Does anyone disagree that the method described here is genuinely novel?
Mankind’s biggest problem can be described as an inability to resolve disagreements intelligently. Imagine if all people could put universal trust into a simple method that’s capable of unambiguously, non-subjectively, and unanimously rendering a Boolean outcome (i.e. TRUE/FALSE) for any assertion. It would be tough for someone to argue that the world would not become a better place by ridding mistakes from the way that people make decisions and form beliefs. Here are some of today’s best methods for collective adjudication.
Democracy — Opinion tallies are great for subjective matters, such as promoting songs or videos. However it shouldn’t take much effort to convince everyone that democracy is unsuitable for important decision-making. If “mission control” took a vote before pressing the launch-button it could marginalize someone who possesses information that’s capable of averting a catastrophe. Democracy gives people permission to push ahead with contentious endeavors in the face of blatant objections.
Leadership — Democracy is often used to elect the popular, other times leaders take their positions by force. In either case a single fallible human is expected to make important decisions which affect everyone else.
Question and Answer Websites — Popular Q&A websites utilize a combination of democracy and unilateral responses from the questions’ authors for determining the best answers and popular rebuttals. Blending two approaches which contain flaws does not cancel out the mistakes. However it has proven to work well because, unlike a blog, there’s at least a definitive outcome.
Blogs — Blogs are great because everyone has an equal voice without involving democracy. Its shortcoming is that there’s no framework for producing unambiguous outcomes. Everyone tells each other why they are right and this seldom changes anyone’s mind.
Wikis — Wikis have certainly improved the way in which people collectively assimilate information. The problem is that moderators unilaterally settle disputes by deciding what information is allowed to remain. Their reasoning is customarily absent and there’s little recourse for those who wish to express important objections.
An Invaluable Bias
The reason why truth-by-default is so important is because it contains a bias. Without this there can be no definitive outcome which is why all of the methods listed above must contain one. However in all aforementioned examples, it’s the opinions of particular people which break ties rather than a universal mindset.
If a bias is so valuable then people may be wondering why not embrace false-by-default? This doesn’t work because people are not given the benefit of any doubt, nor does it model the mentality of trusting toddlers. However the main problem is this. If things do not begin as true then where does “right” come from? Who gets to say what’s valid or not if everyone starts out as being wrong? It’s like a black hole which cannot be escaped without the help (not) of a strongman or authority.
It’s philosophically impossible for someone derive “right” (unless something wrong is contradicted) however, the same cannot be said about the inverse. Everyone naturally agrees upon what constitutes a mistake because nobody will argue that hypocrisy is acceptable. Once a person can be shown to argue against themselves it will almost always result in them conceding or leaving.
The Intelligence Algorithm
____________________________________
Undoubtedly, naming this method “the Intelligence Algorithm” is bold and the claim is likely to draw ire. One can only hope because anything that brings attention to this discussion would be a positive outcome. Here are some supporting reasons that skeptics are invited to discredit.
- Intelligence can be described as measure or capability for making good decisions.
- If people learn from their mistakes then they should teach by them.
- If it’s not the most intelligent way to reach collective decisions then people would have to say (-) what’s wrong (+) why which would mean that they’re fundamentally using the process to help people decide.
- This claim doesn’t have to be proven or endorsed by anyone of stature because it’s true-by-default by means of its own reasoning.
- Open source software has been developed around this method (hosted on GitHub - HIPI-Project/HIPI), creating a platform for resolving disagreements.
____________________
Truth by default: All statements, beliefs, and contradictions begin in a state of true/proven. It can be said that everyone is relatively right in the moment given their personal contexts, genetics, and life experiences. All new entries begins in a state of true, regardless of what words they’re comprised of, because they’re closest to the imagination which conceives them. People are always given the benefit of the doubt from the outset, even with junk/spam. Critics find the last part unappealing but they should remember that such submissions are easy to contradict.
Contradictions have dual polarity: Statements or beliefs are used to build up ideas with a single, positive polarity. Contrarily, contradictions are used to tear down other beliefs, or other contradictions, and must contain a dual polarity. (i.e. CANT / BECAUSE). Because all statements are true-by-default, regardless of what characters/letters are used, it’s essential that humans explicitly distinguish between beliefs and contradictions by means of single or double polarity.
Game of attrition: Because contradictions are true-by-default it means that the one who gives the last word wins. All entries, including beliefs, reciprocate between defense/offense or trusting/skeptical. Whenever someone is forced into making unappealing arguments they typically quit (sometimes out of spite) and render a victor. For contentious issues that are debated collectively, there will typically be a period where the outcome exists in flux. The frequency in which this reciprocates can be said to resemble a form of democracy. Most issues will eventually settle, leaning one way or another. Highly divisive issues which perpetually oscillate indicate a personal preference/opinion rather than a universal truth, something suitable for voting instead.
It only takes one: It only takes one contradiction to invalidate any entry (belief or contradiction). As powerful as they might be it’s important to remember that they’re subjected to the same rules. Similarly, a single voice has the power to stop a rocket launch in “mission control”. This property is vital for group endeavors because it gives everyone equal power. Take this away and people will resort to things like terrorism as a way of drawing attention to their plight.
Beliefs also reciprocate: Contradictions are used to invalidate (more like delete) beliefs or other contradictions. If people communicate by means of single polarity, it can be said they are having a dialog rather than a dispute. One person is always the driver but this can quickly switch. The rules are nearly the same as with contradictions except that beliefs reciprocate between “in question” and “answered”.
Tree formations: Contradictions and beliefs often times grow into tree formations, meaning that an entry may contain multiple children. However there’s one important distinction between the two. When an entry has been contradicted it’s effectively deleted and therefore it cannot accept additional contradictions. In other words, “you shouldn’t kick a man when he’s down”. This is important for group systems because it has a way of preventing illegitimate manipulation. If software didn’t observe this property it would be possible for someone to contradict a statement many times over and effectively bury it by means of brute-force instead of logic.
Contradictions are Timeless: Contradictions exhibit dual polarity (i.e. CANT/BECAUSE) which forms a “closed loop” for self-containing context. Single-polarity statements, used within a dialog, rely upon the previous “x” statements to establish such context. This is important because any information system accepting contradictions may augment a global pool and reapply across diverse subjects for all time. This gives rise to systems which become more intelligent over time. Conversations at a dinner table quickly meander and group dialogs are no different. There’s no way to reuse logic across separate domains with all of the adjudication methods listed above. For example, great thoughts added to a blog frequently become buried under pagination which causes people to repeat themselves. Machines are supposed to help humans eliminate repetition and this is one of the most powerful ways to accomplish that with regards to language and logic.
Time favors the intelligent: Think about two opposing partisan people in a coffee shop echoing back their party’s talking points. Each one knows what the other is going to say long before they finish and find it nearly irresistible to interrupt. What happens if someone says something which is truly intelligent and completely novel? It makes the other person think. An opponent may roll their eyes back and stare at the ceiling, trying to think of a response which doesn’t sound foolish. Because this algorithm always yields a definitive outcome, it can be said that intelligent thoughts will sway the balance with a higher frequency compared to the unimaginative and uninformed.
Examples
__________________
— (false) Belief: I HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY.
— — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t type in all caps if you have something important to say (+) because people interpret that as a metaphor for shouting.
— — — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that I meant to shout by using all caps (+) because that is how I normally type.
— — — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t disregard ways in which people could misunderstand your intent (+) because your goal should be to reach the largest possible audience when you have something important to say.
___________________________________________
— (true) Belief: The world is round.
— — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that the world is round (+) because ships that sail out to sea fall off of the edge.
— — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that ships fall off of the edge of a flat Earth when they sail out to sea (+) because there are many reasons to explain how a ship could sink or get lost in a large ocean on a round Earth.
— — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that the world is round (+) because if I hold up a straight edge to the horizon the two objects are aligned.
— — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that an appearance of a flat horizon is evidence of a flat Earth (+) because a small ant standing on an extremely large ball would perceive a flat surface with a 360 degree view.
