-called “social media” appeared.

The Internet recapitulates modernity. In the beginning, modernity was very promising, especially for the middle class, and later also for the lower class, although the negative sides of modernity also became clear, which later could not be overlooked at all, and soon the end of modernity will be reached. If the Internet recapitulates modernity, but at much shorter intervals of course, then the Internet will also soon be at its end, at least for most users, because most of them will no longer like the Internet.

S_E.jpgH.gif

All of that feels like a good analogy. And considering what the original Internet inventor is now proposing I suspect Anderson is largely right. He is proposing some way to make the internet more democratized - more privately distributed and controlled (I think that is what he was saying).

There is one issue I thought of. In that resolution debating there must be an active logic moderator - someone with a keen eye for deviation from the house rules and willing to step in immediately and demand correction. I’m not sure how that can be done on websites or blogs. I guess a moderator could be voted on by the debaters (if a good one could be found).

The end goal would be this -

It isn’t that anyone is dictating truth but that everyone can go back and see how any proposed truth was derived. And if they disagree, they can merely add to the prior debate which would lead to either an abandonment of the prior or an additional leaf or even branch on the tree of confidence.

Applied on a global scale the end result, I suppose, would be like a huge structured open data base of all of the thoughts recorded on every subject debated (a Wikipedia of structured logic debates). Each variation in belief or confidence would end up with a type of genetic code of confidence (similar to what I have been calling “bubbles of belief” except precisely defined and cataloged). It’s like a compendium of the whole world’s beliefs and understanding of everything - all organized and linked (zookers).

After a long period of debating, I imagine the categories would dwindle down as more people came to see which branches of confidence played out to be more factual.

So in the long of it, belief and confidence isn’t so much about the people involved but about the rationale - the logic and facts - politics totally removed (maybe that is why James didn’t get into politics much :-k ).

And does anyone here know how to make one of those in-post windows where larger pictures can be viewed (so I can bring James’ flow chart in for discussion)?

And that sounds like a good first debate in order to see what is justified to do - to continue debating or what.
=D>

And I just realized that if this kind of thing played out it would lead directly to James’ “Angel Network” and sub networks that leads to his SAM Co-op order for future society. This thing could be HUGE - bigger than the Internet and NY stock exchange combined. :open_mouth:

Then the issue of how to enforce secrecy becomes inherent - the best way to enforce anything.

If they want to talk about global communist reset - MEET the COMPETITION! :sunglasses:
:laughing:

Or is it that I just get excited too easy. :confused: 8-[

O’Biden’s answer to this is now a “Reality Czar” - US communist government Ministry of Truth.

How long should we guess it will take before the globalists provide the world with a USPPP -
Ugly Swamp People’s Party Pravda

That’s what you get when you don’t do anything better.

I stopped liking it long time ago. I believe it’s because it has become more difficult to find what I’m looking for. There is less and less variety. I have the impression that whatever I’m searching for, I always get the same exact results. That might be thanks to Google but I am not sure it’s entirely thanks to Google. In any case, a different way of browsing the Internet has to be considered (assuming there is relevant content to be found on the Internet.)

You simply ask someone to be a moderator. Suppose you present an argument on your website and invite someone (e.g. Ecmandu) to examine it for you. He accepts. You present him with a set of rules that both of you must follow. He accepts. Then you ask someone else (e.g. Magsj) to moderate the debate between the two of you by making sure that everyone is following the rules both of you have accepted; and in case a rule has been violated, to step in. You ask Ecmandu whether he’s fine with Magsj moderating the discussion. He either is and the debate starts; or he says he is not and then you either look for someone both you and Ecmandu are fine with or you simply give up. It’s more or less straightforward. What’s important is that you know what you want/expect from a debate so that you can devise a clear set of rules for you and others to follow. That helps you and others avoid unpleasant surprises.

Note that James’s concept of resolution debate was meant to be used by people who live together. The underlying idea, I believe, is that every member of a group must approve of every action of every other member of the group. I don’t think he ever put it this way but I am certain enough that that was the idea behind it. When disagreements arise, e.g. when someone says “I’m going to do this” and someone else objects, a process of resolution debate is initiated with the aim to resolve the disagreement. If no agreement can be reached, those who disagree are free to leave the group and start or join another one. Basically, it is a way to maximize group cohesion (something that seems to be missing in many, if not most, groups nowadays.)

It wasn’t meant to be used on the Internet. Though, as far as I can tell, he had nothing against the idea (he even encouraged it.) To use it on the Internet, however, one would have to adapt it. It’s a different environment, so slightly different rules are expected to apply.

Isn’t that exactly how you end up with what we have now - that thing you just said is disappointing for you? - not enough progress toward your aim?

Arbitrary moderating leads to insufficient or even absent moderating - regardless of good intentions (and sometimes because of good intentions). And arbitrarily choosing moderators is how the US Congress became so lame. Arbitrary moderating leads to arbitrary discussions and arbitrary conclusions (if any at all).

The debaters provide the drive and energy. The moderator maintains to course to resolution.

You are referring to his SAM Co-op, not merely the debating process. And in either case a unanimous vote was never suggested. I am thinking you don’t understand what he meant.

I think that option only applied to those who grew intolerant of newly developed amendments - like the US adding an amendment stating that white people are not allowed to vote (could be on the way over there). How any one group chooses its amendments depends on what the originators setup (assuming the basic constitution held intact).

That can’t be true. He actually setup a forum on another website (Reality something) allowing the admin to be the moderator. As it turned out that admin had no idea of what he was supposed to do so the whole thing looked a lot like me and Silhouette “debating” - nothing at all accomplished (ask a simple yes/no question over and over just to get paragraphs of distractions over and over). James commented to and about that “moderator” having to know when to correct the actions of the participants. But being the admin, he seemed to just say - “well this experiment didn’t work” and deleted the whole thing.

Perhaps rules would need to be refined but the first most important is to make sure the authority - the moderator - was actively involved and reasonably competent. Without that objections of the moderator’s objections (or lack of them) would just become the whole argument - the original debate probably forgotten - not any different than what you see around here.

I think that either you or I could manage the moderator task proficiently (any analytical reductionist type). Other than that, any adaptation of the rules could be easily handled I think.

My first concern when examining his SAM Co-op (different than the resolution debating) was that people generally could see no need for it (not that the need wasn’t there). I am thinking now after recent events, perhaps a few more can.

As long as a better method isn’t established - a global Ministry of Truth is destiny.

I just said that something is disappointing to me? Where?

I did not say that one should arbitrarily choose who’s going to moderate the discussion they are about to have. It goes without saying that it would be in one’s best interest to choose the person most suitable for the task.

And I also didn’t say that moderation should be arbitrary i.e. that moderators should moderate according to their whims. The job of a moderator is to make sure that the discussion is unfolding in accordance with a given set of rules. That’s the opposite of arbitrary.

I don’t think he invented the debating process separately from his SAM Co-op. But I wouldn’t bet on that. Either way, it’s quite possible he thought about using it in other contexts too.

I am not so sure.

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … a#p2213944

What option? Are you speaking of the option to leave the group or the option to disagree with a proposed course of action?

Either way, this seems to tackle it:

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 0#p2222753

Possible.

This is what I based my opinion on:

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5#p2218713

Obviously, he’s talking about an Internet version of CHR not merely resolution debate.

Either way, you have to choose what’s allowed and what’s not allowed within a discussion (“the rules”) before you can start enforcing it (i.e. moderating the discussion) and before you can delegate that task to someone else.

That’s the first step – a very important one – that is pretty much neglected around here and elsewhere.

Google and other global players who dominate the Internet ensure that they are always the first to be found via the search engines, and because people are lazy and don’t search further, they get the most clicks, so that their oligopoly becomes ever more powerful. Market laws do not apply to them. And this has a lot of consequences.

I would very much welcome an independent, legally secured web presence of any person. It seemed to take this development in the 1990s, but the history of modernity initially also showed a pleasant development for each individual and then took a different course.

Before the turn of the millennium, it should have been ensured that the Internet did not fall prey to total control. But that was gladly avoided. Now it is too late for such a development. But as I said, I am sure that the Internet, which itself is part of modernity, will recapitulate modernity, with which it will end.

James’ Resolution Debating flowchart

I have realized something about that debate process - it isn’t about who wins or loses. It is about revealing the agreements and disagreements in a very precise way. And that does 4 things to help -

  • It removes the pride or ego issue often controlling debates
  • It reveals what issues might need further study or investigation
  • It catalogues the current state of beliefs
  • It reveals who or what can be trusted by others of similar perspective

I think that makes a serious social shift away from confusion, distrust, and feelings of hopelessness toward a more solidly reliable social environment (the opposite of what has been promoted for decades).

The reality of our immediate situation has to be relevant for literally every creature (which I suppose is what inspires depression when it knowingly cannot be assessed - that feeling of hopelessness and “what’s the use”).

So I don’t think it is necessarily about discovering the ultimate truths about anything but rather discovering the truth about what each person currently believes - their/your bubble of belief. And from that each person can better make decisions as to where and how they want to proceed. And I suppose it would reveal the current variety of methods available to accomplish whatever someone was wanting to accomplish.

I think it offers a degree of hope against the gloom of the current onslaught of Orwellian political darkness overtaking the world.

So Magnus, if you are interested, I think we could try to use this process in our discussion about the “1 = 0.999…” debate. We could try to share the “Logic Arbiter” (James’ LA in the flowchart - or what he calls “Arbitrator”). We would probably stubble through it until we get the feel but it seems a worthy effort to me.

Up for it? O:)

I agree with everything you said.

And yes, I am up for the debate. However, in order to make it worthwhile for both of us, I would suggest coming up with a set of rules that both of us deem acceptable. In other words, we have to invent a game that both of us will find useful and enjoyable to play. Of course, that game is the game of resolution debate but the devil is in the details. We need to discover the version of the game both of us want to play. The result would be a written set of rules that explain how the game is played. Once we’re done with that, we would simply . . . play the game (: And if we realize the game isn’t quite as satisfying as we thought, we could simply go back and tweak its design.

What do you think?

That is exactly what I was thinking. :slight_smile:

There are several issues we have to work out –

  • Since we are experimenting with having no single moderator - we have to have rules for “points of order” issues seeking mutual consent – how we propose them – how we resolve them.
  • Which forum to be used for each type of rules issue. I’m thinking that the debate itself can stay where it is in Science and Maths but the rules for moderating and the general idea of resolution debating are more a philosophy issue – truth and wisdom seeking. So a new thread for that – perhaps handling both the general procedure as well as mutual consent moderating.
  • The process involves documenting specific agreements and differences, so I suggest we keep those on yet another thread – editing updates – not sure which forum.
  • There is to be some kind of a categorizing of the issues – that can become very complex – perhaps on the General Resolution Debating thread. And perhaps not even attempted until we go through a trial run.

By the end (or even half way through), we should both gain more confidence in our own thoughts on the issue as well as what the points of contention are. What I suspect will happen is that most issues will end up being seen as merely wording and symbol issues (that seems to be the norm around here).

So unless you have objection I will go ahead and start a thread on the general procedure in this forum. :smiley:

Go ahead!

(d/p)