''We live in a world in which no one knows the law.''
Ohad Asor, Sept 11, 2016
I continue herewith with sharing my contemporary state-of-grok  of the up to now four  scriptures of the aka newtau . Sorry for the delay, but it comes mostly from the efforts to contain the outburst of words, catalyzed by the very exegetic process of such a rich content, into a reader-friendly shorter form.
The subject of vivisection textographically identifies as the first three paragraphs of ''Tau and the Crisis of Truth'', Ohad Asor, Sep 11, 2016 .
The four core themes extracted are ennumerated bellow, with as modest as not to sidetrack the thought and to not spoil the original message, streak of comments of mine.:
As I guy who's immersed in Law for more than quarter of century  I can swear with both hands on my heart in the notion of unknowability of Law.
Since my youth years in the law school  I was asking myself how it is possible at all to have 'rule of law'  in case any legal system ever known required humans to operate !?
It seemed that the only requisite or categorcal difference between mere arbitrary 'rule of man'  and the 'rule of law' was that in some isolated cases some ruling men happened to be internally programmed by their morals  to produce 'rule of law' appearance effects by 'rule of man' means.
Otherwise 'rule of law' done via 'rule of man' poses extremely serious threats of law to be used by some to exploit and harm others.
In that line of thoughts my conclusion was that the Law is ... yet to come.
What we know as Law is not good networking protocol software of mankind as such, but rather we see comparatively rare examples of individually well programmed ... lawyers.
On the wings of a technological breakthrough, just like: flying came with the invention of airplanes and moonwalk needed the advent of rocketry, or to remember without to stay alive - the writing. The Law is an old dream. If we judge by the depth of the abyss of floklore - one of the humanity's most ancient dreams, indeed. Needless to repeat myself that this was what sucked me into Tau as relentlessly as a black hole spagetification  :)
The referred by Ohad frustration by Law of the great Franz Kafka  expressed in his book The Trial  becomes very understandable for Kafka's epoch lacking the comforting hope in a technology which we already have - the computers - and the overall progress in the field of logic, mathematics, engineering ... forming a self-reinforcing loop centered around this sci-tech of artificial cognition.
Similarly to the nuclear fusion, which is always few decades away, but the Fusion gap closes noticeably nowadays , we are standing on the cliff of a Legal gap.
The mankind's heavy involvement in cognition technologies, especially in the last several decades, outlined multiple promising directions of further development, which seem to bring us closer to abilities to compensate the fundamental deficiencies of Law and in fact to finally bring it into existence.
It took entire Ohad Asor, however, to identify the major reasons why the Law is bottlenecked out of our reach yet, and to propose viable means to bridge us through that Legal gap... The other side is already in sight.
It is in the first place the language to blame !
The human natural language . Our most important atribute as species. The mankind maker. The glue of society. It just emerged, it hasn't been created. It has rather ... patterns, vaguely conventional, than intentionally coined set of solid rules. There ain't firm rules to change its rules, either ... The natural human language is mostly wilderness of untamed pristine naked nature, dotted here and there with very expensive and hard to install and maintain ''arteftacts'' . Leave it alone out of the coercion of state mass media, mass education and national language institutes and it falls back into host of unintelligible dialects. Even when aided by the mnemonic amplifier which we call writing.
Ambiguity is characteristic of the natural language, a feature in poetry and politics, but a deadly bug in logic and law.
We'll put aside for now the postulate of impossibility of a single universal language to revisit it later when its exegetic turn comes. In another chapter onto another scripture. Likewise, not in this chapter we'll cover the neurological human bottlenecks which are targetted to be overcome by Tau. Lets observe the sequence of author's thoughts and to not fast forward.
Instead of that I'll dare to share with you my own hypothesis about why the natural human languages are so. (I'm smiling while I type this, cause I can visualize Ohad's reaction upon reading such frivolous lay narrative. I hope he being too busy will actually not to.) To say that the human languages are just too complex does not bring us any nearer to decent explanation. Many logic based languages are more than a match of the natural human ones in terms of expressiveness and complexity. It shouldn't be that reason.
My suspicion is rather that the natural human languages pose such a Moravec hardness  for being not exactly languages. Languages are conveyors of meaning. Human languages convey not meaning, but indexes or addresses or tags of mind states. The meaning is the mind state. Understanding between humans is function of not only shared learnt syntaxi, but also of shared lives. Of aggregation of similar mind states which to be referred by matching word keys.
If this is true it is another angle for grokking the solution of human users leaning towards the machine by use of human intelligible Machinish, instead of Tau waiting the language barrier to be broken and machines to start speaking and listening Humanish.
In a nutshell we yet wait the Law to come cuz Law is not doable in Humanish. Bad software. And the other side of the no-law coin is that the humans are no cognitive ASICs . We do congnition only meanwhile and in-order-to do what other animals do - to survive. Bad hardware.
In order law to become law it must become handsfree .
Not humans to read laws, but laws to read laws.
The technology to enable that looks on an arm's length.
Ok, so far we butchered the law and the language. What's left?
The nature and essence of human language brought one of the most harmful and devastating notions ever. Literally, a thought of mass destruction.
The ''crisis of truth''. The wasteland left by the toxic idea spilover of ''there is no one truth'' or even ''there ain't truth'' at all. This is not only abstract, philosophical problem. Billions of people actually got killed for somebody else's truth.
Not occasionally the philosophers who immersed themselves into this pool are nicknamed 'Deconstructivist' . Following back their epistemic genealogy, we see btw, that they are rooted rather in faith than in reasoning, but this is another story.
The general problem of truth, of which the problem of law is just a private case, opens up two important aspects:
Number one, is that all knowledge is conjectural to truth and that, truth is an asymptotic boundary - forever to close on but never to reach. Like speed of light or absolute zero. Number two, is that human languages make pretty lousy vehicles to chase the truth with.
If really words are just to match people's thoughts together, then there are thoughts without words and words without thoughts. Words mismatch thoughts, so how to expect they to bridge thoughts to things? Entire worlds on nonsensical wording emerge, dangerously disturbing the seamless unity of things and thoughts. Truth displaced.
''But can we at least have some island of truth in which social contracts can be useful and make sense?''
This island of shared truth is made of consensus  bedrock and synchronization  landmass.
Thuth and Law self-enforced. From within instead of by violence from without. And in self-referenial non-regressive way.
''We therefore remain without any logical basis for the process of rulemaking, not only the crisis of deciding what is legal and what is illegal." 
Peter Suber with his ''The Paradox of Self-Amendment: A Study of Law, Logic, Omnipotence, and Change''  proposed a rulemaking solution which he called Nomic .
''Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move.'' 
The merit of Nomic is that it really eliminates the illths of the infinite regress  of laws-of-changing-the-laws-of-changing-the-laws, ad infinitum, by use of transmutable self-referrenial rules. But Nomic suffers from number of issues - the first one, in the spotlight of that chapter, being the fact that we still remain with the “crisis of truth” in which there is no one truth, and the other ones - like sclability of sequencing and voting - we'll revisit in their order of appearance in the discussed texts.
The aka 'newtau'  went past the inherent limitations of the Nomic system and resolves the 'crisis of truth' problem.
The next few chapters will dive into Decidability and how it applies to provide solution to the problems described above.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-exegesis-intro
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-exegesis-the-two-towers
 - http://www.idni.org/blog/tau-and-the-crisis-of-truth.html
 - http://www.behest.io/
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/behest-for-tauchain
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
 - https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Despair-Environmentalists-Pseudo-Scientists-Antihumanism/dp/159403737X
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_language
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/tau-through-the-moravec-prism
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuit
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/manipulation
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization
 - http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/index.htm
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
 - the illustration is a painting courtecy of the author Georgi Andonov https://www.facebook.com/georgi.andonov.9674?tn-str=*F
Consensus Morality and Tauchain | Consensus Gentium. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. September 15, 2018.
An ancient criterion of truth, the consensus gentium (Latin for agreement of the people), states "that which is universal among men carries the weight of truth" (Ferm, 64). A number of consensus theories of truth are based on variations of this principle. In some criteria the notion of universal consent is taken strictly, while others qualify the terms of consensus in various ways. There are versions of consensus theory in which the specific population weighing in on a given question, the proportion of the population required for consent, and the period of time needed to declare consensus vary from the classical norm.
In the past I made a controversial statement that the law is amoral. This statement I made is based on a simple understanding of legal positivism. Take note that I am not a legal scholar or legal philosopher. My background is in ethical philosophy and political philosophy. That being said if we look at the ideas behind legal positivism it leads to the conclusion that law and morality have nothing to do with each other. In this post I will try to clarify some of my thoughts on this topic and also address a question I was asked about whether Democracy is moral or immoral. I will also discuss the concept of consensus morality and the implications it could have on Tauchain which by design will be permitted to have law(s). Will the law(s) in Tauchain be moral or immoral? Is it possible to align a moral framework with the creation of all laws in Tauchain? Which moral framework and will it be reached by consensus?
In order to understand a lot of my post we first have to consider the question of what is consensus morality? So in order to discuss this topic I will divide morality up into; private morality, public morality. This also introduces the question of whether public morality is authentic or coerced as it depends on how it emerges.
Private morality is what you internally think or feel is right or wrong. This could be because you did some sophisticated calculation as a consequentialist or it could merely be that you feel a certain kind of way about it. In your opinion it is considered wrong. For example you could say: "eating meat is wrong" and this would be your personal opinion. This is an expression on how you feel about eating meat. Now if you say "eating meat is wrong because it promotes animal suffering" this is also an expression of your opinion but you now have a goal attached which is to avoid promoting animal suffering. The goal of not promoting animal suffering suggests that you value minimization of animal suffering as a kind of optimization strategy.
If you still you follow, private morality can also be based on your religious convictions where because the bible says it is wrong or because you were taught the golden rule that it is in your opinion wrong to do behaviors which violate these teachings. The golden rule is an example of a heuristic rule. There are many such rules which people follow including the example from Kant (categorical imperative) but it is still just an opinion based on adherence to a heuristic rule. We can also consider the non agression principle an example of a heuristic rule (a heuristic rule is a mental shortcut which people take because they believe it leads to good results most of the time).
Public morality on the other hand is a different kind of morality entirely. A private individual has a private morality because that individual is only responsible for themselves in their decisions. A public individual is in a position where other people have a stake in what they are doing. For example a CEO of a company cannot simply do what they think is right because the other shareholders have funds at stake. The CEO has a fiduciary duty which outweighs their personal opinions on what is right and wrong. This fiduciary duty is to the shareholders of the company and is both a legal and ethical obligation. In the case of a public company the rightness or wrongness of a decision if the company weighs consequences is based on data. For example a company might rely on focus groups to determine what a customer might want. A company would have to rely on spiritual advisers, ethical focus groups and determine what the shareholders (and customers) would perceive as right. This is because if the CEO does not do what is in the best interest of the shareholders and customers then the CEO will simply be replaced by another CEO who will.
Public morality is reached by some process which results in a moral consensus. The moral consensus of 2018 is not going to be the same as the moral consensus of 1969. This is to say that moral attitudes change over time. A company which seeks to exist and remain profitable for decades must remain in good moral standards for these decades. The only way a company can remain aligned with current moral trends is through a tactic of data analysis. In other words data science is how "right" and "wrong' are determined. For example public sentiment is tracked and from that the marketing team knows where the line in the sand is and what line not to cross in their marketing campaign. The phrase "we went too far" is common in business because going too far simply means to push the boundaries on what is acceptable (or unacceptable). This also can become problematic because if a company bets on a moral consensus in the 1800s (slavery is right) then that company might find after the Civil War (slavery is wrong) and now have to change their opinion. In other words the moral consensus is always changing and is in essence producing moral populism.
Consensus morality on Tauchain
Consensus morality is essentially a publicly recognized framework for right and wrong. Consensus morality on Tauchain for example could be arrived at if we simply have the discussions on topics of ethics. Over time our discussions will converge in such a way so as to produce a consensus morality. That is a moral attitude of the day, of the year, etc as it is merely what is currently the popular opinion and sentiment on what is right and what is wrong. So consensus morality is in my opinion likely to be a very important concept going forward and is a concept which Tauchain (and blockchains like Steem) may enable.
Consensus morality and potential problems
So the question I was asked is about democracy. The idea a person put forth to me was that democracy is immoral because it is a form of coercion. I do not personally buy into this idea that democracy is inherently immoral or inherently coercive. I will say that democracy implemented in the wrong way can become coercive. This is why the emphasis on privacy may be a requirement. If there is no privacy then all votes could be coerced. If the idea is to have a network which is truly moral then we would require that every moral opinion be expressible. Moral opinions which are unpopular are censored or discouraged from being expressed in a transparent ecosystem. This means a transparent ecosystem may in fact under certain circumstances produce a coerced consensus morality. That is that the votes which are public and attributable to certain individual may be mere virtue signals rather than honest (authentic) opinions on what is right and wrong.
As a result this transparency may skew the results of any poll about any subject. A private or anonymous poll can capture a result which in theory expresses some true opinion. In addition there is the possibility of futarchy to allow for prediction markets and other mechanisms to allow for true sentiment on moral questions to be discovered. My answer to the question is that whilst democracy is not inherently wrong it is also not inherently right. Democracy is a tool which when used in the right circumstances may be best suited for achieving the ends. If no better tool exists to achieve the ends then democracy may in fact be the choice which leads to the least bad consequences which compared to other potential choices. That being said the ideal of consequentialism is to over time reduce the wrongness and increase the rightness by measuring the consequences of every choice; such as private ballot voting vs transparent voting.
Privacy has both it's risks and its benefits with regard to consequences. The benefits include coercion resistance. The risks on the other hand include increased ability to bribe and thus coerce. So the idea being that while in theory a person with privacy can express an authentic opinion (have genuine speech rights) it is also true that anyone could be anonymously (privately) be selling their opinion and thus their vote. It is going to be a challenge to determine when privacy is the right tool for the job and when transparency is the right tool for the job.
In the positivist view, the "source" of a law is the establishment of that law by some socially recognised legal authority. The "merits" of a law are a separate issue: it may be a "bad law" by some standard, but if it was added to the system by a legitimate authority, it is still a law.
Legal positivism states that the law and morality are not one in the same. Just because something is legal it does not mean it is moral. Just because something is illegal it does not mean it is immoral. From this basis I reached a conclusion that because immoral laws exist (some laws are moral) that the law as a whole is amoral. That is to say that whether a law can be made or unmade does not demend on whether the law produces good consequences or even desirable consequences. We could for example look at the drug laws and war on drugs to see examples of policies which produce mass incarceration but was that the intended consequence? It would seem the drug laws would have to be immoral according to consequentialism unless the intended consequence was mass incarceration. If the intended consequence was harm reduction then the current drug laws are ineffective. What do these laws actually achieve? It doesn't really matter because the law is amoral. To align the law with morality is also problematic because it would only be able to align with public morality which under consequentialism may also often lead to bad or unintended consequences.
A potential solution is to allow participants in the ecosystem to rate the laws over time. Laws which receive a higher rating or lower rating would provide a feedback loop indicating when a law should be replaced. This is something that we don't seem to have in the current legal system or if we do have it then what is actually done if a lot of people express the opinion that a particular law is immoral or perhaps not moral enough? If every law on Tauchain could be rated, reviewed, discussed continuously, and improved indefinitely, then we may actually get somewhere.
Logo by CapitanArt
Enlaces / Links
Logo by CapitanArt
Archivos / Archives
Suggested readings to better understand the Tau ecosystem, Tau Meta Language, Tau-Chain and Agoras, and collaborate in the development of the project.
Lecturas sugeridas para entender mejor el ecosistema Tau, Tau Meta Lenguaje, Tau-Chain y Agoras, y colaborar en el desarrollo del proyecto.