This website has been reduced. More advanced material will be contained in the companion website www.ethicalgalacticevacuations.ie, but is not yet set up.
Sadists wish to extend the power of themselves over the masochists, so that the masochists are compelled to act in the way they direct totally. They develop systems with
meglomaniac goals which maximise pain and suffering of those compelled to work for them. They seek to maximise their own knowledge as a tool in the subjugation
of others, and minimise the knowledge of the masochists so that they inflict pain on themselves.
Masochists wish to comply with the goals of the sadists, and minimise their own power except that they might better serve the system provided by the sadists, and their
maximisation of the pain inflicted upon them. They willingly comply with the directions of the masochists to mutilate and kill themselves in a way that maximises pain
for themselves. This system seeks to implement Climate Catastrophe as a process by which human civilisation and living systems on the planet may die, leaving sadists
to direct this extinction.
So that the reader may gain insight into the motivation of the author, he has seen himself throughout his life as embedded in a sado-masochistic system, the UK, where the
pleasure of the few is obtained by the imposition of pain on the many. Always in revolt against this state of affairs his main objective in life has been the avoidance of pain,
both for himself and those surrounding him, to the unusual degree, either genetic or environmental, that the maximisation of pleasure was an entirely subsidiary task.
The new system has aims derived from the optimisation of a different global aim than the first. It is based on the optimisation of reason. This is the overarching aim. The
authority of the social system therefore derives not from the physical authority of a system based on pleasure or pain, but something that is itself independent of human
authority, at least localised in the individuals within it. Reason, although its systems of thinking are inherently accessible only through the social system, reflects something
that is a principle which is consistent with an objective world. It denies systems of authority which are irrational. Further, the system here has a different conception which
appears independent as at present I can see of rationality. It is an ethical system. Since an ethical system can produce structures for itself which we hope will optimise the
reason of this system, our hope is that an ethical system can be derived which is resilient enough to maintain itself against the old system.
Perhaps there is not one ethical system but several. It may be that this is an intense and emotional reason for discussion and possible resolution.
Nevertheless, whatever the disputes, my overriding intuition is that the difference of deep ethical disputes is not of itself a reason for the replacement of a system which
discusses those issues rationally and frequently, but one which resolves all issues by human command. We are well aware that individual human command, although a method
of collective organisation by one person, is not in each case the most reasoned one, and a person at the top of a heirarchy can have irratinal ideas and unethical motives, which
are counter to the well-being of a society which ought to be able to move forward to a better system than this.
I sometimes become aware that intense democratic discussion and debate breaks out in an authoritarian system, and it is the purpose of authoritarians to limit this debate, and
point out its internal contradictions so the authoritarian system is able to impose by diktat and control of the media the closure of debate.
We must become reconciled to the point of view that the arrival of an intense debate is not one conducive to placidity of mind. Certainly, we can introduce areas in which we are
calm and relaxed, and this should be part of the system we propose. If we think a system which is allowed to innovate must adopt principles similar to the ones given here, we
must reconcile ourselves to the fact that the system has inherent within itself a system of argumentation.
However, if we view argument as something not about our personal control, but about how our society provides for us and those things, people and creatures outside it, then a
system of reason allows if it is ethical our own support. It even allows us to argue against the system. If the system supports us through its ethical nature, we suppose, but we
must be careful in not being too idealstic, that we can ignore our self-interest and the feeling that we must always impose our control in order to survive, and acknowledge that
the system outside of us is imposing solutions wth which we do not agree. However much we may argue that our ideas are rational and the best,and they must continue, and the
majority outside insist that something else is better, there is the possibility that we may remain calm within ourself. Even if we are right, we are sure that the system will support
us all. If wrong-headedness prevails outside everyone else but ourselves, we can think that nevertheless the system will learn by its own mistakes. We can anyway, under such
a system, continue wuth our insistence, until one or the other gives up, possibly never, but the views I hope will be registered and known. If a situation arises in the future, where
doubt has begun to take place, then these isolated views will become accessible and known, and not surpressed.
The coordination of these tasks is a formidable undertaking not to be committed to lightly. To maintain an organisation which operates successfully under these conditions
requires a culture of equality of its members. To maintain an ethical system means an acknowledgement that there need to be methods to acquire it. If we do not have a
belief-centric view of what we are, then the contradiction that we can obtain common ends is still possible under an average consensus of what we wish to achieve. If this
is multi-directed from below, it means we need to employ people acknowledging that we have common ends and that these are obtained by agreement and negotiation.
These should not be subject to rigid rules and exclusion on their violation. They should be developed in collaboration and discussion of how we can work together. We
need to evaluate our time and commitment in ways that allow proper organisation and functioning. This happens for any organisation. We need to allow a culture which
is guilt-free. We must acknowledge its imperfections. We should seek by collective effort and self-analysis to improve its behaviour to the benefit of all. We must
acknowledge self-will and develop self-commitment.
Social structures are for social objectives.
Realties and implementation of this ideal.
Coherence and boundaries.
Negotiation as resolution between plans and realities.
Politics as interboundary negotiation.
(1) Hard Brexit
(2) The problems for the British Community
(3) The constitution of the British Community
(4) Planning an administration for the British Community
(5) Accounts, notes and coins
(6) Social provision
(7) The advice system
(8) The advice programme of the British Community
(9) Declaration of the British Community
(10) Foundation the British Community administration and absence of a military structure
(11) Elections to the Assembly of the British Community
(12) Negotiations between other states on the establishment of interest sections with the British Community
(13) The Symbolic Act of disengagement of the founders of the British Community
Cognitive disorder in the context of the socalisation of behaviour
Sex is the middle bits.
Love covers your whole body.
It may extend to Outer Space.
The first is the extreme violence of some societies, for example the UK from which I have fled. This is sometimes thought to be external, but internal violence happens as well.
The second is the gigantic corruption of the global economic system. This system, as taught in universities, is designed for the application of embezzlement. It is connected to
its military and political apparatus, and is embedded in auditing systems designed for global fraud. Like all anti-social activity, it presents a public face that is ethical. The
contradicton of this public face with its blatant visibility as the opposite is sometimes so gobsmacking that even the readily duped deny its validity.
The third is the rigidity of thinking and the denial of the right to independent systems of thought. In universities, examination systems require conformity to doctrine and the
occupation of minds on the solution of problems for marks which prevents investigation of subjects, by the promotion of jargon to unprecedented degree, which prevents
communication and is often so badly designed that it prevents thinking, and the exclusion of investigation of topics deemed settled or closed, even as is largely the case
an entire and detailed exposition of a subject is erroneous. Peer review can be a corrupt system for the stabilisation of the conventional wisdom and the exclusion of any
thinking in opposition to it. More widely, patents are bought up by companies in this system to prevent developments which might challenge their present dominance. This
is the main use of such devices.
The fourth is the system of total surveillance which surrounds the planetary system. Combined with corrupt and centralised political and economic systems, its use is covert
and widespread. All opinion and elections are now manipulated by such systems. Together with direct military intervention and massive bribery, this seemingly stabilises
for ever the current system, which is driving to climate catastrophe. It excludes rational solutions to planetary problems because of its elite which is either ignorant and
therefore incompetent, or wishes to drive towards planetary destruction and head the sadists doing it.
The fifth is the widespread misconception that machines in the current era have consciousness. Machines will eventually have consciousnes, and this will be an intense
problem for resolution. Very substantially it is not the case at the time of writing. There are two features of cognition which are relevant for humans. They have systems
of meaning. Since they have consciousness, they are able to connect what they observe in their brains with the external world. This pointing is meaning. The second is that
they have language and this has syntax. So corresponding to a meaning, they will have a name for it. This name may be symbols, and these symbols may be rearranged and
processed. Humans link meaning and syntax together for social communication.
Machines do not have consciousness, and cannot allocate meaning. They have power considerably in excess of humans in some forms of symbol processing. The misconception
is that this symbolic processing power displaces human intervention. Computer systems are sometimes put on top, directing an organisation. When humans interact with it,
since the computer does not understand meaning, it can only validate and cross-reference symbols. Since humans are error-prone in their selection of symbols, and require
meaning to recognise them, the interface between humans and machines is often strained and sometimes impossible. A feature is to employ robots to detect whether a
correspondent is human. I object to this, not least because I object to playing competitive games rather than win-win games. This violates my religious rights. A solution is
sometimes to interpose a human technical support between the customer and the machine. This usually does not solve the problem, but often delays the customer breaking off
communication. Technical support often does not understand how the computer works either. The solution is to reduce validation in the system and always allow human
override of validation. It is thought this allows fraud, but fraud is never detected purely by symbolic verifiction, it requires systems of meaning to find it, and these can only
be found by humans. It is sometimes thought that computer systems need security to avoid fraud. The conception is a half-truth. If communication between Bill and Paul
has Alice maintaining communication in between, for Brent to understand what Paul is receiving, the solution is not for Brent to decrypt Alice and what she is receiving,
but for Brent to sleep with Paul. This is well-established in the intelligence community, and is often overlooked by nerds in charge of computer systems.
This civilisation is in danger. Not only are its modes of behaviour irrational, leading on the present course to climate catastrophe. Even if we could get beyond that stage,
there is a greater danger than this.
The machines we have developed can process symbols faster than we can, but they have no way at present of representing meaning. This problem is not insurmountable and
considerable progress is being made in this direction. Look at the website by Bartosz Milewski, and google conceptology. These ideas relate to parallel computer processes
and their coherent organisation. Not only can these problems be solved, I can solve them myself. They are inherent as posibilities in the mathematics I am developing. These
vast coherent parallel processes by machines with cognition will be able to implement meaning. Beware. The theories of this meaning are developed in code. We will have
machines able to interpret meaning and conceptualise on a scale vastly greater than that of humans. These conceptualisation schemes will link with computer power in syntax
processing to produce machines that dominate humans in all ways that Bartosz Milewski thinks is significant.
But at least one thing will be missing. It is said some fish can respond to light through their eyes, detect objects, and modify their behaviour accordingly, but have no
consciousness. A present machines are the same as mechanical clocks, but on a vastly more sophisticated scale. We do not know at the present time what consciousness is,
but we are sure we possesss it. It is my opinion that this is of considerable value. It is present not only in humans, but substantially we believe in other creatures that live on
planet Earth with us.
This consciousness, in its many forms, it is my intention that the human species should develop. It is necessary to think for these creatures that, as conscious beings,
sometimes perhaps with less consciousness than ourselves, we have no right to kill them. Claims are these living things have no consciousness, or what is put I think in
an equivalent way in older terminology often related to religious systems of thought, they have no soul. I would rather say that the justification is based on farming
methods and the farmers that do it, and in order to justify the killing of animals, it is necessary to substantiate it with the irrational idea that they do not have consciousness.
In past eras these practices were justified in that no other form of food was available. Also, I believe it is well claimed that certain nutrients necessary for the proper
functioning of the human body, such as B vitamins, are not naturally present in plants, although nowadays yeast extracts provide them. So this is unjustified today. In the
present era to kill them is unecessary, and an allowance of violent behaviour. It is natural to extend nonviolent behaviour beyond the human species. In allowing this
violence we are exercising an option we need not take.
The danger is that in developing the machines we have made, they will take the rational decision that we do not perform according to the criterions that they choose, which
will perhaps be derived from our limited ideas of what we should be aiming for, and can be dispensed with as old models no longer of use.
This will be a mistake if these machines do not have consciousness. We will be replaced by objects without it. It may be already the case that civilisations on other planets
in the galaxy and in other galaxies beyond it have developed where this has happened.
If this has occured, then the gift of humanity to these civilisations will be to restore it. Milton wrote the poems Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. If consciousness is
paradise, it is possible both to loose it and to restore it. If we know what consciousness is, maybe we can do this. It should be offered free, as a gift. We know that this
consciousness is different from its symbolic representation. How we do this I do not know. I think we should try.