It still seems clear to me that the problem lies in the (overzealous) attribution [*] of systemic properties based on flimsy or nonexistent patterns in the collection of individuals. The (false) attribution of consensus is similar to that of a political mandate after winning an election. This is one reason the US electoral college isn't a bad idea (as far as ideas absent practicalities go). It's equally silly to hook the fate of a country, or the world, on a tiny symmetry break like winning the popular vote by 0.000001%
What we need are _multiple_, heterogeneous, ways of deriving the policies and actions of the whole from its parts. Such ways have to mimic biology (I think) in being polyphenic and robust, multiple phenotypes from the same genotype(s) and one phenotype from multiple genotypes, respectively. Regardless (unlike typical proportional representation systems), the ways should be based on data taken (via methodologically well-founded measures) from the world, not arbitrarily justificationist ideas farted out by our minds. Such a science-based politics would better match the cognitive referent of "democracy" in most people, I think. [*] B.C.Smith called this "premature registration" or "inscription error", a common and insidious fallacy typical to simulation efforts ... which is the only reason I know about it. 8^) On 12/01/2016 08:56 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote: > Since when did consensus have so many interpretations? > [...] > This does not appear to be a political issue any longer but rather a > coincidence of narcissistic psychopathy. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
