Universal membership, LN as a "guild"

The feeling of belonging is creeping in. "Belonging" might not be the most precise way of describing it. It may just be a feeling which is pushing me towards adding some structure to the loose nature of Libervis Network, or alternatively creating a structure outside of it that LN may or may not comply with.

I am posting this as a reply here because it has a relation, although my current thinking goes a little further.

I have become quite analytical lately of many things, to a point that it feels like a necessary burden. It is necessary because I can't get rid of that urge without feeling like I am abandoning an opportunity to further my thinking and understand things better. It is a burden because it caters to so many complex things in the world. I'm talking about seeking answers to questions like "why do people have certain affinities", "why do I like blue techy-looking decor which I deem "futuristic"", "what defines as "futuristic"", "where exactly does enthusiasm comes from", "why do some people get impressed with little things to a point of shouting "wow this is sooooo awesome" and really meaning it (because I'm often beginning to wonder what the hell is there that can impress me to that point, I end up faking being impressed by something some people show me simply out of courtesy, faking what I really am")... And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Every next look, every next sound I hear and every next thought could result in a question being imposed. And the more I try to find answers the more questions come up. Mind you, this is not something that always actively occupies a lot of my time. It is almost like subconscious analytical self is more and more resurfacing as concious, a side thoughts that screen and analyse everything that is perceived.

Now, my general interest is so much beyond this web site (you may have noticed my topics are often about things beyond just freedom in a digital world issues). It is about everything and anything that is, the whole universe inside of us and outside of us..

So.. maybe this "guild" idea could be upgraded a bit. This may sound like a crazy idea, but hey, that's also part of Libervis tradition - crazy ideas, remember? The crazy idea is a creation of a virtual (but real) entity with very specific constitution of fundamental principles which would be dedicated to exploring of the universe inside and outside of human beings, from human condition to the conditions of the universe and universes - everything. A name of this entity that popped into my head, but is just preliminary is a "Reality Inspection Program".

It would work in a systematic way - instead of just having some forums where people can discuss anything at any time we would have a *program* which will address one question at a time until a conclusion is formed and incorporated into our current position on reality. It would also have rules which would ensure that participants have a certain sense of the discussion and analysis which wont prove disruptive to the achievement of the goal - and people who can be trusted to be real explorers rather than just agenda pushers. The latter is probably most important, because a true explorer should not involve their own bias into the process of analysis. Therefore a participant of the Reality Inspection Program would have to have a capability of discerning his or her bias from objective thinking (to the extent possible) - in essence be able to continuously question him or herself.

A loose forums could also be added though, both as a place for spawning new questions to explore and as a general discussion place. But it would have very orderly categorization. The major two top categories may be "inner" and "outer" relative to an individual human being. Inner represents everything that directly involves human condition, from our perceptions to our emotions. Outer represents everything that is outside of human beings, only externally dependent or totally independent of them, from Earth to the universe as a whole.

Perhaps the holy grail would be the reconciliation of these two - finding the perfect balance between our inner self and the outer world.

Note that this program would be more about thought experiments and harnessing of every individual's logical thinking than about uniting the "Great Scientific Minds". I don't have big diplomas or whatever. I claim to be no expert on pretty much anything. I therefore can't form a program which would require in-depth scientific knowledge as a pre-condition, but merely an ability of critical thought and observation and a will to explore - just a human who made peace with its urge to explore and went with it.

In order to be systematic you have to know where you want to start, and how to derive what you want to explore next from the previous topic you studied.

A coincidence: yesterday I said my ideal way of life would be to figure out how things work, and then describe what I discover. Now I only have to figure out how to change explanations of things *I* find interesting into food .

Maybe the starting point for such an exercise is a wiki on rhetoric, it's index could then be a pop-up on a new type of forum.

Wiki EG,
Avoiding framed questions:
mutually exclusive test (either/or)
- try to compromise on extent: 50/50 etc
- try to compromise on time: week on/week off for options A and B
simplified deadline
- try to compromise on delivery: top priorities by deadline 1, rest by deadline 2

Facts versus Opinions
- is there a reliable source for this assertion
- is there a reliable source contradicting this assertion

That would form a handy reference for using a new type of forum. Tags are just a bin of terms with no context, useless. Threaded discussions at least have some structure, but can't represent relations between facts and conclusions satisfactorily.

What's needed is a unified graph that allows people to input facts, and assertions based on any mix of facts and lower level assertions. Users can then vote to agree, or disagree either by providing conflicting facts and assertions, or splitting them into components so the graph becomes more atomic as the iterations proceed.

The reliability of conclusions can only be as good as the rigour that went into it's components. I wonder would it need a boilerplate t&c stating that all input should be based on the assumption that there is one absolute reality? It seems to me that little utility can accrue if some users argue every point on the basis for example that they or the universe could be a computer simulation and so nothing can be taken to be true. Or maybe the design could cater for alternative realities from the get go.

That kind of facility is my preference anyway. The critical component is a usable interface, and IE is the principle barrier. As for those great collections of summary articles mixing facts and opinion, I can see Google's thinking in highlighting credentials to try to give knol an edge over wikipedia, but would be concerned at the danger of over-emphasising the relationship between credentials and credibility - "trust me, I'm a doctor" doesn't cut it, who funded your research doc?

If we want change in this world the hearts and minds of the masses must be won over and I think that's coming soon. Subscription journals and pronouncements from acedemic ivory towers are set to be open sourced, where anyone online can trace from raw data to conclusions and chip in on the process, speeding it up and making it more reliable at the same time.