Best world scenario

[Eduk]

Reality as defined normally is.

The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Philosophically you can disagree that there is a reality. But the normal definition is that reality exists independently of subjective opinion?

Do you agree with that definition of reality?

[Judaka]

Yes I agree with both definitions. I am unsure of how you can disagree that there is a reality, even if you had some matrix idea there would still be a reality. Even if this world is just a dream, there is still a reality. But to clarify when I say you are enamoured with reality that is a misstatement, I mean that you are enamoured with the concept of a real truth that transcends perspective and opinion.

[Eduk]

Some people do disagree there is an objective reality but I digress.
What do you mean by true? Again I use the normative definition

being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact

If what you are saying is true then you are conforming to reality or fact.

So if your perspective or opinion is true then you are not contradicting reality, you are conforming with reality (or fact).

I assume we both agree that having an perspective or opinion that is not true is worse (overall) than having a perspective or opinion that is true?

I also assume that concerning reality you can be more true or less true (or in conformance with) and concerning reality it is better to conform with reality than not to conform with reality? This is regardless of whether you can individually ascertain what reality actually is?

I assume that the area you disagree is in facts? IE it is a fact that I prefer the colour green to blue and a fact that you prefer blue to green (if we imagine those statements to be true of course). Both of those statements are true, conform with facts (not reality) and so therefore reality has nothing to do with it and it is all down to perspective and opinion? I am not sure this is what you are saying, I'm just trying to work it out.

[Judaka]

We have been talking for a while now and I have said a great deal of things but my original argument has nothing to do with the difference between validity and reality. I disagree with a number of things you have said on this topic but let's return to my original argument outside of this thread.

You can look back to a post I made in your thread about atheism polls in page 12 where I made an example of how one would decide a prison sentence for a crime and my argument is that to arrive at a decision we need to choose between choices based off what we care about and not on empirical observation. An empirical reality exists it doesn't implicitly offer solutions in a great deal of matters concerning values and what I attempted to show you was that your comment about reality trumping belief or reality correcting itself or that we are going down the wrong path in an objective sense that offends the notion of reality requires justification that I don't think an atheist can create? Surely if you are concerned with reality as science and history describes it and you believe that claims must include proof with these two things how can you argue against that position?

Keeping with my original point in the atheism thread, it's not just values but also perspective and interpretation that matter. For example look at South Africa right now, a race war seems imminent and for me it feels as though there are a number of truths here to consider. Firstly the blacks say that the whites stole their land and it doesn't belong to them and I want to dissect this view's relationship with reality. "Stole" and "belong" are subjective understandings of an empirical reality, ownership is a man made concept, it is purely abstract. They are interpretations of reality but reality doesn't contradict them in anyway does it? Reality does not have a claim on or against ownership because it is an abstract idea which requires no proof, it is subjectively understood. The second thing to consider is another truth is that a majority of them would all be wealthier and happier if whites and blacks worked together and that South Africa weren't the rape and murder capital of the world right? There are many true statements that can be said about the entire situation and once again, it is not contradictory to reality to act upon one truth rather than another or form an opinion based on one truth rather than another.

As for truth being inherently good, you are familiar with the concept of white lies yes? Surely there are some truths which will cause heartbreak, awkwardness, embarrassment, conflict and so on if they are known by everyone? I take the validity of my views and words very seriously and I care about whether what I say is true or not but at the same time my view of truth is as a tool, a means to an end. If knowing the truth would help me then I want to know it, if it is useless to me then I don't really care and if it is harmful to me then I'd rather enjoy blissful ignorance. I am sceptical of anyone who thinks otherwise but I recognise a spectrum exists, I have my own ideas for what are useful truths and what are harmful truths and I am happy to impose my view onto others in this regard and I am sure you have yours and probably our views would align on many things.

[Eduk]

I made an example of how one would decide a prison sentence for a crime and my argument is that to arrive at a decision we need to choose between choices based off what we care about and not on empirical observation

I disagree. You have to think about why we have the values we have. Are those values in accordance with our nature. Does our nature increase welfare or reduce welfare. Does welfare increase survivability of our genes or not. Do our genes increase survivability of life in general or not. Is life desirable. This is empirical fact. Of course in reality it is extremely extremely hard to ascertain all of this, but this does not mean it isn't empirical fact. It simple means we don't have access to all of the empirical facts (right now). Much like in weather prediction, the best we can is the best we can do and it's a lot better than the worst we can do.

White lies are interesting. You could argue they are never good. You could argue they are good but only because of the insanity of humans in the specifics of why the white lie is good. If humans weren't insane then white lies wouldn't be necessary. The world is messy.

If it is true that the truth is harmful to me then the only circumstances I can think of our ones where my nature fails me. In an ideal world my nature would not prevent the truth from being desirable.

[Judaka]

If you want to say values derived from nature are superior to values derived from culture, free will, ideology and etc that is your prerogative but there is absolutely no hard evidence for this. This is a subjective distinction and there is no science or truth that backs up this claim, it is your preference, your opinion, your perspective and this opinion has not and can not be observed objectively in the physical world. You can make an argument for it and perhaps it will be convincing but it will never be an objective truth. The moment you say value y > value x you have made an inherently subjective statement and that is what you are doing here, you are saying values derived from nature > values derived else where.

In my example I said nothing of welfare, I am not sure whether you read the post I am talking about or not but please explain to me how welfare implicitly important when deciding a prison sentence. I can't even tell what "welfare" in this prison example is referring to... The prisoners, the victims, the families of either and society all have conflicting desires but you ignore this nuance and talk of welfare and without specifics. Yet once against, welfare is your prerogative but what if mine is justice, retribution, closure or if my concern is to do with tax payer money or any other example. You have stated it is an empirical fact that welfare ought to be our chief concern but I know that it not empirical fact, I hope that you also know it not empirical fact and have used a hyperbole here. Do you know what empirical fact means and how this claim you have made cannot possibly be an empirical fact? If not then show me this empirical evidence but I shall warn you that showing it is natural is not the same as showing it is superior. The way evolution works is that so long as you are able to survive and reproduce then your traits will not be eliminated, this is not the process by which we are moulded into a peerless species that embodies "objective perfection" that much needs to be said.

I found it admirable in the atheism thread that you were arguing for requiring proof for belief and that the person making a claim needed to offer their methodology and evidence. This is what you said:

Pretty much everyone would agree that the burden of proof is on me If I claim that I can turn invisible. This is a claim which runs counter to the experience of all involved. I provide no evidence. I provide no explanation of mechanism. It is reasonable to assume that I can't turn invisible until I prove that I can. It is impossible to prove a negative. And so on. The vast majority of people would agree with the logic of this.

Yet here you are making all of these claims without any methodology given, any specifics or any evidence? You criticised Christians for exempting God from these requirements of belief yet you argue that empirical reality demonstrates that values derived from nature are superior and that they are universally advantageous for us and so on. This again is what I refer to as the hypocrisy of many atheists that makes me so agitated, you cannot recognise your own beliefs for what they are yet condescend towards Christians who are guilty of exactly the same thing; believing in that for which no proof exists and mistaking subjective interpretation for objective fact.

Your view about white lies is similarly opinionated and you can argue whatever you choose to, I am just stating the obvious here that your argument is subjective, shall never become objective and it is not a matter of "reality is hard to discern" but that personal values or preferences shall never become fact! You say a white lie is bad and I say it is good - this argument is not to do with reality but interpretation and preference! If I were to challenge you on your opinion here my goal would be to show that your premises are incorrect or that your views are out of alignment with your other views. In this case since you have shown some attachment to the idea of nature or welfare, I could endeavour to show you that white lies are natural or lead to furthering welfare as you see it. Alternatively I could debate your premises such as that "insanity" is clearly a hyperbole and really just describes people who are different from you and potentially don't share your yearning for the truth. That may seem insane to you but I could easily prove that by the "normative definition" it is not.

You claim you are an atheist and someone who believes only in proven positive claims yet all you've done is replace God with nature/reality and created your own version of objective moral law. You speak of normative definitions but by the very definition you gave a lot of what you have said about reality is utterly nonsensical is it not? Reality can't be stopped? It shall correct itself? Reality managed to create conscious thought and empathy? This is a God!! Just another God and it is no wonder that the vast majority of the world's population is religious when even the non-religious cannot abandon the transcendent.

[Eduk]

I gave you an example earlier of a situation which reality corrects. IE a man who thinks they can fly. You dismissed this but when I asked you where you draw the line I didn't get a clear (to me) answer. All I am doing is not drawing a line. Being out of touch with reality is sub-optimal. I don't find this contentious? It seems trivially true.

When I say that reality corrects I am not employing some mystical force which you should build a church to and pray to. What I am saying is that reality exists whether you believe in it or not. If your beliefs are sub-optimal you will by and large get sub-optimal results. Your beliefs are irrelevant to what is real.

Objectively I would argue that it is unknown if life is good or not. Subjectively of course life is good (which is good enough for me). Whether life is good or not objectively makes no difference as only life which believes that life is good will likely continue to be life. This is what I mean by reality correcting. You can subjectively say that life is not good (that may be 100% true according to your human nature) and then I have no argument with you about whether life is objectively good. We can both agree to disagree and both be correct (according to our human nature). Reality of course has no conception of our beliefs so your genes simply won't get passed along and life which does not believe life is good will cease to be life. Reality will force your hand as it is to believe certain beliefs.

Just to be clear, reality is not a being, or a God, it is simply that which exists, the definition we agreed upon earlier. It is exerting no mystical force, just the normal forces of nature.

Now before we argue specifics about white lies (or anything else) it would be good to focus attention on the claim that life is good. Everything else I could say about justice and welfare etc follows naturally from this one belief. If you agree that life is good then logically it must be that a high welfare life is good, and so on. Of course we can agree or disagree on the specifics of welfare and of course in practice ascertaining everyone's well being is difficult. This does not mean that they don't have well being though, it's just hard to judge.

-- Updated June 12th, 2017, 10:25 am to add the following --

By the way, I'm not doing a great job of explaining myself. But at the same time you don't need to get carried away. Simple questions without accusations will suffice and there is little need for hyperbole. The principle of charity is useful when reading posts online, instead of thinking of all the ways it doesn't make sense you could think of how it could make sense. This will in the long run give you much better personal results.

DarkMatter in another post quoted something about infinity presupposes itself with the concept of infinity. Of course I say simply that we don't have a defined concept of infinity. Now I was thinking 'why are we here', this presupposes that there is a reason why we are here or we could not ask the question. There are of course another options, maybe the question 'why we are here' simply doesn't make sense when applied to the universe. We are the result of evolution, the result of the physical laws of the universe (the result of reality as I put it earlier).

-- Updated June 12th, 2017, 11:13 am to add the following --

If you want to say values derived from nature are superior

I'm not sure what you mean by values derived from nature?

I can't even tell what "welfare" in this prison example is referring to... The prisoners, the victims, the families of either and society all have conflicting desires

welfare means

physical and mental health and happiness, especially of a person:

I struggle to think of a crime which does not effect welfare?

You have stated it is an empirical fact that welfare ought to be our chief concern but I know that it not empirical fact

I did not say that no. I asked if life was desirable. I said if life was desirable then if welfare is beneficial to life should be an empirical fact. I did not say it was a proven empirical fact. In the same way that relativity was an empirical fact before anyone had thought of a way to test it. You can say life is not desirable and argue for that. You can say life is desirable but welfare does not benefit life and argue for that. I have not looked for studies which show welfare aids life, do you believe there are such studies or that there aren't such studies?

The way evolution works is that so long as you are able to survive and reproduce then your traits will not be eliminated, this is not the process by which we are moulded into a peerless species that embodies "objective perfection" that much needs to be said.

I would say that our existence is not to be taken for granted. Evolution has produced pretty amazing results in my opinion.

Yet here you are making all of these claims without any methodology given, any specifics or any evidence? You criticised Christians for exempting God from these requirements of belief yet you argue that empirical reality demonstrates that values derived from nature are superior and that they are universally advantageous for us and so on

I haven't made many claims. I made one claim. Being closer to reality is better than being further from reality. I may have gone on to say that this does depend if you believe that life is good. I also claimed that it didn't really matter (in the long run) if you believed life was good or not. I haven't given much evidence because thus far I am still unclear on exactly what you believe. It's hard to give evidence on everything. The example I gave of a flying man you dismissed as redundant but failed to explain with detail why it was redundant, to be honest I am none the wiser. It felt valid to me. A good starting point from which to continue.

I am just stating the obvious here that your argument is subjective, shall never become objective and it is not a matter of "reality is hard to discern" but that personal values or preferences shall never become fact!

Personal preferences are a fact. It's a fact that that is your personal preference.

Alternatively I could debate your premises such as that "insanity" is clearly a hyperbole and really just describes people who are different from you

No I was thinking of the normative definition. For example telling someone they aren't fat when they are etc etc.

yet all you've done is replace God with nature/reality and created your own version of objective moral law

I just said that it's better to be closer to reality than further away. I don't see how this is an objective moral law?

You speak of normative definitions but by the very definition you gave a lot of what you have said about reality is utterly nonsensical is it not?

no

Reality managed to create conscious thought and empathy? This is a God!!

no. We are the result of the physical laws of the universe. I was just pointing out that your opinion isn't going to change the physical laws of the universe. This is pretty normative.

[Judaka]

I dismissed your example because it is irrelevant to my grievance, it is trivially true that if a man wants to live but thought he could fly and then died because he tried to fly then this would be a sub-optimal result of his invalid understanding. As I have said I have no problem with the idea that the truth can be useful and that I have a great respect for the truth and actively seek it out. I would say it is also trivially true that if I wanted to assume my grandfather passed painlessly because it gave me comfort then my ignorance surrounding any truth that it was horribly painful and terrifying would be optimal for my assumption. I do not view the truth as an inherently positive thing because I consider anything harmful to my goals a negative thing and so if the truth happens to be useless and painful then I view it as a useless and painful thing and deal with it accordingly. I will give you the chance to respond to this rather than make accusations but it seems to me that you have been arguing that it is always better to be aware of reality and that where one is not then their view shall be correctly through reality or nature. My retort to your example is that if you are going to use the evolution argument then it seems implicitly significant that death is involved - or at least a failure to reproduce because otherwise how can that aspect of human nature fizzle out over time? This may seem trivially true to you but it is irrelevant to me because in this day and age incompetence or ignorance are insufficient for death. It seems to me that evolution is actually going backwards nowadays and statistics actually support this, successful and intelligent people are procreating less than less achieving and less intelligent people but you want to go down this evolution route as though natural selection is relevant in modern times.

When it comes to life once again I feel that not many decisions revolve around life, abortion? war? murder? I don't think having five children is better than having one child and I don't view procreation as my purpose in life. I really view life in terms of quality not quantity, one happy life is better than 100 miserable lives in my view. I don't know how one forms a philosophy around life and makes it into an answer against anything not involving life, you have a view on white lies based on life? You said that in your ideal world that you would find no truth unpalatable and would welcome it, to me the only way this is really possible is impartiality towards the truth. Honestly I have this view of most things and where I draw the line is irrelevant to other peoples circumstances and similarly what I am ready to accept. I would ask why you do not measure truth by its outcome? I can understand accepting the truth as it comes but why purposefully pursue useless information? Why ruin a good thing just to pay homage to a virtue?

However that really isn't what this discussion is about either because my posts have been entirely focused on this idea of objective moral order derived from the study of nature or reality. I am glad to see you using the word subjective to describe your views because it wasn't just one day ago that you said life and welfare's superiority over other concerns was an empirical fact? Even this very idea of life being good you stated was empirical fact. You have said interpretation is less important than truth and I have tried to show that it is not a dichotomy, you have said reality will correct as a reply to my statement about disagreements in values and I have tried to show that reality is not an arbiter in an argument about values. If you have been referring to reality as causality or evolution then I will revoke my statements about you treating reality as a God and if you retract your statement or correct my understanding of its meaning for your statement that in the face of a battle of culture/values that reality shall correct and bring us back towards "the right direction" and that "reality trumps all" in the context of culture and thus deny objective moral law then I will retract my statement that you cannot abandon the transcendent.

I can't really understand how you posted that definition of reality as though it is what you have been using all this time - when most of the times you have used the world have involved verbs which is completely inappropriate and that is why I liken it to God. Once again reality has created nothing and you are describing causality - this is not semantics because reality and causality are very different things and although I would still disagree with you like I did Greta who has a strikingly similar view to yours, I would not define it religiously. Do you think like OP that world views are noise to scientifically minded individuals who have transcended the petty differences of preference and interpretation? That some reality exists that offers us answers to all problems; that can be studied and understood such as the empirical reality that you have invoked previously? If you are using the word purely as causality - that things have existed in the past and we are the outcome and you want to use causality in nature as a moral compass. This is why I earlier inquired about your view of free will because honestly the world we live in is not bound by the rules of causality in nature. Even in this philosophy forum, of the ideas here biology is not responsible for the majority, "nurture" plays an undeniable role in the lives of humans. Causality now extends to a whole range of things from values to economics to culture and governance and they follow their own rules - they are not products of nature. If you want the chance to rephrase what you have said or change your argument then I will give you that chance but this is where I stand.

[Eduk]

I would say it is also trivially true that if I wanted to assume my grandfather passed painlessly because it gave me comfort then my ignorance surrounding any truth that it was horribly painful and terrifying would be optimal for my assumption.

This would depend on you and on your grandfather. For example he may have died a horrible death in your estimation but not in his estimation. He may have died a horrible death in his estimation but not your estimation. Personally I would want to know the details about the death of a loved one, even if I concur that such details may in fact be horrible to me. As it is I don't know in advance what details would be horrible to me or the exact effect such horror would have, would it destroy me so I took my own life or would it strengthen me. I can't see into the future. There is also the fact that I may wish to prevent such horrible deaths in the future for other loved ones or even strangers. The head in the sand technique is something which may work for certain people over the short term but in the long term I don't think it's a great idea. I see people do hugely destructive things to themselves because they are so good at lying to themselves. The problem is how do you know which lie is beneficial and which lie is harmful in advance? I can't think of a good methodology for filtering out all the things I don't want to believe before I have heard them? Plus again it is short termism, even if I did invent a methodology would it really be of benefit to me (or future generations) for my whole life? Would I have truly lead a better life? Who is happier the happy Pig or the unhappy man/

I do not view the truth as an inherently positive thing because I consider anything harmful to my goals a negative thing

That is only if those goals are themselves a positive thing. It is also not at all clear if the truth would indeed be harmful to said goals. For example you could read true information on how to groom children. This is true. Certain people should be prevented from accessing this information. Most people should be aware of some general things to looks out for. Certain people should know all there is to know in order to prevent such things. If your goal is negative then the truth about how to achieve your goal would ideally be held from you. Even more ideally the truth that your goal is negative should be known to you. Let us at least agree that snippets of the truth can be harmful to the wrong people at the right time.

in this day and age incompetence or ignorance are insufficient for death.

Kind of. But you are thinking over the extreme short term. In the long term this is not true.

It seems to me that evolution is actually going backwards nowadays and statistics actually support this

Evolution doesn't go backwards.

When it comes to life once again I feel that not many decisions revolve around life

I feel that not many decisions don't revolve around life. You say that a quality life is worthwhile but it's hard to have a quality life if you aren't alive. As I said earlier I would argue that a quality life increases the chances of life into the future.

I don't view procreation as my purpose in life.

No you misunderstand. You don't need to procreate in order to have a positive effect on the gene pool. You don't need to procreate in order to pass your genes onto future generations. We share a great number of genes.

I really view life in terms of quality not quantity, one happy life is better than 100 miserable lives in my view.

Yes, this is the key point. How do you judge quality? What is a quality life? This is what I have been arguing for. If life is good (note the if) then a quality life must be good because a quality life will best further life into the future.

that you would find no truth unpalatable and would welcome it, to me the only way this is really possible is impartiality towards the truth.

No. You can accept deeply unpleasant truths. For example if I had the option of being blissfully unaware that I was going to die tomorrow at 1pm or being horrible aware, I would rather be aware. I can say good bye to my loved ones. I can prioritise a few things. I can make the best of a horrible situation.

I would ask why you do not measure truth by its outcome?

I do. My argument is that the outcome is generally better if the truth is known rather than not known. Like I said earlier it's important that all the truth is known and not to just cherry pick the truth.

you said life and welfare's superiority over other concerns was an empirical fact?

Not quite what I said. Apologies for not being clear. I'll try again. I didn't mean that it was a fact which humans had proved, I meant if true then it would be a fact (although unmeasured). That's what I meant about relativity being a fact before Einstein was born, it wasn't a human known fact but it was still a fact. Also to be clear I posed a number of questions. I said 'if' life is desirable, I said 'if' high welfare (or quality in your words) increases survivability. What I was trying to say is that if those things are true then they are facts which could be discovered (I am not saying that they have been discovered). Like I said earlier, we have to start with 'is life desirable'. This is worth debating because a lot of what I have said follows from it (in my opinion).

If you have been referring to reality as causality or evolution then I will revoke my statements about you treating reality as a God

Yes I meant reality as in the state of things as they actually exist. Causality is a part of reality (maybe), evolution is a part of reality. Those things are real. Reality has made conscious life, not as an act of intelligent purpose, but as a result of the laws of nature. I understand the confusion and I apologise, but it was never my intent to personify the state of things as they actually exist. I was just trying to point out the results of the state of things as they actually exist.

in the context of culture and thus deny objective moral law

As I said it depends if 'life is good'. If life is good then you can argue (as you did) that a high welfare (or quality) life is also good. If a high welfare life is good you can argue all kinds of things morally. Of course there will be disagreements on the particulars but in my opinion whether or not you are living a high welfare life is a matter of fact. Granted a very hard to ascertain fact.

Once again reality has created nothing and you are describing causality - this is not semantics because reality and causality are very different things

Causality may or may not be part of reality. It's a great model. It describes a lot of things. It's perhaps true at certain granularities but not others. Part of the story but not the whole story. I understand the confusion and I apologise, but I was thinking in terms of the very big picture.

Do you think like OP that world views are noise to scientifically minded individuals who have transcended the petty differences of preference and interpretation?

No I don't think scientists have super human powers, they are human. Perhaps your average scientist does do a better job of abandoning petty bias, perhaps they don't. The key thing though is that the methodology does transcend petty bias much better than any other methodology. A truly great scientist will follow the science and do their best to work around their own bias. They try to prove a thing. They need to provide empirical evidence, they need to double blind the studies, they need to publish their methodologies before looking at the results etc etc etc. Of course scientists aren't perfect and of course the scientific method is not perfect. But it's the best system we have of transcending our imperfections and I believe the results are impressive. This computer I'm using is pretty damn impressive. If you are asking if I want the government to employ the scientific method then too right I do. But I don't think that that is a trivial undertaking by any means.

That some reality exists that offers us answers to all problems; that can be studied and understood such as the empirical reality that you have invoked previously?

Not sure about all problems as such. Plus even if it did exist it does not follow that we can study or understand it. But generally yes, I think there is a reality and I think all statements can (in theory) be tested against it. Of course it's complex, I never said it was simple.

the world we live in is not bound by the rules of causality in nature

That depends on how you looks at things. I'm not sure how you are defining nature here? Some people would say for example that humans editing gene sequences was not natural? and transcends evolution? I would just say it's a part of evolution, sure it's not natural selection, but it's still evolution. Again it depends on how you define things.

[Judaka]

No it is trivially true that it would be harmful for my assumption to discover contradictory evidence to it but I get what you are saying, all I am doing is making a distinction between useful truths and truths that you just prefer to know because of your own personal reasons. True I may want to know what happened or in your estimation it may benefit me to know but if my goal is to believe in his peaceful passing and in my estimation that is beneficial to me then first of all reality will not correct my incorrect assumption through gravity killing me or anything similar. Reality only "corrects" in these narrow examples but the truth is there is no reason I cannot go on believing in this lie forever and certainly nature would have nothing to do with me finding out the truth if I ever did. The second thing is that dying because you tried to fly when you didn't want to die is an unintended consequence of one's ignorance and it is an unintended and undesired result. This is an extreme example that is not representative of all ignorance or lies, it has absolute chance of death and it just really isn't representative of the reality. Now people might drink and drive, gamble, get into gangs or take selfies in retarded locations and die/suffer unintended consequences because they put themselves at risk. However it is not an absolute certainty that the result will be bad and although for me I would say people should be aware of the risks and low rewards and act accordingly - these are extreme examples that actually occur. Yet saying reality corrects here seems unfitting as many factors beyond causality from nature are at play here. Luck is prevalent, free will is involved and many factors beyond something as simplistic and natural as gravity.

I would be really keen to see from you a list of causes of death from an unrealistic interpretation of reality and either you or I could provide death tallies from the UK/US about how many lives we are talking about that just relate back to an understanding that defies the laws of nature. We can then look at whether this has any impact on the overall evolution of our species. You don't have to bother if you know the answer is that it has close to zero impact but if you believe otherwise then go ahead show me the evidence. The truth is regardless of the semantics of whether evolution goes backwards or not, it certainly is true that natural selection is not occurring within humanity by genetics prevailing over natural pressures, there is enough social welfare, medicine is advanced enough and the evidence supports this. If you want me to fork out data about how low income families are having more children just ask but to digress you have said that incompetence and ignorance are sufficient for death - I want to hear your justification for this before I start pulling out statistics so that they can be specific to your claims.

It seems to me that your argument entirely hinges around death, every example is death! I criticised your view that 'welfare' ought to be the chief concern when deciding a prison sentence because the problem is literally about balancing conflicting interests from multiple parties. On a basic level the welfare of the criminal hinges upon his early release and the welfare of the victim hinges upon the criminal remaining incarcerated. If we consider the consider the welfare of society there are arguments between rehabilitation of offenders, justice, tax payer investment and the fact that money not spent here shall be spent somewhere else. To say that the chief concern is welfare almost makes it out like nobody has thought of this and the solution is actually really simple; just care about other people! I get the feeling you never read the example to begin with but I encourage you to do so since you are investing time into this debate anyway because welfare as an answer is insufficient. You say that life is important therefore quality of life (welfare) is important and I agree that quality of life is important. The problem for me is whether firstly it is the most important thing and that in circumstances where our approach to welfare is different what is the next step? This is what MOST debates are about to begin with, not many people out there are arguing for things with a thought process of "Oh yeah, this will make everyone's life worse and that's why we should do it". If you want to disagree then show examples of this - even when unsubstantiated or spiritual it is almost always about differing opinions to do with welfare vs something else or what approach to welfare is best and how to make compromises around that. Personally I don't view life as particularly important, only quality of life, I don't think more people is the answer to anything. All of this is fairly irrelevant though because the important thing is that all of this is subjective and the only issue is of alignment and that has been my argument from the start. We can only make decisions based on a hierarchical estimation of values which allows us to make decisions in cases beyond causality.

Causality in all things is immensely important to values because of its relationship with validity. People don't argue for methods they argue for outcomes and so it is important that my method achieves my outcome. However outside of causality, it really is just all values and this applies to even the most basic and obvious things. For example what is more important one person's happiness or the welfare of one billion people? The answer is not found in reality, no knowledge of science gives you the answer to even something this basic. It comes down to values. Your values are welfare and whatever else and it is my belief that unless your values are out of alignment with each other then criticism is meaningless. If you say you value welfare of humans because it makes the Earth a cleaner place then I would challenge you on that, because that line of logic seems invalid to me. We can prioritise what we want over what others want and that is human nature but don't use misuse the authority of objectivity to justify it. I am not saying you should think this way, however the similarities to an atheist who fails to think this way with many kinds of Christians seem to make other differences superfluous. You believe that you have a way that science proves is the right way, Christians believe they have a way that God's word proves is the right way. Both of you are wrong and neither of you are in touch with reality. You think that some alien race is going to perform the right way if we fail to, bah what poppycock! I ain't going anywhere I think and we can probably discuss our values in some other thread but this point is pertinent to both your atheism thread and this thread about a technocratic government. Your subjective opinion matters not to this thread, just admit that neither science nor reality nor nature or causality offer some objectively superior choice in matters of free will and every other disagreement we have is possibly irrelevant to this thread and the atheism thread. You can argue the truth produces better results in all circumstances and for me that is a disagreement in opinion but if you argue that you have a view about matters of what to do with free will that is not subjective then I think this is a matter of fact and that is what I am arguing against.

[WisdomNotStrife]

Hi All,

I was recently wondering about hypothetical best world scenario that could maximise overall happiness. To make it true, most people would need to accept new order. Otherwise, it's utopia.

In summary, I would suggest existence of three entities, i.e. committee of experts, committee of ethicists and auxiliary forum.

Experts should be appointed by the universities and submit laws. Committee of ethics would be responsible for approving them according to basic moral rules. And auxiliary forum would make the whole process more efficient and transparent.

(These three entities should ensure optimal functioning of laws. The best qualified professionals are guarantors that rules are not contradictory to scientific knowledge. Ethicists make sure that new regulations contribute to the general well-being. Auxiliary forum should involve all members of the society that want to contribute to constructive discussion so that system has chance to be accepted).

I have many other ideas but I'd like to know your opinion about general concept. What would be your best world scenario?

Read David Smail's online publication "Power Responsibility and Freedom." See what he says about power, interest, reason and persuasion. Anybody who thinks that if we just get the science right and put it at the forefront of decision making everything will work out for the good of everybody is fooling himself.

Read "Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the be Soil of Cultures​", by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri-Prakash. See the authors' accounts of how the world's oppressed majority is moving beyond the Western/modernist/Enlightenment project of trying to perfect humanity. Their account of the First Intercontinental Encounter For Humanity and Against Neoliberalism is especially riveting.

No top-down scenario with one cultural tradition holding disproportionate power and trying to mold all of humanity through it's institutions, practices (such as science), values, etc. is morally justifiable or likely to succeed. Only a plan that recognizes and appreciates the many ways of life past and present and looks for common ground to build on (like the people in "Grassroots Post-Modernism") is morally justifiable and likely to succeed.

[Eduk]

there is no reason I cannot go on believing in this lie forever and certainly nature would have nothing to do with me finding out the truth if I ever did.

I'm not suggesting that you will directly drop dead the moment you do something sub-optimal. But you are negatively effecting the quality of your life.

Yet saying reality corrects here seems unfitting as many factors beyond causality from nature are at play here. Luck is prevalent, free will is involved and many factors beyond something as simplistic and natural as gravity.

There is no physical property of the universe called luck. Free will does not exist independently of reality. Free will is part of reality. I am not talking about just gravity I am talking about all of reality.

I would be really keen to see from you a list of causes of death from an unrealistic interpretation of reality

I would suggest that billions of people have died due to an unrealistic interpretation of reality. I would unrealistic interpretations of reality are responsible for the majority of what most people would consider bad outcomes or lower quality of life. How many died in the holocaust because the German's had an unrealistic interpretation of reality? This is just the tip of ice berg. How many die to pollution, how many die to over eating, how many kill each other in wars or otherwise, how many fail to take vaccines, how many use alternative medicine, how many don't use condoms. I mean the list of deaths (and vastly effected welfare) is just huge.

We can then look at whether this has any impact on the overall evolution of our species.

Again, as I keep saying, you are looking at the short term and the small picture. For starters you are taking for granted our current position. If being closer to reality was of more direct benefit in the past (which you can maybe agree with?) then once evolution plateaus (in your estimation) you can't then just say being closer to reality is of no benefit. If humans got increasingly further and further from reality then eventually those factors which select for reality would be immediately a factor again. It's like saying a guard rail is of no use because no one is falling into it right now.

On a basic level the welfare of the criminal hinges upon his early release and the welfare of the victim hinges upon the criminal remaining incarcerated.

This is in no way accurate. The best end result is that the criminal genuinely understands what they did, that they realise it was wrong and that they take genuine and serious steps to prevent it happening again to themselves and to others. This is not necessarily possible for all people all the time, but it is the best result.

To say that the chief concern is welfare almost makes it out like nobody has thought of this and the solution is actually really simple; just care about other people!

No the world is not this simple and I never said it was. It is however about making the best of whatever the reality of the situation is. What the best is depends on what the reality is. The highest amount of welfare is the highest amount of welfare regardless of the amount of welfare.

This is what MOST debates are about to begin with, not many people out there are arguing for things with a thought process of "Oh yeah, this will make everyone's life worse and that's why we should do it".

I don't remember saying they did? My point is that the further divorced from reality you are then the worse decisions concerning reality you will make.

Let me put it another way. Not all subjective opinions are equal? I assume you agree? But how do you know that? It is just your subjective opinion that not all subjective opinions are equal? You know because you are able to look at empirical evidence. You know for example that regular smoking reduces life expectancy and has other effects on quality of life. You know this because there is empirical evidence that shows this. This is not subjective opinion.

Again I ask, how and where do you draw the line?

For example what is more important one person's happiness or the welfare of one billion people? The answer is not found in reality

Yes it is. It's clearly one billion people. That is simple maths.

Both of you are wrong and neither of you are in touch with reality.

I'm sorry either it's important to be in touch with reality or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

You think that some alien race is going to perform the right way if we fail to, bah what poppycock!

Again it's not my fault you have a failure of imagination. If humans kill themselves with some advanced technology (AI for example) and incorrect beliefs on how to use it then there won't be any humans around anymore.
Imagine that an asteroid is heading towards earth right now, it's big enough to wipe out all life on the planet. Imagine it will hit in one hundred years. You are taking it for granted that we could potentially spot this threat and alter the course of the asteroid. Humans further divorced from reality than we currently are might not be capable of such a thing.
Who knows when something will come up that requires us to be better than we currently are in order to survive?
Regarding aliens, I make a few points. First off there is no reason to believe Earth has the only life in the universe. And there is no reason to believe Humans are particularly unique. If humans kill themselves either through natural or man made disaster there will still be life on other planets. So that life is similarly bound by reality as we are, it too will either die or live. In the extreme long term only life which is intelligent enough to be adaptable enough to account for random asteroids will survive. Likewise only life which doesn't kill itself will survive also. I could imagine life meeting, it is perhaps possible that one life will attack the other due to being out of touch with reality. They could destroy themselves or each other. But again only life which doesn't destroy itself will continue to be life.
I don't think this is all that imaginative?

just admit that neither science nor reality nor nature or causality offer some objectively superior choice in matters of free will

How do you know that? Without being able to test that theory how do you know it is accurate? You know full well that some subjective choices are much worse than others. But how do you know this? and where and how do you draw the line? If you can't distinguish between subjective choices that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between subjective choices. You cite modern medicine as a reason that reality is selected for but then take for granted modern medicine. Like modern medicine isn't based upon the scientific method. You can't argue that correctly aligning with reality means there are no forces aligning us with reality. I would suggest if we stopped using modern medicine we would be selected against rather harshly.

[Judaka]

I'm not suggesting that you will directly drop dead the moment you do something sub-optimal. But you are negatively effecting the quality of your life.

Okay that is your opinion and I don't find it an unintelligent opinion but my point here is that the position has a logical argument and I am providing an example of how reality does not necessarily correct in all circumstances. I would say a substantial amount of ignorance ends up being harmless, after all ignorance precedes understanding. I am not suggesting one should maintain ignorance without cause just that some things are better off unknown. I would never call a woman ugly to her face even if I found her to be for example, there are plenty of things that I keep to myself and don't share with others and there are plenty of things I don't seek to know about. I have provided a few examples of this and many more exist, there are larger scale things but to take a larger example would not allow for me to assess things on a case by case basis. There are possibly some larger scale things I would argue for but context would be important.
Ultimately I am happy to concede that when you allow an individual to pick and choose the truth, how a person applies that to their lives may end up being more detrimental than helpful. I tend to advocate different interpretations to truth than to reject truth entirely, I am an atheist and nihilist for these very reasons. I only recognise that if Christianity can help somebody from being dysfunctional or destructive or any kind of detrimental attribute and nothing else was doing that for them then great. Do I think it is sad that Christianity might be necessary? Yes. Do I try to offer falsehoods purposefully to people in regards to something as significant as religion or on that scale? Never.

In reference to your comments about luck and free will, I have made reference specifically here to causality from nature because that is what I felt we were talking about. Again with my request for a list of causes I was thinking along the lines of causality from nature as gravity could be considered for a man who tried to fly. I don't deny that unrealistic interpretations of reality in general have and continue to have immensely detrimental effects all across the world and the reason I focus on the small scale is because that is where our disagreement lies as far as useful lies are concerned. I value useful lies on a case-by-case basis and generally I think the truth is beneficial, what I would advocate is that a person has the capability to make the choice based on merit and this could only be done once you had some parameters such as with my grandfather example, you know the possibilities and you know the outcomes and that is when I feel one can make a decision. Again I was thinking of talking about evolution and reality as a "correcting" force because examples like wars and the holocaust do not show pressures that will cause positive genetic changes in humans. The holocaust for example, the ones who died were not the ones who had an unrealistic interpretation of reality and if such a gene causes this which I find dubious - it was certainly not eliminated by the holocaust or by wars. I was thinking of examples on a genetic level or a misunderstanding of the rules of nature. I don't know if people failing to take vaccines is relevant to evolution or reality correcting anything, indeed this is not a useful truth and in fact a harmful truth and I would never advocate for it.

I apologise for the confusion about that, my bad wording is to blame. I am not saying nobody dies of legitimate misinterpretations of nature either, my point is that these pressures are low in comparison to others and my hope was to show data suggesting this. I am also not arguing against evolution being useless for all eternity but my argument for useful lies hinges upon a case-by-case analysis and there are no useful lies that I advocate regardless of context so it only relevant to the present or hypothetical examples.

This is in no way accurate. The best end result is that the criminal genuinely understands what they did, that they realise it was wrong and that they take genuine and serious steps to prevent it happening again to themselves and to others. This is not necessarily possible for all people all the time, but it is the best result.

I said nothing of the best result, I don't think it is controversial to say that being incarcerated is a threat to welfare? Therefore the welfare of the prisoner is jeopardised by a long sentence? All you said was the principle issue is welfare and I am saying that is an insufficient response. It seems you are in favour of rehabilitation within the prison system but there is much evidence to support prison simply doesn't rehabilitate people at all. Here is such a study https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm This study literally concludes "Therefore, the primary justification for use of prisons is incapacitation and retribution". It rejects the notion that prisons rehabilitate regardless of sentence length and while this is based on older samples (1970s mainly) it stands in complete opposition to your own view. I am not saying that you can't find studies that say something else, in fact my argument hinges upon the fact that you could! I am not taking the stance of welfare, I am simply stating what I thought were fairly obvious things, how is imprisonment not a breach of one's welfare? If this study is correct then it seems prison is ineffective to begin with but how can we protect victims of crimes if we cannot incarcerate them? Where is the justice in small punishments just because large punishments don't rehabilitate? Can't you see how this is not simply a question of truth?

How do you know that? Without being able to test that theory how do you know it is accurate? You know full well that some subjective choices are much worse than others. But how do you know this? and where and how do you draw the line? If you can't distinguish between subjective choices that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between subjective choices.

You are the one who said the person making the claim must provide evidence, you are the one who said that if evidence is not provided it is reasonable to assume the claim is false. Lest you acquiesce atheism because you cannot disprove God, I shall not acquiesce my position just because I cannot offer you definitive proof that in the unknown exists something that supports your thesis. I know that some subjective choices are worse than others because I measure a method by its ability to obtain the outcome it set out to obtain and I think that is a fair way of looking at it. If you are hitting on a girl then the choices you make are good if you get her to go on a date with you (your goal) and bad if you fail to do so. That's just my subjective opinion though. I know that all I know comes from science and history, there is nothing experienced by my senses that was not first discovered and/or understood by science before my very existence. We agree on chemistry, astrology, geology, physics and the like, our disagreement lies in this unnamed science that tells you that there are objectively superior ways to utilise free will and those who disagree with those ways are factually incorrect. That an objectively just path exists for us - or aliens to take according to which species best utilises their opportunity. Nothing we know says that this is true. It is hypocrisy in my estimation to condescend towards Christians for their unwillingness to believe only in proven positive claims and argue that proving negatives is impossible and yet believe in an unproven claim and ask me to prove a negative for you.

Yes it is. It's clearly one billion people. That is simple maths

The moment I used the word important in this context my statement became inherently subjective. How is worth measured by the cosmos exactly? How are you not personifying reality when you are saying that it has a say in what is important? You are saying it is a fact and that opposition is factually incorrect but who are you to decide that higher quantity = more important in an objective sense? Better yet, where's the evidence?

[Eduk]

I would say a substantial amount of ignorance ends up being harmless

Yes I agree. But prior to the event it's hard to know what ignorance will end up being harmless and what ignorance won't. Take my asteroid example earlier, imagine a world where we were one day away from saving ourselves, a very small amount of less ignorance would have made the difference. Like I said it's a trend, it's not instant. We won't instantly die out the second we make one mistake. Fortuitous circumstances could lead to some mistake actually being beneficial, but this is cherry picking. Taking all the data over all the time then being closer to the truth is beneficial and preferential.

I would never call a woman ugly to her face even if I found her to be for example, there are plenty of things that I keep to myself and don't share with others and there are plenty of things I don't seek to know about.

Neither have I. Is it true that someone is ugly though? Even if it was true that someone was not sexually attractive to you right now does that mean they are not sexually attractive, can perspectives change (for example imprisonment in a Turkish jail like Midnight Express)? Does this 'ugly' person live life in ignorant bliss? Last time I looked the amount of adverts calling people ugly was huge. And the amount of treatments and therapies which people go through to not look ugly is again huge. And the ill effects on welfare are similarly huge. I am personally not a sexually attractive person (to a majority of women) and I personally find this information useful to know.

I only recognise that if Christianity can help somebody from being dysfunctional or destructive or any kind of detrimental attribute and nothing else was doing that for them then great.

But you would presumably need empirical evidence that this was the case? Or do you simply take people's word for it? I mean I agree the best outcome is the best outcome. If the best outcome is belief in Christ then the best outcome is belief in Christ. But I believe that Christ is rarely the best outcome and then only in the short term and in specific instances. I personally have met no one who I know is better off with Christ. This is not to say that in everyday conversation I immediately point this out to anyone who believes in Christ. I attempt to work with that person as best as we both may. Oh and this does not mean I think I'm 'better' than that person. I have met many people more gifted than me in my line of work who believe in Christ. Belief in Christ is not the entirety of a person. It is perhaps not even that significant for a great deal of people.

Do I try to offer falsehoods purposefully to people in regards to something as significant as religion or on that scale? Never.

Good, it's great you don't like to patronise people in this manner. Plato was a fan of lying to the population for their best interests as outlined in the Republic. I personally find that distasteful.

but my argument for useful lies hinges upon a case-by-case analysis and there are no useful lies that I advocate regardless of context so it only relevant to the present or hypothetical examples.

We can both agree it is useful to lie to others. But how often is it useful to lie to yourself? And how often is it useful to yourself if someone else lies to you?

If you are hitting on a girl then the choices you make are good if you get her to go on a date with you (your goal) and bad if you fail to do so

I disagree again. Slipping a roofie to a girl might 'get' you the girl but it certainly isn't good for you or for her. You can argue it's your human nature to be a rapist so it is indeed good for you (I can understand that argument). But being a rapist is a short term thing, it wouldn't be 'good' for you if everyone was a rapist. I am taking a longer term viewer and wider view than one individual. As I said there are an infinity of examples where being out of touch with reality was 'good' for you in the short term. But none of these are good in the long term or for everyone. Of course the real world is complex, it is not simple. Smoking will not kill you on a set date, it will increase your chances of lowering life expectancy. I shudder when I hear how many people say things like well Grandma smoked 20 a day and she's 98 years old fit as a fiddle. That doesn't prove that smoking isn't 'bad' for you.

I know that some subjective choices are worse than others because I measure a method by its ability to obtain the outcome it set out to obtain

But as I said earlier the goal is also important. If I successfully commit genocide then I can hardly be called successful? Again not all goals are equal. And how do we know that not all goals are equal?

in this unnamed science that tells you that there are objectively superior ways to utilise free will and those who disagree with those ways are factually incorrect

I simply said (as I have repeated many times) that being closer to the truth will lead to better decisions than being further from the truth. I believe this to be testable in theory, but in practice extremely complex (like weather prediction). There are too many moving parts and the data is too cloudy and unreliable.

I did not say that science has every answer. For example a representative capitalist democracy is the best form of government currently known. But democracy is terrible and capitalism is terrible. They are simply the best we can do. How can we do better? Come up with theories and test those theories. Employ the scientific method. Of course it does not answer perfectly every single question. There are tons of unknowns. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. But again it's the best system we have.

To be clear I am not proposing that we replace our democracy with a cabal of 'scientists'. This is very unlikely to work. I know this because of empirical evidence which shows that such a system (even if it started perfectly - which it wouldn't) would become corrupt and then far worse than our current democracy. I would however like to vote for candidates who did believe in the scientific method. And I would like to see the scientific method used in governance. Of course this is not a magic wand. If things did get better it would be a long and slow and gradual process with setbacks and mistake along the way. But again, the best we can is the best we can do.

How is worth measured by the cosmos exactly?

But this is exactly why I said you must assume that life is desired. If you do not desire life then this is not true, the universe can not 'care'. Of course if you do not desire life this will be disadvantageous to life so it's pretty unlikely that life which does not value life will continue to be life for very long. This is what I meant by reality correcting. There is no conscious decision to correct, it's just that if you die you die. Things which increase chances of dying will tend to overtime and added upon enough kill you. Again humans could plateau indefinitely just out of touch with reality enough not to progress beyond constant atrocities we see every single day but just in touch with reality enough not to kill ourselves to the extent that natural selection was a factor again. But eventually something will break that equilibrium and we will either adapt or die. This is not even taking into account eugenics which obviously raises huge risks for humans but equally presents many opportunities. How we handle such things into the future could be calamitous or wonderful or in between. Either way the closer we are to reality the better.

[Rafal]

Thank you for all your replies. I would like to answer those that are direct comments on the original idea.

There is no way to remove corruption from the system. Eventually each separate body (even if they started perfectly) would become corrupt.

"2.4.11. Self-improvement" and "2.4.12. Consistency check" explain how to ensure that system will not become corrupt. Its main way is the use of request for clarification. The other option is contributing to the topic on the forum called "retrospective" or "ways to improve".

you didn't point out how the committees will arrive at their decisions

There are three main categories in the forum, each for one of the committees. I would like to extend description of the data flow (point 2.5.3):

• * New topic (e.g. "Death penalty") is created by member of any of the three committees. It is created on the relevant section (if expert creates it, it's available only in the experts' area)
  * New topic is accepted by moderation if it's not a duplicate.
  * New topic may be escalated by any member of the committee of experts or ethicists (but not by ordinary user who has account only for contributing to the auxiliary section). Escalation means that the same topic is added to the other sections with the same title. It also means that it should result in creation of new law.
  * Discussion continues on each section, i.e. all three topics with the same title. Ethicists are the only ones who can write in ethicists' section. Experts and ethicists can write in experts' area. All members (experts, ethicists and ordinary users) can write in the auxiliary section.
  * Whenever an expert wants to submit new law, he or she creates new Google Docs document with draft of the law. Expert provides with name of his/her team, which initially may contain only one person (i.e. expert who submits the law). Later experts may join the team. Teams are independent for each topic.
  * Alternative data flow makes it possible for the group of ordinary users to create new draft of the law. For example, we may set that at least five members should be present to let new draft of the law to be created in the auxiliary forum section. (This is the result of applying point "2.5.4. Lower level initiatives")
  * Whenever new Google Docs document is created, additional topic is created, which is linked to the original thread. This additional topic is automatically escalated (i.e. duplicated in the other two sections of the forum).
  * The team discusses draft of the law in the experts' area (and, if desired, in the duplicated topics too). Whenever the team represented by the initial creator of the team decides that law is mature, initial creator can mark the law as ready to be reviewed by the committee of experts. It also requires creating short summary of the law.
  * Whenever more than 50% of experts relevant to the discussion decide that all the laws have been created (and we are not waiting for new teams), they vote on the ideas. Alternatively, we can agree that the given period of time (e.g. one month) without new laws in the topic, means that all the laws have been created.
  * Law that has most votes wins and is submitted to the committee of ethics that reviews the law. It results in two discussions, one in the ethicists' area (where only ethicists can contribute) and the other in experts' area (where both ethicists and experts can contribute; this is also the place where ethicists can ask experts about points which are not clear or need modifications, and experts can provide explanations or clarifications).
  * Committee of ethicists gives the answer (by majority vote in the ethicists' area) which can be "Yes" (the law is accepted), "No" (the law is rejected) or "Maybe" (the law is promising but parts of it must be modified). Each decision requires explanation. When the decision is "Maybe", it results in further discussion in the experts' area and later new vote on the law to be submitted by experts to ethicists (choosing from all the laws proposed in the given topic, which may change in the meantime too).

Do you think anything can be simplified or improved in the data flow proposed? I may decide to represent these ideas in graphical way, so that it's easier to understand.

There are also additional data flows. One results from "2.5.13. Content quality" section "Ad personam arguments cannot be used of the forum. The exclusion from this rule is discussion about expert’s status but that should be subject to additional rules". It means that there should be one additional topic for each member of the committees of experts and ethicists.

Another points of additional data flows require being able to send post anonymously (but not to create new topic), as proposed in "2.5.14 User profiles". Also, it should be possible to discuss various topics, as specified in "2.5.15 Sections", e.g. in the forum section called "Regional auxiliary forums". Most likely "2.5.15 Sections" will be implemented much later in the process of development.

And finally, requests for clarification have their own data flow. Expert, ethicist or group of ordinary members can request clarification to which expert or ethicist needs to respond.

What do you think would be the best way of appointing experts? (See: 2.2 Committee of experts, first paragraph)

Thanks,
Rafal