Loading...
 
(Cached)
Refresh Print

ultra-reflexive intranet

An ultra-reflexive intranet takes a reflexive intranet hosting a semantic web and makes it so reliable that all human command verbs debated appear on the list of all control verbs that apply.

This implies that such an intranet as opposed to being controlled? commands human action as reliably as by any other means. This entails at least a simple power network, using commit verbs to agree on joint actions. In a single command hierarchy, one agrees to obey and take risk, another to command and take responsibility, but other model?s may exist.

Guaranteeing this well-beyond the capabilities of the five levels of intranet involves some model of shared risk of bodily harm? and thus insurance?. In extremis the implied agreements and understandings may approach a theory of psychohistory, e.g. as fictionally portrayed in The Foundation Trilogy?, or realtime digital telepathy?, e.g. as fictionally portrayed by the Borg?.

has competitors


This theory, abbreviated URI to converge with URI, has competitors, too stupid to name themselves correctly:

The term ultra-reflexive implies that bodies have integrated into a more hive?-like structure with very specialized roles and responsibilities, where members can no longer assume equal power relationships, but instead entails some agency, bargaining and labour specialization? specific to the entity and its means of debate: its intranet. Ultra-reflexivity, without such a central, reliable means of communication, subjects people to risks they cannot discover in time even if they want to do so; to have such a mechanism without ultra-reflexivity denies the impact of decisions on bodies that carry them out or accept alterations/risks by them. See quality management in government, e-government, e-democracy, participatory democracy and direct action? for competing models.


The minimal definition requires that the intranet itself must answer simple questions, say about which positions had valid or credible evidence attached, and present associated arguments, using only explicit semantic links as a guide. This has application for instance for rapid answers in a candidate portal regarding what action a party would take in a given theoretical circumstance, past, present or future. While of questionable reliability to assess any specific case, or to actually direct enforcement? authority, it may at least help prevent embarassing gaffes and mistrust? based on poorly framed answers.

The Efficient Politics model attempted to achieve this very outcome. As of January 2006, the Green Party of Canada, Green Party of Ontario and Green Party of Nova Scotia still consider this workable.

The reflexive character has become ultra-reflexive only because it has some impact on the actual bodies doing the deciding: those who vote for persons who present positions the systems recommend.

requires betting and commitment to define deep relationships


Once accepted, such a model for answer recommendation on the easily-answered theoretical cases might have use for market-based methods or betting mechanism?s or scenario?s to achieve more reliable and specific answer recommendation. The simple header tags and footer tags would have to expand to include information relevant not just to process but also a relevant list of policy terms and extremely stable URIs so that all relevant views integrate in a massive peer review?.

This gets even more reflexive as the impact on the actual bodies doing the deciding deepens: it includes specific policy areas that affect the body in known ways.

a uniform semantic web may require extensive knowledge in order to make actual decisions


Even a minimal system of this kind would require a great deal of specific analysis and terminology(external link) and to organize the underlying corpus in some standard form such as OWL.

This reflexivity equals all human command verbs issued in decisions: if words like "arrest" or "deport" appear in the decision, then perhaps a machine actually made the decision. This could dead-end however:

...or just people who agree to trust it


The Living Ontology Web's minimal empirically-derived links may possibly resolve issue/policy cases to a point of trusting a human with a final decision, without using such a strong web ontology, but rather a very committed power network: strong commitments, between participants taking action and their victims, may make up for any deficiencies in knowledge, appropriately only where people have also agreed to work within a power structure, e.g. a political party.

This reflexivity equals the automatic case, but a human agent makes the final recommendation.

...can't yet predict detailed case resolution


Any reliance beyond this, for public policy resolution or even local issues forums or bioregional democracy, implies research that simply has not been conducted yet by anyone, and is thus a matter of theory and of speculative fiction? only. Some optimistic models of it as presented by Neal Stephenson? or Orson Scott Card? presume that to simulate? and take actual action converge enabling one to confidently take real action based on the simulation action alone.

Reflexivity reaches its upper limit when the system accepts or rejects bodies as parts, by an entirely machine-adjudicated process, e.g. the Reformed Distributed Republic? described in Stephenson's novel The Diamond Age?.

Sharing Water presents a somewhat less speculative theoretical basis for ultra-reflexive binding.

problems


Central problems in any technology that seeks to control more than words, with words:

The Efficient Civics Guild studies this problem; treat this page as CC-by-nc-sa, as it applies to living ontology; and instructional capital relevant to it may test, improve, extend this concept.




Show php error messages