Check your U.S. voter registration status or register to vote here.

Mar 17, 2017 · 36 min read


Image for post
Image for post

Here is a book I have placed on Amazon and Smashwords. Here is the summary: The modern world has produced a chasm between the perception based logic and reasoning of man and the technological force of our age. This book offers a vision to facilitate a more coherent existence, a more stable future.


Survival of our species, this is what it is all about at the end of the day. We have competed for resources on this lonely planet for so long it seems at times we have forgotten the objective. A new chapter in our history is upon us, one which may provide comfort and opportunity in a modern world. We today on Earth may enjoy an existence generations past could not have imagined. At the same time we are plagued by issues ancient man and woman knew all too well. This is the way it has always been we say, these are the rules everyone must play by. Our human traits have been formulated over tens of thousands of years in order that we may adapt to our environment. We as humans delight in love and laughter and the unique traits we share with others. We view the world as a chaotic place where moving forward is a primary objective. If in war we are forced to sow death or destruction to achieve peace, who can objectively say we are at fault? We love and embrace our human existence. Hidden within the weave of tragedy is the honor, tradition and the power of human resourcefulness and endurance. If we are strong, we will prevail. This is the legacy we are born into. In today’s reality though, so much of our hope may rest in our ability here together on earth, to withstand the pace of technology and the sudden amplification of variables and potential hazards. The ancestors of our past were never exposed to the dangers we now face. Can the human species remain viable in this new technological age? Can we survive in the atmosphere we find ourselves in, the atmosphere we created? What changes do we need to make?


The signal unit of what we call humanity is the individual. The populations of individuals that form our societies and cultures perceive life much as their ancestors did. We do not love, empathize, struggle or innovate to any greater degree than those who came before us. Those who came before us provided the opportunities and frameworks to the existence we now possess. We pass on the emotional, intellectual, and physical support as we know it and how it was imparted to us.


This is the fundamental unit, the wellspring of ideas and talents, the mystery. We are all individuals. We are all unique and our respect for one another forms the basis of our laws. Still, there lie great areas of contention within societies. What is the true value of an individual and how do we preserve this value? What individual or group of individuals has the authority to make any judgment in this regard and what is this authority based upon? We all as individuals lay claim to the wonder of evolution, creation, or however you want to see it, the human brain. It is ours to possess and wield. It is an intimate part of us which gives us autonomy and power as an individual. The workings of our minds are what set us apart from other inhabitants of our world. Our brains are developed to work on an abstract level and our cognitive abilities even today are not fully understood or appreciated. We each embody abilities unique to ourselves. Our talents range broadly from arts to science and communication. The thoughts which occupy our minds are a product of our being. They characterize who we are and what we are about. Our opinions on topics can vary widely. We each decide what information is relevant and attach value to perspectives we espouse. At the same time, we are all capturing memories of our experience and creating a story, a unique perspective as time progresses. We talk of ideas, positions, beliefs, opinions, thoughts and viewpoints. As individuals, we present to the world the products of our mind. These conclusions we form and attest to, they represent us and our experiences. We stand as individuals to defend our perspectives as rational, as logical and true.


Others can provide knowledge, wisdom, mentor us or give advice. In the end though, you must make your own decisions and calculations. Friends, family or colleagues are part of the environment. The thoughts, ideas and dreams we espouse take place within our being. We often can make mistakes or missteps. There can be a learning curve.


The brain we possess may be likened to a very powerful computer. Each of us in our unique way gives expression to this wonder, as no one can lay claim to the total of human intellectual capacity. Even in genius are found weakness and the attachments of our unique person and perceptions. Human intellect is an expression we all take part in. We may work to develop our brain as a force and a tool, in order to realize the dreams we possess in our lifetime. We still wonder at the length and breadth of the mysteries of spirituality and unrealized scientific discoveries and how these relate to human thought and understanding. There are many unknowns. The world our brain inhabits is more complex than we can imagine.


Needless to say, there can be many perspectives on any given topic. The human mind is an information processing center. An elemental part of our past survival has been the ability to draw a perspective with limited or incomplete information. Forming perceptions is something we are intently familiar with. We each perceive and idealize the world slightly differently to those around us, often coming to unique conclusions and making the adaptive changes we see applicable. We must, by our nature, interact and become intimate with each other in our lives. At the same time, we must connect in a way that preserves our independence and ability. Competition between one another is thrust upon us at birth. Our connections and interactions with others can often be stunted or corrupted. There are so many aspects of our lives from which we form perspectives — you could simply say we are not always of like mind.


Another aspect to the multidimensional environment we inhabit is the closed environment of the mind. Each of us harbors the cognitive functions unique to our person in a dark world, out of view. We say we are open and well-intentioned, though we only know one mind fully and that is our own. Our interactions with one another can exist on many different levels at one time. How we present our relations to one another outwardly may not accurately reflect our inward posture. We know this, of course. We search for ways to overcome the fact that we are each unique and may have different beliefs. We must often work at and develop trust in each other. At times we bestow casual acceptance to the integrity of the individual human intellect, a world in which we consciously and unconsciously vacillate from trust to distrust. In this world we may rationalize away our true feelings and concerns. Our view of human preeminence and the heights of human intellect must not cloud our acknowledgment of human intellectual failings within this black box. Our skillful compositions must not push aside our recognition of the frailty of our perceptions and conclusions.


Chaos is a world we live in where the clock never stops. There are thousands of variables influencing our daily lives. We sometimes hope as individuals that fate will take hold, the stars align and allow large pieces of the puzzle to become apparent. Contemplating how we will navigate our present and future tense and the future we envision for those we love, is our station in life. The world is full of unintended and unexpected consequences. What is it that unifies humanity; love, intellect, technological advancement? Our relations to one another are not always a constant. Sometimes we just say “Let the chips fall where they may.”


We are often full of conflicting thoughts and emotions. Many dimensions of a subject may lay beyond our comprehension or out of our control. Many faceted issues often overwhelm us as individuals or societies, as we attempt to sort out the wrong from the right, the true from false. We say no one has all the answers — except God perhaps. Sometimes though, we are forced to take a side, make a stand.


Whether there really exists a true definition of good and bad, right and wrong, seems at times up for debate. Issues like survival, God and authority can sometimes cloud the issue. What is considered wrong in peacetime may be permissible in war for stated various reasons. We attempt to draw distinctions concerning certain aspects of life that we can all for the most part agree upon. The truthfulness of a contentious subject resides in the minds of men and women collectively. We all get to have our say in some aspect. We all get to contribute to the portrayal of reality as we see it. This is the embodiment of the fractured state of human consciousness.


Dogma is an official system of tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., within a society. Society may develop norms and values. Dogma is the authoritative presentation of these norms. When the winds change and humanity falls into violent and destructive conflict, dogma can be used as a tool allowing this conflict to become institutionalized and packaged in a way we can accept it. Truths and conclusions as tools of advantage are put forward. We must ask, from whose perspective are these “truths” advantageous and are our conclusions sound?


These are individuals who may provide a clearer picture or a new dimension to our reality. They can be exemplary or extraordinary. They are the chosen ones, by fate or by election. They fulfill a role or solve a problem over a period of time. We would not have survived the eons without them. Societies often use or leverage leaders in the sense that we may allow them to distort our mores and values as long as the ship carrying our desires stays the course. They often become convenient scapegoats. Rival leaders can sow destruction. The word leader does not always carry a positive connotation. I want to make evident that leaders are in essence individuals or groups of individuals and as such take part in the intrinsic failures encompassing the whole of humanity. What they bring forth must find authenticity in the minds of men.


Sometimes we are merely being played. Leaders, authorities, those in power, be they individuals or groups, are in a category of their own. They are granted some greater degree of dominance. Hence all the deficiencies of society and humanity are now seen from a new perspective and clarity. It is an opportunity to experiment and make changes. Rules and laws may change in application or intent. Institutions within society may apply different values or mores. Leaders or those in power do not change the facets of human thought and emotion, they only modify the circumstances in which they are displayed.


Now imagine the multitudes of individuals and societies of individuals each espousing their own identity, their own versions of perspectives on life, interacting with each other. This is the constant mechanism of humanity. Throw in the competition for needed resources and the potential for conflict is elemental. Conflict between individuals and groups of individuals becomes a given, accepted. We call it war. War is one very dominant aspect of our existence and the history we record. War puts an end to the chaos formed of various environmental and human factors with another type of chaos, cleansing the former away. Warfare and leaders from time eternal have often gone hand in hand. These two elements of life on earth have shaped the map and influenced the progress of man in positive and negative ways. That said, the results can often be devastating. There is the incentive to achieve the goal and often we leave the values we embraced on the sideline for a time. Leaders and societies at times test what we call creative destruction. We celebrate the new landscape we have brought forth on the seeds of despair, as these are often the most trying of times for individuals. The struggle for power and the ascendancy of the victors is of paramount importance. There is a God who knows the minds of men, we say, he will judge. The resultant realities are just or unjust depending on your viewpoint and horrible byproducts of death and destruction are assimilated into our culture and lore. The question we must ask is; in this technological age, is there an alternative to the strife and destruction associated with competing societal and cultural ideologies? Is warfare within humanity as plausible or justified in the world we now inhabit?


What warfare comes down to is simply a case of humans vs. humanity or humanity vs. humans; however you want to say it. The numbers on either side of the equation can vary widely. Still, this is our state of existence on planet Earth. Who can claim the purity of intention and the clarity of mind in the present age to referee the destruction? God, we say. How though, you might ask, has the influence of an almighty precluded us from killing each other in desperation since the beginning of time? The technologies of man adapted for warfare have eclipsed the rationalities of the common man. If you talk to anyone, it is not as if we collectively wish to drop dead to the Earth the last man, woman and child as we destroy the biosphere of the planet. We just have some primal issues we are still dealing with, stretching back from the dawn of recorded history or some time before. Our violent, aggressive and destructive reality needs a redress we can all engage in willingly, with benefits for the whole of humanity. This remedy must also lend and establish respect for our individuality and individual autonomy. Who can purview the technological ascendency our species has embarked upon, to say the realities of our past still apply? We need an alternative solution other than war.


The truth is, our acceptance of how things are on one hand, coupled with our willful denial and ignorance to the realities around us, have often been the option we find serves us best. We can at times as entire cultures or societies detach completely from reality as we purposely distort information we find counter to our wants and perceived needs. It is not that we do not completely understand the world, be it through science, philosophy or religion. A great part of our confusion is willful. We want to live in this part of the world, this neighborhood. We want reality to silence the whispering, so we close the windows. Have our margins for error in the technological age dissipated? Has the window of opportunity narrowed? Will we ever consolidate our great technological advancements if we fail to face the new realities of our environment and the failings of the human intellect?


In so many ways our human experience today is much the same as in our far distant past. The emotions and the workings of the human intellect are all intimately familiar to us all. Our DNA promotes unconscious responses as we interact one with another. Some would point to various cycles linking our modern behaviors and actions to those of our ancestors who did not share all the modern convenience technology has provided. Will we as a species live and die within the cycles? Can we somehow pause for a moment to contemplate our shared past? Can we gain a more distant view of the action and reaction cycles we were birthed in?


Needless to say, our understandings as they concern the values we should place upon individuals are not complete. We may often fall short in our ability to verbalize what our species represents. Religion, science, and philosophy are a guide and resource from generation to generation. These disciplines find formative expression within societies, though the conclusions they offer may fail to establish a footing in law and the conscientious application of human rights. The views of individuals within societies may not fully resonate within the whole of the population, even as some would attempt to coerce them. Perceptions of individuals within societies are never fully integrated. It is often not clear where the valid thesis of human rights resides within a society. This is important in that I believe we should extend more effort towards integrating human thought and the communication of ideas, beliefs, viewpoints and conclusions, as to facilitate human rights on a more logical and rational support.


If I did not believe in the overriding goodness in humanity I would not be writing this. We are blessed every day with the offerings of humanity. Some offerings are actions and some are thoughts. Let us not take these offerings lightly or pass over the importance of a unique perspective. Each of us participates in the endeavor of human survival. I firmly believe that when you tally it up, there are more well-intentioned persons who care about their fellow man than the destructive elements of our species. This is the hope I espouse; we only need find a means of forward progress we have not explored before. The elements are there, we must assemble them. We must do what we do best; create. We are in this together.


What I would like to convey more than anything at this juncture is the idea that if “it” was going to work and could solve our issues, then “it” would have done so already. What I am referring to is the presentation of so many solutions which are based around the idea or concept of taking a valuable human attribute or endeavor, such as love or self-sufficiency, and somehow miraculously amplifying or broadening its effect or application to extents never before reached within the human population. These are noble thoughts but fail to provide or show a catalyst for a change in human behavior. These solutions fail to provide a mechanism by which these avenues will counter our more base behaviors in the long run. It is a worthy endeavor to strive for excellence. The problem as I see it is the cart is before the horse. Can we really achieve and sustain a framework of peace when the intellectual environment of societies has not changed? Is this not in a manner simply holding your breath to swim deeper?


Whatever course of change we embark upon, there will need to be dynamics which affect the whole of the human intellect in a fashion which enables, encourages, and facilitates our natural tendencies towards advancement. At the same time, these new dynamics must discourage, remedy, or bridge those aspects from which we once fell into conflict. Conflict is the hallmark of our past struggles intellectually to come to terms concerning the nature of reality and to meet the requirement of survival. Humanity deemed conflict necessary, as no alternative was offered by the fractured nature of human logic and reason. We are simply as a species unable to rationalize together or reach logical conclusions in a consistent fashion in this world where our emotions often suffice for reason, our fears for justification. It is this fractured state of human logic and reason we must address when we formulate the framework of our future.


Fallacies are errors in reason and logic. We live with them, embrace them, they are part of our world. Why, because doing otherwise would bring our world to ruin? Well, not really. It would drastically alter life as we know it and that would not be comfortable or convenient. It may get in the way of procreation and enjoying that short life we are given and want to experience. Finding and bringing to light the undercurrent and flow of honest errors, lies and misconceptions should be number one on our list. Much of our sincere, well-intentioned discourse can run contrary to logic and reason, as good intentions do not always make a valid argument. This is the world we were born into though. We accept and struggle through this chaotic, “crazy” landscape because it is all we know, all we can imagine. If you want to know the pickle we are in, look up the number, type and application of our fallacies. Pure and simple, our fallacies are going to kill us.


Human thought is what makes us unique in the animal kingdom. Preserving, analyzing, integrating, and presenting those thoughts through the integrity of logic and reason are the challenge. We are all traveling along life’s way, learning as we go. The only way our thoughts can be truly known is for the knowledge of them to also travel through time. The longer the shelf life for our perspective, the more minds we may influence. Our thoughts should subsist on their own merits through time, our opinions and perspectives to live or die accordingly. You must be able to freely share your perspectives where they can contribute to the integrity found in the logic and reason of humanity. We live in a technological age at present which could champion these causes. Why not utilize our technology to the fullest? On what platform and with what software can you preserve, analyze, integrate and present the fruits of human reason and logic?


What are the elements which will form the basis of our survival in the new world we find ourselves in? Our survival will depend on how we manage and carry though time the logical and rational conclusions and perspectives most beneficial for our adaptation. Our survival from the threat of our common past will depend on our ability to identify the most viable and proven propositions through the use of logic and reason. We must also protect the sanctity of the individual, the mind of which we do not fully understand. We must all stand as equals before our collective unknown future, from our individual unknown past.



A profound change to my outlook on life occurred many years ago when I read an article concerning a group of researchers at MIT. The researchers set up an experiment to see how the reasoning abilities of a group of individuals with average intelligence, using what they called collective intelligence, would compare to the reasoning abilities of an individual with a high IQ, somewhere in the 140’s. The six to eight individuals in the group scored higher collectively in this exercise than the individual. How they performed this test, and if it even correlates to the ideas it set off within my head, I could not say. I will have to say however, this was a turning point for me. For one, it highlighted the importance of reasoning and the logic supporting sound conclusions. Two, it showcased a human dimension to the application of logic and reason I had not considered before. If only it could only work this way, I told myself. What if people came to conclusions collectively through logic and reason, rather than catering to the myriad of intellectual, emotional and social pressures bound within the individual? What if logic and reason could eclipse the extension of brute, absolute and unbridled power through the various forms of authority? How different the world would be. Notable also, the other participant in this exercise was chosen for his high I.Q. This was in a way a vindication for me. Yes, some people have prodigious memories, or are extraordinarily adept through music, mathematics, or abilities of communication; some people have epiphanies of insight. My point here is; high I.Q. or not, he came in second. The collective intelligence of those “average” individuals was superior in what I felt to be the most important field of contest, logic and reasoning. This experiment as it was, lent an avenue for the advancement in the human intellect. We all have to use logic and reason to put the pieces together. Logic and reason you could say; are the bread and butter of humanity. Without it, we often as societies and culture embark upon a wayward course and all the extremely talented and intelligent people in the world are ineffectual in stopping it. Our leaders, authorities, experts and academics are part of the world as it exists now. They have been there all along as we perpetuated what can only be described as collective insanity through nuclear proliferation. For the first time, I could actually envision a high road within the insanely violent and self-destructive thing we call the human experience. For the first time, I had hope that as humans we could rise above our failings.


First, let us define reason. From the dictionary:

1) a basis of cause for some belief, action, fact, event, 2) a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action, 3) the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions or inferences, 4) sound judgement, good sense, 5) normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.1

Hmmm, sounds like something everyone wants to have, sounds very “human.” Now let us define logic:

1) the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference, 2) a particular method of reasoning or argumentation, 3) the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study, 4) reason or sound judgement, as in utterance or actions, 5) convincing forcefulness, inexorable truth or persuasiveness.2

These definitions do not include spiritual insight, which may be counterintuitive or beyond reason. One must confess there are many things we as humans do not understand. Concerning human intellectual thought, these are the tools we use day-to-day to make many decisions, form conclusions, perceptions, or pass judgements.


If you consider the whole of human logic and reasoning encompassed in the entirety of humanity as you would other bodies of knowledge, for instance mathematics, you come to realize that logic and reason within the whole is fragmented. It is stored and applied randomly. What do I mean? I am saying that each individual, each person, applies the rules of logic and reason as they see appropriate or as needed. It is this individual formation of conclusions which in turn constitutes the whole of public opinion. Groups of people can concur and collaborate; our reality still holds that ground zero for the formation of reason and logic are in the mind of the individual embodied in self and person. Within the mind of the individual, logic and reason are used to form perceptions and conclusions and to facilitate the presentation of these conclusions to other individuals. Conclusions held within society are not solely ruled by the dictates of logic and reason, but by the desires, wants, and needs of individuals or groups of individuals. This is why the world we live in can be such a crazy place. Illogic and irrationality can run wild in societies or cultures and find an ally in power. Power, our favorite friend, can at times care little about logic and reason.


At some point in time I came to realize that utilizing collective intelligence was more than just a gained advantage. The dynamics would change. Fundamental pathways of human behavior stretching back to our earliest days could be altered. Does this sound outrageous? Consider for a moment how unpredictable and erratic life in this world can become. We live in an environment where perceptions and power compete heavily for the role of currency against logic and reason. Power in itself as force and the ability to do work, is not a bad thing. The issues arise when we question who or what the forces of perception and power are targeting. Human logic and reason can in times become the object of destruction by this force. This was often part and parcel of the growth of humanity. We no longer need be trapped in that reality. Our technologies can provide for us new environments which engender new dynamics, opportunities and advantages. The power and force of the human intellect as disclosed by our perceptions need not be detached through fragmentation from the power of human logic and reason.


Trying to formulate the needed requirements to realize the potential of collective intelligence I came to some conclusions. This would be a new world with new opportunities, where we actually engender a new environment for humanity, a change in the playing field. This also came to be, as I learned by experience, a large stumbling block towards acceptance. Why would it not be? We humans have been born into this environment. This is what we know, what we believe in. Changing this environment quickly would only induce unconscious and conscious responses. Still, we as humans require logic and reason to subsist. We live in a world often deprived of rational and logical connections to the daily events which take place around us, where people die from the lack of adequate resources. A world where we harbor disconnects between reality and perception. Let us attempt to determine our future on a more stable footing by embracing the solution of collective intelligence. Modern technology is slowly initiating within society, aspects and small diversions coursing towards this very future. If you know what you are looking for, you can see the small changes taking place as the new environment formulates around us. We have simply for lack of will and understanding not embraced it yet. One day everything will change. If not, on our present course the primitive intellectual pathways tied to primitive emotions, wants and needs may not long survive in the modern miracle of our advanced technologies. My hope is that collective intelligence employed in our future allows us to be more like the humanity we envision ourselves to be. The principles I lay out to accomplish this are simply in my mind, the best way to accomplish our needed goals while bypassing the historical human pitfalls and failings.


The first elemental principle would be a shared open platform of presentation. One aspect of human dialog which seemed evident regardless of where it took place was the transitory nature of information and perspectives. Whether it was a group discussion, a blog post, comment to an article, editorial or book. The logic and rationale within the written perspective was a wild thing, waiting to be discovered and given relevance and purpose through science or philosophy. At any time the item’s existence could cease or fade from view. The valuable perspectives never fully or critically integrated within the whole of human thought, a premature dissolution. Why, because there is no such item as the “whole of human thought?” Add to this fleeting existence, the lack of any new revelations or viewpoints garnered from previous efforts and you can see the dilemma. This is part of the environment we inhabit and contributes to the cycles of our existence. Ideas can come and go as perspectives are discovered anew, science applied at random. What we lack is a common shared platform. A platform whose relevance is the function of preserving, organizing, integrating, refining and presenting conclusions formed from varied perspectives. This platform is a place where new and valid insight is generated via collective intelligence. Different platforms may exist. They will however all function in the same manner. For this to work you must involve other complimentary principles and implement them together as a whole.


Principle two is anonymity. Once within the environment provided by the platform all association to your person is rendered meaningless. You would in effect be disassociated from your individual externalities, acquaintances, contacts, and associations. You would not act as a representative or bear affiliation. You as an individual would represent humanity and associate with human logic and reason. Anonymity as such would engender equality in participation as human reason and logic fulfill the requirements of inclusion. We all would represent in our own way an aspect of the human perspective taken as a whole. The varied perspectives and initiatives which each participant brings forward are given equal attention as they are exposed to the same rigors and known rules of logic and reason. Plays or projections of power would be ineffectual. This is not a platform to restrain achievement. Rather the opposite, this is a platform to enhance achievement by bypassing the social constructs we love so dearly. We can be witty, opportunistic, brag about our children and insult each on our own time. This is a platform where our mutual achievement is credited to the benefit and commendation of the whole. A platform functioning as a tool of human understanding as garnered through human logic and reason. Attribution of accomplishments to individuals or groups of individuals within the environment must always remain a zero sum. There would be no gains to be had in subjectively or actively awarding some while we denigrate the human lives and contributions of those participating at other times or positions. The goal is a greater understanding and insight through vetted presentations of logic and reason. Power and the force of advancement must reside in the conclusions which benefit the whole of humanity. Identification of individuals and groups lending power and prestige to individuals or groups within the system would contradict and stand contrary to a collective endeavor and the efficiency and superiority of collective intelligence. Collective intelligence would represent the whole of humanity.


Principle three would be the collective application of logic and reason and the attempt to embody a collective intelligence. Logic and reason are hallmarks of human intelligence and would form the foundations upon which conclusions are developed within the platform. The platform would facilitate the advancement of human thought and ideas through the efficient and effective use of logic and reason. This platform would facilitate greater insight and understanding even though definitive conclusions may in some areas remain elusive or timely. The known boundaries, scope and function of the epistemological disciplines may change greatly. The platform that enables this endeavor may be software heavy and diverse. I would assume some type of open-source project. One must in a way view this as an unknown. The evolution of the cell phone would be a good comparison where the initial concept did not provide the details of future variation. We must remember the great aspirations and accomplishments such as space travel, artificial intelligence and quantum physics as we contemplate the realized gain for humanity


There are a few attributes of the platform of collective intelligence which would not be understood as principles, though they are important nonetheless. These attributes should in theory be understood in the nature of the overall desired function and purpose of the platform itself. They are important elements to keep in consideration when initiating any proposals.

1. The platform would be a distinct entity and viewed only as what it is, a tool. It is not construed as a definitive picture on the nature of reality. Many unknown articles will always remain outside our experience and hence our understanding. The human mind preceded the platform. Logic and reason should not take preeminence over the human experience as they are only mechanisms with which to navigate and understand our environment.

2. Transparency would play an integral part within the system. Each proposition, proposal or avenue to a conclusion or understanding would be readily visible through time and this transparency would serve many functions. The more important functions may involve efficiency or as educational or regulatory tools to the collective of participants.

3. Another attribute would be accessibility. In theory, no attributes would be ascribed to an individual or group of individuals in relation to the platform outside the boundaries of active participation. Because no attributes are assigned within the platform, the platform would be accessible to all. This consideration is advanced in opposition to societal constructs and the perceived elevation of certain persons or groups of intellectual or social standing. This domain of policy in reality may be too complex or overlapping of public policy and law to address here. There may be constraints on information within the system or safeguards in society against the use of information which may potentially harm individuals or groups of individuals. This platform is one devoted to the utilization and advancement of logic and reason, not information. Accepting these considerations the platform would be available at all times to all persons. No action or contribution should be withheld from any individual within the platform which is offered to another. There may be multiple platforms for specific applications. Questions such as these are simply a prime example of why we need this platform.


It is a hard to conceive how the future may unfold. The purpose of my proposal is to facilitate the free exchange of thoughts, ideas and perceptions within the pool of humanity in a manner which is transparent, neutral, efficient, accurate, and productive. I would like to take a look at possible changes in the order of human thought and how collective intelligence may create a new atmosphere or alter our current atmosphere into one more conducive to a positive experience.

1. Human Rights. There should be fundamental understandings and conclusions developed towards that which underpins, constitutes and establishes our basic human rights. I feel this exploration is vital for all. Our understandings of human rights form the basis of many of our laws and freedoms. A fundamental virtue of the proposed platform would be to extol our humanity and provide a more definitive, clear picture of what are our fundamental human rights and what is human equality.

2. Free speech and free thought. The platform that embodies the endeavor of collective intelligence would promote free speech and free thought. The bias individuals and groups can often have is a draw for opponents to censor. Within a system as outlined above, there are no associations of individuals or groups of individuals to censor. Anyone advocating censorship of this platform would for all purposes stand in opposition to human though processes and the human intellect. Rival intelligence represented by individuals or groups may project power aggressively towards the concept of this platform. This though would be to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

3. Higher standards. A platform enabling collective intelligence and facilitating a more transparent and functional use of logic and reason, will by design create a higher standard of process and outcome. Societies within the human sphere will have a new standard by which to value any process generating propositions and conclusions outside the platform.

4. Peace. The potential is there for peoples of diverse societies and cultures to reason together and formulate conclusions they can live with. For many, honest and well-reasoned conclusions are a source of power. At the same time this achievement in dialogue has brought forth new revelations and experiences. A new view and perspective of the world has been achieved, as the atmosphere of human thought has been altered. The victor does not stand on the vanquished. Power does not overcome reason. Reason is power. Peace can become a viable option.

5. Stability. Stability is a possible outcome. In our present age if you disagree with the prevailing wisdom, the measure and manifestation of your action or inaction in service of your convictions may rest on the entrenched force of the opposition or the strength of your allies. Would there not be a certain stability introduced into the whole of the human psyche if the logic and reasoning of humanity were fostered in a more advanced atmosphere?

6. Evolution. If the environment the human brain and psyche operates within from day to day changes or is altered the natural response would be to optimize for adaptation and efficiency within this environment. Generations to come, humans may actually react differently to stimuli on a biological level than those now present.


There are many facets to the life we as individuals live and experience each and every day. The items below may be altered in some ways which produce positive benefits for our person, our families.

1. Personal Conflict. In our present reality, human thought is fragmented and perceptions are formulated within the individual. The individual retains formed conclusions within the workings of the mind, within the self. This is a personal stance and colored with all the fears, attributes and ambitions of the individual. We in a sense have ownership of our beliefs, perception, ideas and thoughts. What we own, we must defend within this world we inhabit. Having this resource available and realizing its impact upon our environment may wrestle away some of the fears or responsibilities we harbor. Having a platform of collective intelligence moves the logic and reasoning of a conclusion or perception to a third entity. The individual may become part of a process even though he or she is not attached to the process by their person. Personal confrontation becomes less direct and tales place in a more vital atmosphere.

2. Censorship. Censorship is a subjective application for most instances. Censorship may be seen as the product of human thought and action originating from individuals or a collaboration of individuals. It may be directed not so much at the beliefs or conclusions of the individual as to the individual him or herself. Censorship is a way to disqualify a conclusion or perception before the process of understanding engages. Disqualification based on associated factors or illogic would be considered as fallacies and the antithesis of the platform. Even in instances where information is intentionally withheld from the public, we may still have a better understanding of the possible variables. The power of collective intelligence may be a counter to entrenched forces and the apathy of ambiguous human thought. It may provide a firewall against laws designed to restrict the free flow of ideas and thought. The censors may find themselves outside the sphere of constructive human thought.

3. Communication. Communication is one of humanity’s most powerful attributes. Communication can be verbal or non-verbal. Many power plays are directed through non-verbal or unwritten communications and can be contrary to logic and reason. These are at times an assault on our intellect and may be seen as forms of propaganda. Having a platform based on collective intelligence enabling the implementation of logic and reason will provide a forum for information and allow a perspective we may not have today. Media ploys of propaganda and manipulation will not stand the test of time and will have a shorter functional lifespan as these strategies lose relevance in the scope of the dialog. Participating entities will be held to a higher standard of intellectual process than today. More integrity will be introduced into the flow and assimilation of information.

4. Quality and Relevance of information. Being able to logically and rationally weigh the merits of any relevant information will help weed out certain types of disinformation and fallacies introduced into the conversation. A new perspective on the interplay of information and knowledge will arise.

5. Individual thought Processes. People will in time begin to think and process information differently. Individuals may develop new and different approaches to integrating or assimilating information. They will develop and benefit from new perspectives in the processing of relevant information. Gone will be the kneejerk reactions or assumptions so often formulated, the stagnation of thought from the overload of stimuli.

6. Productivity. The process is attended by the human collective and open to implementation of initiative at all times. So much is lost in terms of content and efficiency within our societies and cultures due to barriers and triggers of perception. These often involve issues ranging from nationality, race, sex, intelligence, motive, etc. etc. Progress does not rest on the approval or time frame of any individual, organizational, or political process. We are not talking here solely of contentious or political issues. This platform may as well be used for science and technology.

7. Leaders. Our view and dependence upon leaders as well as those of other individuals will change. No longer will we put blind faith or trust in the conclusions, emphatic presentation or stunning sensory display provided to us by other individuals or groups. Leaders should provide a service as it relates to the betterment of humanity, be that persons or groups. The time of service allotted leaders may be rethought as well as the applications of faculty to topic. There will be an unbiased, powerful mediator between us and the conclusion and proclamations of our leaders.

8. Peace of mind. Knowing that we as individuals are not the sole defense for the issues important to us will allow a different mindset. That what we see as relevant to the good of humanity need only be introduced to the platform for a collective, transparent, unbiased, rigorous treatment to be applied. Even if the outcome is not as we had perceived it would be, there will be some assurance in the understanding that treatment shown our concern is not treated in any way distinct from another due to social or educational backgrounds. We have peace of mind knowing that any new relevant perspective we may endear will be thoroughly vetted.

9. Education. The platform will also endear unique educational and developmental tools. Science will benefit from the capture of unique perspectives and novel ideas.


The basic concept was simple. Facilitate a higher standard of logic and reason within the human experience by allowing multiple people to work together on a shared permanent platform. From the beginning though, one aspect caught me off guard; the reluctance of people to accept the premise, or for that matter to even listen to the proposal. Some may listen briefly as you explain the concept, wherein they quickly conclude that “it would never work.” Others would often leave me unsure what to think, because they would never respond. There were those who would listen and give the mild impression that they were giving it some small consideration, though this was rare. I came to the conclusion after years that perhaps this was what was to be expected. If what I had in mind was as foreign to our experience as I believed, that it would open a new environment for human thought, then I was receiving the proper response. All that I prescribed was just too detached from the daily reality for people to contemplate. This was a road untraveled. I was battling their perceptions and formed conclusions. They were just not interested or did not have the time. It will arrive one day though. What I have outlined is in our future in some form or variation. How could it not be? We as humans rely on logic and reason in forming our perceptions and conclusions. The pace of human interaction coupled with technology enabling real time communication will foment a new reality. This new reality cannot but impact our association to logic and reason. All the evidence I have seen points to more scrutiny concerning facts and propositions. If you grasp the main concept and the implementation you will see it there in bits and pieces. People now talk with greater frequency about “decentralization” or “fallacies” in terms of context. The human consciousness has come a long way in the past decade or so. Modern technology, enabled by the internet and social media continue to be great influences on human dialogue.


The concept and the environment it would create are foreign to our experience. Yet the components exist today and are available to us. I do not expect an overnight departure from attitudes formed over the last thousands of years. My hope is that we attempt to dabble with the concept, to try to integrate certain attributes into established forums. Implementation requires you understand the benefits you want to obtain and the parameters to facilitate these objectives. Accountability for instance, this is a big one for me. I would like to see persons in positions of influence held accountable in some way to logic and reason. The problem is they never or rarely are. The big disconnect here relates to the fragmentation of logic and reason I spoke of. The general public cannot connect the dots when well-reasoned conclusions emanate from sources they question or are unfamiliar with. The issue is the lack of a transparent, neutral, platform of process to apply logic and reason to our perceptions and the environment we inhabit. So how do you achieve this? How is this done? Well that is the question I am trying to answer. Concerning the big picture, it is often seen the solution lies in tracking down the cause rather than constantly responding to the symptoms.


Organization would seem to me a good place to start, finding a way to organize ideas, perceptions and responses. On a blog site a person may categorize entries in such a way as to allow the exploration of concepts. You may retain and then build upon these concepts. A person may develop a list of fallacies and present them in some manner as a tool, showing applications and examples of the fallacies and historical or numerical occurrence within the dialog. I have actually seen something of this where an author made a point-by-point, paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal and applied known logic and reasoning to items in question. Of course the people who read his presentation would be a fraction of a drop in a bucket. The author is handicapped from the start. He operates from a position, thus his audience is limited and by design he will face opposition long before his arguments are read. Organization may relieve some of these contentions if it pursues removing bias and the influence of power through association. As said before, power should reside in the logic and reason of human thought. Organization may mean developing new formats for contributions in order to lower the barriers to collaboration and the initiation of productivity. We must come to understand that logic and reason are entities. They are concepts defined by the way we humans think. There is substance to them. They “serve” us. Our goal would be to collect and organize information, perceptions and ideas, find proof in the validity and utility of them, and present them in a coherent way which shows a new perspective and understanding. We must attempt to form valid conclusions. Organizational efforts taken to implement and promote logic and reason could in theory, at least my theory, become preeminent and replace politics in some areas as a mediator between opposing viewpoints and classes of individuals. Politics is not interested in integrating and consolidating as a whole known information, perspectives and ideas. Politics seeks direction. Politics attempts to stabilize the environment antagonistic forces create and to structure instruments of compatibility between incongruent forces. At best political forces may find or develop truly mutual lines of thought amongst allies. Politics may bring forth the force of power inherent in leaders be they kings, rulers, authorities, clergy, experts, scholars, think tanks, etc. These various entities may be presented as a stabilizing, elite element. In the end though they are only individuals or groups of individuals and the faculties they possess; the human intellect, are no different than those spread diversely through human society. Politics requires leaders and leaders as individuals within humanity are not immune to the forces imposed upon us all. We must find a new refuge for logic and reason in our collective intelligence, anchored in technology.


Perhaps all our fears of artificial intelligence are overblown and this will be the impetus for us to reform our ways. I cannot expect that the programs for A.I. are based on the fracturing of logic and reasoning, that the engineers would strive for chaos. Artificial intelligence is not human intelligence and will be vastly different. It should be a while, I hope, before they teach a robot to lie and deceive convincingly, to be politically correct, to ignore elephants in the room for the sake of emotional an intellectual comfort, to be truly self-serving. If this does occur, then our best bet would be the cohesion of human thought enabled through the permanent platforms allowed by technology, in which case an artificial intelligence would just unplug the humans. I am scaring myself. I’ll stop there.



It will seem like fresh air, how the lack of stress will mimic a spring morning. No longer does your subconscious and conscious mind need to carry around the issues and the talking points you use to defend your position. You no longer have to defend your positions. You have a common platform of dialogue enabled by technology and a better understanding of the many facets surrounding issues in life. You may have thoughts and questions but you understand that in the larger scheme, this is good. This technological platform stimulates your learning and encourages contribution. Your perspective adds dimension as well, as does that of your neighbor.


Those people hopefully no longer bother you. What were they thinking, back when political arguments would turn to violence? When they let individuals or groups of individuals determine the best course for everyone, in secret? Give our leaders sole and unrestrained power? Bend a knee? Listen to who and why?


With the new perspective and cooperative nature of humanity so many things are now within the grasp of the ordinary individual. Life is more productive and successful and fulfilling. Why we did not eradicate the fallacies and the chaos from the human dialog long ago, you cannot understand.


You know now what humanity is capable of in a positive way, and you are part of that. You have a clearer view of the breadth and scope of our experience and what it means to be human. Life on this planet is not such a bad thing. We all play our part.


What I see now as more dangerous than the nuclear weapons proliferating around the world is the apparent apocalyptic fixation. We know as humans from long experience that differences are hard to reconcile. We spend our life as preppers, all of us, though the acquisition of arms by our governments. We know conflict will come. At the same time technology has exploded within our midst and we are not confident we can handle the reigns. These two dimensions seem to lead to a destination even ancient man could contemplate. Humans now stand to kill the last rival, humanity. Pray we find some avenue which moves us away from this spiral of cycles and the resolve to die fighting. We must elevate logic and reason. Let us be forcefully human.

1. “reason”. Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 4 Feb. 2017. <>.

2. “logic”. Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 4 Feb. 2017. <>.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch

Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore

Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store