Welcome from Marcus de Penguinne and Artemis Varidot on

Evolutionary and Postevolutionary Systems

As well as pitying the flea and the snail
Pity those who stand on stone pedestals
and must stand as stone, or they die.

Manuel Jalon Corominas, inventor of the mop (1956)

This website has been reduced. More advanced material will be contained in the companion website www.ethicalgalacticevacuations.ie, but is not yet set up.

I may have learnt this: God tells me what to do. I do not complain about it and try and do something else.

It is basic and absolutely fundamental
that everyone is not getting it wrong.
Rather, everyone does not understand and cannot communicate
that they are trying to get it right.

    Evolutionary systems based on pleasure

    Evolution has produced the idea of ethical social systems.
    A higher principle than ethics is the truth, which does not evolve.

    There are systems which seek to optimise pleasure within the boundary of the people who belong to them. They include systems of management by reason, as a suitable
    vehicle for development of the experience of pleasure, the longevity of the system that provides it, and as a process for the maximisation of pleasure of the people within
    it. It allows pain, since it cannot separate this from the world in which it lives. It also allows pain for those who wish to obtain pleasure from it. It acknowledges that both it
    and the people within it will die, but nevertheless its process is one of optimisation, not of denial of its physical attributes. Death can be delayed so that pleasure is optimised.
    It cannot be avoided in the long run.

    Evolutionary systems based on pain

    There are systems which seek to optimise the pain within the boundary of the people who belong to them. We will sometimes refer to this as the Fourth Reich, but in other
    contexts we use the term Fourth Reich as the dominant political and economic system of today. This sado-masochistic system is divided between the sadists who wish to
    inflict pain, and the masochists who wish to receive it.

    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.

    Both pleasure and sado-masochistic systems operate as evolutionary systems which propagate themselves according to the principles which they promote. They allow
    learning within these systems by their methods. They may seek to minimise death, as a process by which their system may increase and evolve, or they may seek to
    maximise death, as a process by which the death of others increases their power.

    Postevolutionary systems based on reason

    We will describe systems which seek to optimise their own reason or understanding as Postevolutionary systems. Acknowledging the existence of pleasure and
    sadomasochistic systems, and their evolutionary principles, and also by other methods seeking to relate these human systems with other life on the planet as part
    of evolutionary systems which created themselves, they seek to enquire whether there exist systems beyond those that have hitherto existed, which allow evolution
    by the application of reason, without as a necessity, applying pain or pleasure as the only available method by which the system may learn. These systems may apply
    planning to accomplish their goals. Intending to increase its knowledge by stages, it divides this into rolling programmes for the aquisition of this knowledge, extended
    over periods of time beyond the local considerations that any individual could experience the maximisation of pleasure or pain within it. This system, acknowledging
    its own existence and the method by which it propogates, allows the activation and development of collective systems of behaviour, and its rational employment to
    rational ends. Envisioning that this system may have available to it methods which go beyond those of evolutionary progress by learning or acceptance of pleasure/pain,
    it may seek to innovate, explore structures beyond those currently available that will maximise the reason inherent in its system and maximise its knowledge and
    understanding. Acknowledging, of necessity, the situation of people within its boundaries, of people with sexual motivation and desires, it seeks to incorporate this
    aspect of its existence in the employment of its objectives, and its extension to other objectives, motivations and desires, which go beyond sexual reproduction and
    involvement in pleasure/pain as the only possible motives and concerns for its existence. Its system of authority is the reasonableness of the investigations, both
    theoretical and physical, of the systems it promotes.

    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.

    Ethics, reason and debate

    Some structures within the old system are absent or peripheral in the new. The cause is the old system has different aims from the new. The old system is an evolutionary
    system embedded in the replication of historical processes which give rise to pleasure or pain.

    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.

    Collectivity from below

    Democracy is not a thing-in-itself, it is a means to an end. It may be the best way of operating. The end is the socialisation of behaviour. Its implementation has to be
    coherent to work. The best plan is often not the average one. It is the one most likely to work. To obtain the ends of this socialisation these plans have to be well worked
    out, coherent and collectively determined by iterative interaction of its parts. Essentially if the system is not to be corrupted by authoritarian tendencies, it needs to be
    collectively organised from below.

    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.

    The British Community

    This document describes our thinking which led to other ideas. It indicates a possibility which we substantially developed further, but is not in substance our current idea at all.
    This has involved change of ethics. The evaluations need and later extensions are valid where they apply, primarily in Iteration 2, which is largely independent of this Iteration 1.
    We have removed Iteration 2, which was half-complete.

    (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.

    Planetary governance and communication

    We give five major disfigurements of planetary governance and communication between people and systems within it.

    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.


    Living things on planet Earth were formed by processes in its physical environment. From these conditions single celled animals and plants arose. In evolutionary processes
    moderated by pleasure and pain, there came into being brains in these creatures that modified responses to their environment. These brains may have first been hard-wired.
    Brains developed so that their responses became modified by reaction with their environment, and particularly in humans by reflection of their internal states. These states
    were able to represent the external world that they experienced in their conscious being by allocating names to objects and words to represent the transformations of these
    objects. This language became expressed in external media by systems of writing. Heiroglyphics represented pictures of what we saw. A second-order system of language
    represented words rather than pictures, the words representing the pictures that the brain was able to see. In terms of this language, these symbols and their manipulations
    gave rise to writing that expressed their relations with other people, and the world they could see. They became instrumental in developing human culture and communication
    beyond small groups to encompass civilisations with a view of the world that achieved huge tasks. In the present era theories of the world encompass what we call the
    universe, even with the attempt to explain all experience within them.

    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.