Steve Smith wrote at 07/27/2013 08:12 AM:
I think I am saying we can design one that *tries to* calibrate against a consensual truth. It is not clear to me that we can design one that succeeds. That proof is in the pudding. Of course, the definition and scope (geotemporal as well as sociopolitical) of *consensual* comes into play...
So, the conversation was about how to reorganize organizations like the NSA (or the FISA court... or whatever) so that a problem with such an organization doesn't _always_ reduce to a problem with a human within that organization. In other words, when is a classified leak a systemic problem (e.g. the way things are classified) versus when is it reducible to a single cause/flaw? In that context, I can agree with you that we _could_ arbitrarily throw solutions at the wall and hope one of them sticks. But, in the meantime, lots of well-intentioned and valuable people will have their lives destroyed merely for trying to serve their country. The point being that it's not clear to me that we can design an organizational accountability/calibration system using consenus reality. We need an objective ground. And if we can't agree that objective grounds exist, then we have to resort to natural selection: the orgs that behave badly will die off. There is a middle ground, I suppose, in "directed evolution". But, writ large, it strikes me that this is more co-evolution between regulators and the regulated. Competent regulators reproduce, incompetent regulators die off. The only complication I see with designing that sort of system is that regulators are always seen as parasites, making their living off the regulated (through taxes). Or, in the NSA case, it's often argued that the civil liberties watch dogs have the liberties they have _because_ the NSA does what it does ... again, the watch dogs are considered parasites. The relationship can't be purely parasitic. Symbiosis requires each class depend on the other classes ... feedback. I don't see much feedback between the NSA and the press... mostly, I see stories about Snowden or other individuals like him. Hence, the press is a parasite, not a symbiote.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for a "theory of everything". I'm pretty sure the likes of Godel Incompleteness already blew that concept right off the table... and that may be only the smallest of reasons for it. Right/Wrong are only relative to a given set of Axioms which we can (in principle) come to a consensual agreement on (the Axioms and perhaps how well a given situation aligns with them).
Naa. I think that's a [mis|over]application of Gödel's results. E.g. there are arithmetic systems that are both complete and consistent. And, semantic grounding is always possible by enlarging the language. But an org/reorg method based on calibration against a consensual truth does lead to inconsistency, I think. The calibration is supposed to keep the org. _open_, preserve a puncture in its membrane. If it bases this calibration on its own opinions, then that defeats the purpose of calibrating at all ... it would be useless overhead, a navel-gazing closure. You may as well let the org. run free and thrive or die efficiently. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella They will make us strong
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com