Third Millennium Ethics

A Theory of Ethics

2008-10-27T14:44:00.000-07:00

I. INTRODUCTION
II. KNOWLEDGE
III. SURVIVAL
IV. FREEDOM AND THOUGHT
V. SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
VI. DIRECTION

I. INTRODUCTION

II. KNOWLEDGE

Limits of Knowledge

1. (a) The field of mathematics offers the greatest degree of certainty in the development of general rules regarding the universe. Mathematics is purely abstract and mathematical analysis involves the creation of models of phenomena that have been experienced, and the actor may possess complete knowledge of the models so certainty is possible. Relationships expressed in mathematics are those on which the strongest reliance may be placed as they are developed through rigorous proof and based on the most fundamental and defensible assumptions. And thus mathematical relationships and rules are appropriate to use in developing and organizing models of the universe. The use of the principles of mathematical probability and statistics is fundamental in developing other fields of knowledge as models for phenomena studied in those fields can be tested to determine compliance with relevant data.

(b) After mathematics, the most certain and reliable knowledge is that derived from the study of the fundamental elements of nature in what are commonly referred to as “the hard sciences.” The accepted theories of the rules, or laws, of nature are those that have been proposed and are left standing after a rigorous winnowing process involving experimentation and statistical analysis, which show that particular theories, or models of how some part of the universe works, have more predictive ability than others, i.e. are consistent with new data obtained from experiments. No theory comes with a guarantee that it cannot be improved upon, and the most one can say about a theory is that no superior theory, i.e. one with better predictive value or with equal predictive value but some other advantage (e.g. simpler), has been validated by experiment. Since the depth of analysis, the number of levels of analysis, is unbounded, it seems likely that any theory can be improved upon as the analysis goes deeper and deeper. Fields of study that do not allow for rigorous experimentation and control of all significant variables, e.g. the social sciences, offer much less certainty, and theories in such fields can never achieve the level of certainty or acceptance of those in the hard sciences. However, rules regarding complex processes, that such fields of study focus on, may be developed through extrapolation from more fundamental knowledge from the hard sciences, and such rules may provide some level of predictability, but rules developed through excessive extrapolation should be adopted with great reservation.

2. (a) Knowledge of general theories and rules does not guarantee any degree of knowledge of a specific phenomenon of nature. We know from elementary mathematics that there are an infinite number of perspectives in space and time from which any specific phenomenon may be analyzed. It is also clear that there are theoretically an infinite number of ways and degrees to which the phenomenon may be divided and represented in the construction of a model of the phenomenon. Thus, with finite resources available it is impossible to guarantee that one has a complete model of any phenomenon at any point in time. And without certainty of having a complete model, and thus with no certainty of knowledge of a phenomenon, assuming only finite models are possible (because of finite resources), all actions of all entities in the universe are never completely predictable, completely known, or even completely knowable from a theoretical perspective.

(b) If a phenomenon is labeled an X(i), note that a causal relationship may be established between an X(i) and some X(i-1), where X(i-1) occurs before X(i) and is within relativity limitations, and a causal relationship may be established for any X(i-n) generally, where n > 1. And there is no limit on the number of X(i-n) that may be established to have causal links with X(i). As the causal relationships are unlimited, some phenomenon X(i) could be described as the result of an unbounded number of other phenomena, each with an unbounded history of causality (infinite number of infinite chains of causality). But models of phenomena are finite (certainly useful models are), and so the phenomena giving rise to X(i), e.g. the X(i-n), cannot be completely detailed in the model constructed to represent X(i) and at best can be generalized or approximated.

The Purpose/Function of Knowledge for an Organism

Possession and use of knowledge developed as a useful tool for organisms struggling to survive in the organisms' environments. An organism survives by making adjustments, or adaptations, by either changing internal settings, those of the organism, or changing the external settings, those of the environment, so that internal settings mesh, find harmony, with external settings in a way that leads to meeting the organism’s survival needs. This also applies to meeting reproductive needs, as determined by instinctual desires. This continual process of input, adjustment, and output can be modeled as a self-regenerating circuit (a type of self-sustaining feedback loop). An organism’s brain creates internal circuits that model external circuits. A sophisticated brain may even model the organism itself and its internal circuits and even engage in self-reference and self-reference of self-reference, though this self recursion must be cut off at some point as it is of declining utility as it progresses.

The Organization of Knowledge and Use of Models

1. Organization of knowledge may increase the advantage of possessing knowledge. Organized knowledge can allow for comparisons, facilitate the development of more general and accurate rules, and aid in the elimination of contradictory and useless knowledge that could otherwise become a nuisance.

2. Organized knowledge can be used to produce a model of any phenomena experienced and can be used to produce a model of the universe itself, the source of all experience, and with analysis can provide a set of rules regarding the relationships of different phenomena in the universe. With a model of the universe, and a set of rules that phenomena in the universe follow, one may predict future phenomena in the universe, including reactions to one’s own actions and one's own reactions to those reactions. And thus such a model may be used by an organism to optimize the search for self-regenerating circuits. Note that any such model, as well as its accompanying rules, will always be limited and incomplete and can at best be a gross approximation of the source of phenomena producing the input that is the basis of the model, and of course it follows that the accuracy of predictions is limited by the limits of the model.

3. (a) A nontrivial model of the universe takes into account that an infinite number of possible sources of energy may create, map onto, a perception of a phenomenon (organism input). Ultimately, all scientific or other analysis can do is provide information regarding the likelihood that different phenomena will occur or reoccur given that other phenomena have been experienced, i.e. provide some form of approximate predictability about phenomenon X(i) given phenomena X(i-1)…X(i-j). Note that if Source S(x) and Source S(y) always produce the same input or at least indistinguishable input, i.e. the same perceptions for the observer, say Observer O1, then S(x) will be treated by O1 as identical to S(y), and O1’s model for S(x) and S(y) will be identical, even if there may be a difference between S(x) and S(y) to observer O2 (e.g. a typical human observer). S(x) and S(y) may have different effects according to the perceptions of O2 but O1 never experiences those differences. One illustration of this is the science fiction scenario where S(x) is the standard models of the universe, and S(y) is a universe where an alien intelligence inserts electrodes into O1’s brain to control O1’s perceptions and thoughts. As long as the mimicry is complete and exact for the duration of O1’s life, there could be no difference to O1 and S(x) and S(y) could then both provide identical experiences for O1 and O1 would produce identical models of the universe for both S(x) and S(y), even though O2, e.g. the omniscient reader of the science fiction, has quite different models for them.

(b) From the same set of perceptions of phenomena an observer could potentially form an infinite number of hypotheses to explain those perceptions, including an infinite number of hypotheses that each assume different possible individual gods or sets of gods as being the source of the phenomena. That observer could use the perceptions of those same phenomena to argue for any number of models of a god or gods. To put it another way, the same evidence, the same set of recorded observations, can be used to argue for any one theorized god or any number of such gods, including an infinite number. Scientists, for the sake of utility, prefer to use the simplest model of the source of phenomena, with the fewest assumptions (Occam's razor), that is consistent with experience, i.e. with the evidence, and that has predictive value. That is why scientists prefer to avoid models involving a god or gods in developing hypotheses and theories. Theologians do not highly value utility in choosing the best model of the source of experience, and do not rigorously test predictive value of a model, and so they have no method for winnowing down the possibilities other than their “sacred” texts,” which they consider as indisputable fact that any hypothesis must comport with, and so they do not abandon their hypotheses involving gods. a theologian has a personal interest in maintaining any belief system which provides the theologian with authority and power by virtue of a position as interpreter of the most important rules of the universe.

4. Absolute certainty of the exactness and completeness of information with regard to the phenomenon for which one is constructing a model is impossible to attain even for one moment and even more so for an infinite succession of moments, regardless of the amount or degree of analysis. Also note that analysis is necessary to determine the optimal level of resources to be allocated to analysis of any particular subset of the model, as an infinite number of levels of analysis are possible and so each subset of the model, each problem, could demand infinite resources. Of course the analysis of allocation could also be infinite, and so some guess, e.g. a heuristic, must be followed to determine a cut-off point, though past experiences with costs associated with such analysis tend to provide pressure to reduce the time and energy spent on such analysis, i.e. a perception of declining utility may provide guidance. And note that pre-programmed, genetic, human propensities and abilities may also play a role in determining cut-off points.

D. Consciousness

Consciousness is merely the direct experience of thought, as opposed to a model of thought or of any phenomenon in experience. The duality of existence is between the direct experience and the model of the experience. All that we can communicate, and all that we can explain, are models of experience, not direct experiences. When we form a memory, we form a model of an experience. When we think about experiences we have had, we are creating and manipulating models of experience. When one thinks about past thoughts the images of models (visual, auditory, or other) formed come to mind. Memory may function to record past direct experience, i.e. past consciousness, including the emotional component, but the act of committing such direct experience to memory creates a model of it and so what is remembered is the model, though recalling this model may generate a similar consciousness to the one that produced the model. Most likely any creatures with similar physical characteristics of perception and cognition would have similar experiences of consciousness. But a thinking object or entity that is vastly different from a human brain, such as a computer, could not be expected to have a similar experience.

III. LIFE CIRCUITS

Life Circuits

1. Life regenerates itself by creating circuits of a sort (self-sustaining feedback loops, usually positive feedback loops). Life processes are programmed by their genetic code, developed through the process of evolution, to search (experimenting with different outputs) for circuits that will provide what the life process requires for continuation, i.e. survival and propagation (the genes that produce such an organism are the ones that continue). The most sophisticated life processes, those of a brain, seek connections between the organism's needs and environmental resources to fill those needs, the most fundamental of such needs, those directly connected to survival and propagation, being in some manner to some extent pre-programmed in the brain (possibly what is pre-programmed are propensities towards creating neuronal pathways that create sensitivities to certain forms of stimuli from the environment the organism evolved in). As those connections are developed, self-regenerating circuits are formed, e.g. as X discovers that water quenches X’s thirst, a connection is formed in X’s brain between water and quenching thirst, and as X learns that going to the river facilitates X’s acquisition of water, a further connection between water and the path to the river is formed, etc… So connections in the brain lead to actions that lead to meeting needs that lead to stimulation of reward centers in the brain. And more connections with more strength are formed as a result of the stimulation and the whole process may be viewed as a self-regenerating circuit.

2. In social or group animals, the self-regenerating circuits often go through members of the group. As relationships are formed between brains, circuits travel through one brain and to the next through communication and then through that brain and then back to the first brain or to other brains in the social group, which may be seen as a larger circuit. Those larger circuits can have sub-circuits just as groups can have subgroups. And these larger circuits facilitate the development of more sophisticated and intricate models of the universe that can be shared within the group, as any members of the group can contribute to the breadth, depth, or consistency of any model.

Individual and Group Action

The requirements of survival would indicate that individual brains have predispositions toward forming circuits tending to increase the probability of survival of the self and the group, with reproduction being one requirement for group survival. As an individual learns the individual’s circuits tend to become more developed and efficient, and when the individuals in a group learn from the group the group’s circuits tend to become more developed and efficient as well, particularly when the learning is from others in the group who are behaving consistently with increasing the strength of the group’s circuits, which should generally be consistent with improving the group's welfare. As individuals form group circuits, they develop shared models of the universe that help coordinate activities and further direct the development of new circuits and new models.

IV. FREEDOM AND RELATED ISSUES

A. Determinism

The fatal flaw of simple determinism results from removing the actor from the universe. The actor is part of the universe and so the actor has part of the power and force of the universe and is a source of causality. The actor is a source of causality like any other force in the universe and the time of the action, in the unbroken chain of actions through time, is as important as any other time in the succession of events. If one models the universe as following deterministic processes, the actor must be viewed as both determiner and determined. The action starts with the actor at a particular time as much as it starts with any other part of the universe at any other time.

B. Free Will

Any X, any actor or object, forms and acts in response to all forces acting upon X, both internal to X and external to X. The internal forces in the brain of a sentient being may be described as comprising “the will.” The term "free will" is problematic because it implies an independence from forces of the universe and there can be no such independence. However, it should be noted that the term is often used loosely to refer to freedom from social pressures, and that usage is not directly contradicted by the analysis here, though it is apparent that complete freedom from social pressures becomes virtually impossible if an individual interacts with, and becomes dependent on in any manner, other individuals in a society (acknowledging that an individual in a low-population-density and low-interaction society would have relatively more social freedom).

C. Identity and Will over Time

1. Human identity over time is approximate, not complete, as all living things change over time (time really is a measure of change). As a human being grows, has experiences, the human brain changes in response to outside stimuli, both in an immediate sense and over time in response to analyses of stimuli. The brain at time T(n) is thus a function of what it was at time T(n-1) and what it experienced between time T(n-1) and time T(n). So the will of the individual at time T(n) is not equal to the will at time T(n-1) and can only be at best approximately equal to what it was at time T(n-1). Actually, at time T(n) the will is the result of the internal forces at time T(n-1), the external forces that impacted the brain through perceptions between T(n-1) and T(n), and any analysis that occurred between the two time points, and of course any biological changes from aging and any disease or injury.

2. Note that Identity at time T(n), which can be denoted as ID(T(n)), cannot be a very precise term. For an individual to accomplish any act, including the act of completing a thought, it takes some time range, e.g. T(n-1) to T(n). And during that time range, the individual has identity that ranges from ID(T(n-1)) to ID(T(n)).

D. Freedom and Will

1. The freedom to act in situation S is where there is a will to act by the individual (“will” is the motivation/desires of an individual as determined by the internal brain forces), and an absence of external forces in situation S to prevent or significantly interfere with that act.

2. Will over time: The will evolves as the individual encounters new energy that shapes the individual’s identity through perception and repercussions of perception, including the adoption or formation of new circuits or evolution or diminution of existing ones. The will also evolves because of biological changes, e.g. hormonal changes or the processes of aging, injury, or disease.

3. Freedom and will in circuits: The will includes the forces from self-regenerating circuits, including those wholly contained in the brain and those that go through other brains, i.e. a group circuit. At an instant, one can represent the force of a group circuit as an internal force, though over a larger time frame it would be more accurately represented as a partially if not mostly external force. Thus, in the smallest time frame following those circuits could be represented as an act of individual will and thus so-called "individual freedom" but in larger time frames it could not.

Manipulation example:

(a) As individual X exerts will in changing the brain (mind) of individual Y (e.g. changing Y’s beliefs or understanding), then Y’s brain in part becomes an agent of X’s brain (X creates a circuit in which Y’s brain is included). Then Y’s brain may be a function of X’s will. If the relationship is symbiotic and the circuit serves Y as well as X or the goals of some larger group then the relationship and circuit may be manipulative but not abusive. If the circuit serves X at the expense of Y, then it is abusive manipulation.

(b) If Y acts as a result of X’s creation of the circuit and manipulation of Y, can Y’s act be represented as an expression of freedom? It depends on the time frame from which freedom and will are analyzed. From the time frame starting after manipulation T(m+), Y’s will was exercised and Y’s act may be expressed as an act of Y’s individual freedom (ignoring other forces acting on Y besides X). From the time frame before manipulation T(m-), X’s will was expressed in Y’s actions, and Y’s act cannot be expressed as an act of Y’s individual freedom.

(c) Note that if X creates a circuit that includes Y’s brain and the circuit is beneficial to Y and so X’s act is not abusive manipulation, from the time frame before X’s influence T(m-), X’s will was expressed in Y’s actions, and Y’s act cannot be expressed as an act of Y’s individual freedom.

E. Control

1. Note that the term “control” most often provides greater clarity if substituted for the term “freedom.” Discussions without context about the freedom of X can be misleading as they ignore that X’s freedom to act may limit Y’s freedom in some way and vice versa. When the term “control” is used, it becomes much more clear that in many situations that X’s freedom to do A and Y’s freedom to do B are mutually exclusive, i.e. cannot exist together. What X seeks in the freedom to do an act A is control over the environment in some manner so as to allow X to do A. That control may be indirect or it may be in cooperation with others, as in a democracy, but it is critical that X acquire the means to carry out A or the freedom to do A is illusory. And X’s control over the environment to do A may be inconsistent with Y’s control over the environment to do B.

2. One example concerns the freedom of speech. In order for X to exercise the freedom of speech, X must be able to control the means to produce the speech and, possibly with government help, control the means to block others from preventing, restricting, inhibiting, or drowning out that speech. Without such control, the freedom would be meaningless.

3. Another example concerns the freedom to control one’s own health, which requires control over the quality of the air. In order to exercise the freedom to control one’s own health X must be able to limit the freedom of others in the vicinity to create dirty air.

F. Harmony

The harmony that X achieves internally is based on the extent to which X’s circuits meet X’s needs and that requires harmony between X's circuits and the external environment. Recognizing that complete freedom from the external environment and social freedom are illusory (social freedom is illusory for the non-hermit), the extent to which X achieves harmony, i.e. forms circuits to meet X’s needs that are in harmony with the external environment, appears to be the most critical factor in determining X’s quality of life.

V. SYSTEMS OF ETHICS FOR GROUPS

History of Systems of Ethics

1. Humans developed rules of social behavior in order to better regulate behavior within a group of humans, including behavior with regard to other potential members of the group, to improve the welfare and increase the probability of survival of the group, but also probably to some extent to serve the interests of the group elites who made and enforced the rules. Over time, it is likely that humans evolved to appreciate rule-based systems for behavior. As human brains and intellect grew, more sophisticated rules of behavior, systems of ethics, developed and typically were accepted by most individuals in the group, particularly in the groups that would flourish and dominate.

2. For early humans the social circuits involved only small groups, but over time groups merged and populations increased and so the size of the group grew, and the leader of the large group became known as a king and the territory of the large group became known as a nation. And these larger groups prospered only to the extent the circuits within the group were healthy, i.e. consistent with group welfare, and the probability of this increased when rules were developed with regard to what types of circuits, particularly those involving behavior affecting other members of the group, would be allowed or promoted. So rules of ethics can be thought of as limitations on circuits, ideally with the limitations designed to maximize group welfare, though often the limitations were designed to maximize the welfare of the well-positioned group members.

Design of Systems of Ethics

A successful system of ethics must be a function of, be developed consistent with, human motivation potential because rules unlikely to be followed would not achieve their purpose and as a result the group would weaken and would not survive. And the system of ethics that succeeds best maximizes the welfare and probability of survival of the group. So the system should maximize the extent to which strong self-regenerating circuits are available that are consistent with group members’ desires and potential desires and consistent with group welfare and survival. There is a strong argument that innate sensitivities to certain types of stimuli, phenomena, were developed through evolution that maximized the probability of survival and welfare of the group. Thus, it appears likely that actions that result in a perception of achieving such goals (survival and welfare of the group) have the potential to take advantage of such innate sensitivities and stimulate pleasure centers, thereby creating healthy self-regenerating circuits for individuals and for the group. And a rule of ethics that guides individuals into choosing such actions, and thereby creating such circuits, would be likely to be adopted and followed by many or most individuals in the group, thus not only increasing the number of healthy self-regenerating circuits but also strengthening its own ethics rule circuit. And it could strengthen the general ethics rules circuit – promoting belief and trust in rules of ethics and the advantages of following them -- as it achieves the primary purpose of rules of ethics.

Determining What is the Group

1. A group is a set of individuals who commonly interact and for that purpose usually have common rules of behavior. Members of a group share certain common circuits that are crucial to their welfare and survival. Groups constantly form and grow and also decline.

2. Because of the growth of communications technology, international travel, and international trade, communication and interaction across the globe has become common in the 21st Century and that has created global interconnectedness composed of a great many circuits. So the most fundamental and important choice of group in the 21st Century has become the entire human race.

D. Manipulation in a Group and Dead-End Circuits

Individuals may produce circuits that involve the manipulation and use of others, which may be characterized by a predatory relationship in which the manipulator gains from the relationship while the one manipulated loses while there is no net gain, and even possibly a loss, for the main social group. Typically deceit is an essential component of such a circuit. Those who are manipulated or used come to feel part of a circuit that takes from them more than it gives back. Often the manipulators make use of primal impulses, e.g. sexual impulses or basic desires for social status, that they connect in the victim’s brain to phantom rewards. These are dead-end circuits for those who are manipulated and such individuals become weaker as a result. The manipulators reap all the rewards of such circuits and are strengthened unless a greater circuit that they are subject to, e.g. the main social group, provides punishment for such manipulative behavior.

E. Group Action

Group actions are usually initiated by those identified as leaders, i.e. initiators of new circuits within an existing group or forming a new group. Though the main circuits and sub-circuits of the group may encompass all members of the group, the individual that is the leader might not participate in any strong circuits that encompass all or nearly all members of the group. Sometimes the leader only participates in strong circuits that encompass only a small subset of the group, though the leaders may participate in weaker circuits, particularly ones where the leader is in a dominant position and most are in subservient positions, with all or virtually all members of the group. Note that the leader may engage in manipulation, particularly in the weaker circuits. Also note that in a circuit where there is competition for resources, as the position of some is maximized, the position of others is weakened, particularly when it is the same individuals whose positions are maximized time and time again.

F. Political Economic Cultural Systems (PECS)

Political Economic Cultural Systems (PECS) are highly developed human groups that survive and maintain themselves through the generation of strong self-regenerating circuits. Competition and conflict within a PEC may serve to weaken or strengthen the PEC as a whole, depending on the specifics of the competition or conflict. PECS may even interact with other PECS to form greater PECS or at times may compete and even war with other PECS.

G. Comparative PECS

1. Example: PEC X is superior to PEC Y in environment E if in E the expected value of the extent to which X meets the needs of X’s members, e.g. survival and welfare through establishment of strong self-regenerating circuits, is greater than the expected value of the extent to which Y will meet the needs of Y’s members. No PEC may be stated to be superior to another PEC as a blanket statement, i.e. without a specified E or set of Es, because it is virtually certain that for at least some time frames in some environments any arbitrarily chosen system Y will be superior to any other particular system X. Also note that a victory in war between PEC X and PEC Y only proves that PEC X was superior in the war environment and does not prove the superiority of PEC X with respect to any other environment. Also note that PEC X and PEC Y can combine in a postwar environment to form PEC Z, and that PEC Z could very well have been better off had the result of the war been different.

2. Note that because of the limits of attainable knowledge, by any particular entity in any time frame, because analysis of any phenomena may be unbounded in depth and breadth, and because the complex processes involved in PECS are far removed from the fundamental and reliable knowledge from the hard sciences making extrapolation from such of dubious value, for the foreseeable future theories with regard to optimizing PECS must rely heavily on speculation grounded only in unproved assumptions and anecdotal evidence.

VI. DIRECTIONS

Randomness of Most of History and Current Governments and Institutions

1. Concept of historical inevitability: Those with power often recognize that their hold on power is tenuous and in large part depends on the acquiescence or at least absence of resistance by others. Thus, they have an interest in convincing others that current trends and forces are irresistible. It aids that argument when they convince others that history and current patterns were historically inevitable and the natural result of unchangeable natural laws and not the result of individual human decisions.

2. Argument against historical inevitability: Given the exact makeup of the universe at state X1 it may be argued that the universe must evolve into state X2 – only one outcome is possible under the application of natural laws. But the exact nature of X1 or any possible X2 is unknown and unknowable. Also, each part of the universe has part of the power and force of the universe and is a source of causality. What happened did happen because of the combination of all forces acting, but the natural laws, the makeup of homo sapiens, the flora and fauna of the earth, the amount of solar radiation, the geography of the earth, and other factors outside human control did not suffice to completely determine what happened. Every force contributed, meaning every decision of every person, however arbitrary or well-thought-out, and every motivation and goal-directed activity had an impact. And when history is studied closely, it becomes apparent that minor forces often contributed in a significant way to determine the outcomes, in a completely unpredictable manner. The very minor and alterable may have changed the outcome and changed succeeding outcomes, and those in control prefer to hide or prevent recognition of that so as to convince the non-elites that they are powerless and should not resist.

3. Arbitrariness of governments and institutions: It is clearly in the interests of those receiving benefits from any governmental or other institution to defend the current form of that institution, as well as its general purpose, and so propaganda is often generated to achieve that goal. However, it is obvious that an infinite number of forms of any institution are possible, and there are an infinite number of possible institutions to choose from. Furthermore, arguments regarding the optimal set of institutions or the optimal form of such institutions must rely heavily on speculation and anecdotal evidence as the field is far removed from what is demonstrable by scientific experimentation and the application of mathematics. Mostly the institutions that are created and that are continued exist because of their own inertia, the inertia of other related or similar institutions that imply their existence is necessary or inevitable, or the inertia of more general social forces.

4. Suggestions for future institutions: One promising method for attempting to maximize the harmony and welfare of individuals in the group, while also maximizing the probability of survival of the individuals and the group, would be to design institutions for maximizing the probability of survival of self and group over time, which would entail determining potential healthy and strong self-regenerating circuits that could be created and promoted.

B. Blame

Blame is often assigned in the process of determining new directions for governmental and other social action. This process is often subject to manipulation. Every incident that occurs is the result of infinite chains of causality and every link in those chains could be assigned the blame. An appropriate place to put the blame would be the weakest links, i.e. those easiest to remove, so that reoccurrence of the event can be prevented. However, the repercussions of cutting such links must be considered, including possibly unknown repercussions, so a careful consideration of all factors would be prudent.

C. Interests

Note that one's circuits correspond well with what is often termed "self-interest." So that as one forms more and more broad circuits, with the recognition that such circuits must be re-energized with rewards in order to be maintained, then one's self interest expands and to some extent merges with the community interest. In this way, traditional leftist politics may be seen as an attempt to create broader circuits and more merging between self-interest and community interest, and traditional rightist politics may be seen as an attempt to prevent the expansion of circuits and the expansion of self-interest to the broader community.

D. Superior Direction

There is the potential for the creation of a new system of ethics that can gain broad acceptance. The goal of the new system would be creating self-regenerating circuits consistent with short- and long-term survival needs, the health, the vitality, and the welfare of individuals and the group as a whole. Certainly small circuits, e.g. the circuits of the family, could be of value as they provide immediate rewards and dependable connections. And these small circuits could be woven into larger circuits of communities of larger and larger size.

A theory of ethics

2008-01-25T14:41:00.001-08:00

A THEORY OF ETHICS

INTRODUCTION
KNOWLEDGE
SURVIVAL
FREEDOM AND THOUGHT
SYSTEMS OF ETHICS
DIRECTION

INTRODUCTION

KNOWLEDGE

Limits of Knowledge

(a) The field of mathematics offers the greatest degree of certainty in the development of general rules regarding the universe. Mathematics is purely abstract and mathematical analysis involves the creation of models of phenomena that have been experienced, and the actor may possess complete knowledge of the models so certainty is possible. Relationships expressed in mathematics are those on which the strongest reliance may be placed as they are developed through rigorous proof and based on the most fundamental and defensible assumptions. And thus mathematical relationships and rules are appropriate to use in developing and organizing models of the universe. The use of the principles of mathematical probability and statistics is fundamental in developing other fields of knowledge as models for phenomena studied in those fields can be tested to determine compliance with relevant data.

(b) After mathematics, the most certain and reliable knowledge is that derived from the study of the fundamental elements of nature in what are commonly referred to as "the hard sciences." The accepted theories of the rules, or laws, of nature are those that have been proposed and are left standing after a rigorous winnowing process involving experimentation and statistical analysis, which show that particular theories, or models of how some part of the universe works, have more predictive ability than others, i.e. are consistent with new data obtained from experiments. No theory comes with a guarantee that it cannot be improved upon, and the most one can say about a theory is that no superior theory, i.e. one with better predictive value or with equal predictive value but some other advantage (e.g. simpler), has been validated by experiment. Since the depth of analysis, the number of levels of analysis, is unbounded, it seems likely that any theory can be improved upon as the analysis goes deeper and deeper. Fields of study that do not allow for rigorous experimentation and control of all significant variables, e.g. the social sciences, offer much less certainty, and theories in such fields can never achieve the level of certainty or acceptance of those in the hard sciences. However, rules regarding complex processes, that such fields of study focus on, may be developed through extrapolation from more fundamental knowledge from the hard sciences, and such rules may provide some level of predictability, but rules developed through excessive extrapolation should be adopted with great reservation.

(a) Knowledge of general theories and rules does not guarantee any degree of knowledge of a specific phenomenon of nature. We know from elementary mathematics that there are an infinite number of perspectives in space and time from which any specific phenomenon may be analyzed. It is also clear that there are theoretically an infinite number of ways and degrees to which the phenomenon may be divided and represented in the construction of a model of the phenomenon. Thus, with finite resources available it is impossible to guarantee that one has a complete model of any phenomenon at any point in time. And without certainty of having a complete model, and thus with no certainty of knowledge of a phenomenon, assuming only finite models are possible (because of finite resources), all actions of all entities in the universe are never completely predictable, completely known, or even completely knowable from a theoretical perspective.

(b) If a phenomenon is labeled an X(i), note that a causal relationship may be established between an X(i) and some X(i-1), where X(i-1) occurs before X(i) and is within relativity limitations, and a causal relationship may be established for any X(i-n) generally, where n > 1. And there is no limit on the number of X(i-n) that may be established to have causal links with X(i). As the causal relationships are unlimited, some phenomenon X(i) could be described as the result of an unbounded number of other phenomena, each with an unbounded history of causality (infinite number of infinite chains of causality). But models of phenomena are finite (certainly useful models are), and so the phenomena giving rise to X(i), e.g. the X(i-n), cannot be completely detailed in the model constructed to represent X(i) and at best can be generalized or approximated.

The Purpose/Function of Knowledge for an Organism

Possession and use of knowledge developed as a useful tool for organisms struggling to survive in the organisms' environments. An organism survives by making adjustments, or adaptations, by either changing internal settings, those of the organism, or changing the external settings, those of the environment, so that internal settings mesh, find harmony, with external settings in a way that leads to meeting the organism's survival needs. This also applies to meeting reproductive needs, as determined by instinctual desires. This continual process of input, adjustment, and output can be modeled as a self-regenerating circuit (a type of self-sustaining feedback loop). An organism's brain creates internal circuits that model external circuits. A sophisticated brain may even model the organism itself and its internal circuits and even engage in self-reference and self-reference of self-reference, though this self recursion must be cut off at some point as it is of declining utility as it progresses.

The Organization of Knowledge and Use of Models

Organization of knowledge may increase the advantage of possessing knowledge. Organized knowledge can allow for comparisons, facilitate the development of more general and accurate rules, and aid in the elimination of contradictory and useless knowledge that could otherwise become a nuisance.

Organized knowledge can be used to produce a model of any phenomena experienced and can be used to produce a model of the universe itself, the source of all experience, and with analysis can provide a set of rules regarding the relationships of different phenomena in the universe. With a model of the universe, and a set of rules that phenomena in the universe follow, one may predict future phenomena in the universe, including reactions to one's own actions and one's own reactions to those reactions. And thus such a model may be used by an organism to optimize the search for self-regenerating circuits. Note that any such model, as well as its accompanying rules, will always be limited and incomplete and can at best be a gross approximation of the source of phenomena producing the input that is the basis of the model, and of course it follows that the accuracy of predictions is limited by the limits of the model.

(a) A nontrivial model of the universe takes into account that an infinite number of possible sources of energy may create, map onto, a perception of a phenomenon (organism input). Ultimately, all scientific or other analysis can do is provide information regarding the likelihood that different phenomena will occur or reoccur given that other phenomena have been experienced, i.e. provide some form of approximate predictability about phenomenon X(i) given phenomena X(i-1)X(i-j). Note that if Source S(x) and Source S(y) always produce the same input or at least indistinguishable input, i.e. the same perceptions for the observer, say Observer O1, then S(x) will be treated by O1 as identical to S(y), and O1's model for S(x) and S(y) will be identical, even if there may be a difference between S(x) and S(y) to observer O2 (e.g. a typical human observer). S(x) and S(y) may have different effects according to the perceptions of O2 but O1 never experiences those differences. One illustration of this is the science fiction scenario where S(x) is the standard models of the universe, and S(y) is a universe where an alien intelligence inserts electrodes into O1's brain to control O1's perceptions and thoughts. As long as the mimicry is complete and exact for the duration of O1's life, there could be no difference to O1 and S(x) and S(y) could then both provide identical experiences for O1 and O1 would produce identical models of the universe for both S(x) and S(y), even though O2, e.g. the omniscient reader of the science fiction, has quite different models for them.

(b) From the same set of perceptions of phenomena an observer could potentially form an infinite number of hypotheses to explain those perceptions, including an infinite number of hypotheses that each assume different possible individual gods or sets of gods as being the source of the phenomena. That observer could use the perceptions of those same phenomena to argue for any number of models of a god or gods. To put it another way, the same evidence, the same set of recorded observations, can be used to argue for any one theorized god or any number of such gods, including an infinite number. Scientists, for the sake of utility, prefer to use the simplest model of the source of phenomena, with the fewest assumptions (Occam's razor), that is consistent with experience, i.e. with the evidence, and that has predictive value. That is why scientists prefer to avoid models involving a god or gods in developing hypotheses and theories. Theologians do not value utility in choosing the best model of the source of experience, and do not rigorously test predictive value of a model, and so they have no method for winnowing down the possibilities other than their "sacred" texts," which they consider as indisputable fact that any hypothesis must comport with, and so they do not abandon their hypotheses involving gods.

Absolute certainty of the exactness and completeness of information with regard to the phenomenon for which one is constructing a model is impossible to attain even for one moment and even more so for an infinite succession of moments, regardless of the amount or degree of analysis. Also note that analysis is necessary to determine the optimal level of resources to be allocated to analysis of any particular subset of the model, as an infinite number of levels of analysis are possible and so each subset of the model, each problem, could demand infinite resources. Of course the analysis of allocation could also be infinite, and so some guess, e.g. a heuristic, must be followed to determine a cut-off point, though past experiences with costs associated with such analysis tend to provide pressure to reduce the time and energy spent on such analysis, i.e. a perception of declining utility may provide guidance. And note that pre-programmed, genetic, human propensities and abilities may also play a role in determining cut-off points.

D. Consciousness

Consciousness is merely the direct experience of thought, as opposed to a model of thought or of any phenomenon in experience. The duality of existence is between the direct experience and the model of the experience. All that we can communicate, and all that we can explain, are models of experience, not direct experiences. When we form a memory, we form a model of an experience. When we think about experiences we have had, we are creating and manipulating models of experience. When one thinks about past thoughts the images of models (visual, auditory, or other) formed come to mind. Memory may function to record past direct experience, i.e. past consciousness, including the emotional component, but the act of committing such direct experience to memory creates a model of it and so what is remembered is the model, though recalling this model may generate a similar consciousness to the one that produced the model. Most likely any creatures with similar physical characteristics of perception and cognition would have similar experiences of consciousness. But a thinking object or entity that is vastly different from a human brain, such as a computer, could not be expected to have a similar experience.

LIFE CIRCUITS

Life Circuits

Life regenerates itself by creating circuits of a sort (self-sustaining feedback loops). Life processes are programmed by their genetic code, developed through the process of evolution, to search (experimenting with different outputs) for circuits that will provide what the life process requires for continuation, i.e. survival and propagation (the genes that produce such an organism are the ones that continue). The most sophisticated life processes, those of a brain, seek connections between needs and resources to fill those needs, the most fundamental of such needs, those directly connected to survival and propagation, being in some manner to some extent pre-programmed in the brain (possibly what is pre-programmed are propensities towards creating neuronal pathways that create sensitivities to certain forms of stimuli). As those connections are developed, self-regenerating circuits are formed, e.g. as X discovers that water quenches X's thirst, a connection is formed in X's brain between water and quenching thirst, and as X learns that going to the river facilitates X's acquisition of water, a further connection between water and the path to the river is formed, etc So connections in the brain lead to actions that lead to meeting needs that lead to stimulation of reward centers in the brain. And more connections with more strength are formed as a result of the stimulation and the whole process may be viewed as a self-regenerating circuit.

In social or group animals, the self-regenerating circuits often go through members of the group. As relationships are formed between brains, circuits travel through one brain and to the next through communication and then through that brain and then back to the first brain or to other brains in the social group, which may be seen as a larger circuit. Those larger circuits can have sub-circuits just as groups can have subgroups.

Individual and Group Action

The requirements of survival would indicate that individual brains have predispositions toward forming circuits tending to increase the probability of survival of the self and the group, with reproduction being one requirement for group survival. As an individual learns the individual's circuits tend to become more developed and efficient, and when the individuals in a group learn from the group the group's circuits tend to become more developed and efficient as well, particularly when the learning is from others in the group who are behaving consistently with increasing the strength of the group's circuits, which should generally be consistent with improving the group's welfare.

FREEDOM AND THOUGHT

A. Determinism

The fatal flaw of simple determinism results from removing the actor from the universe. The actor is part of the universe and so the actor has part of the power and force of the universe and is a source of causality. The actor is a source of causality like any other force in the universe and the time of the action, in the unbroken chain of actions through time, is as important as any other time in the succession of events. If one models the universe as following deterministic processes, the actor must be viewed as both determiner and determined. The action starts with the actor at a particular time as much as it starts with any other part of the universe at any other time.

B. Free Will

Any X, any actor or object, forms and acts in response to all forces acting upon X, both internal to X and external to X. The internal forces in the brain of a sentient being may be described as comprising "the will." The term "free will" is problematic because it implies an independence from forces of the universe and there can be no such independence.

C. Identity and Will over Time

Human identity over time is approximate, not complete, as all living things change over time (time really is a measure of change). As a human being grows, has experiences, the human brain changes in response to outside stimuli, both in an immediate sense and over time in response to analyses of stimuli. The brain at time T(n) is thus a function of what it was at time T(n-1) and what it experienced between time T(n-1) and time T(n). So the will of the individual at time T(n) is not equal to the will at time T(n-1) and can only be at best approximately equal to what it was at time T(n-1). Actually, at time T(n) the will is the result of the internal forces at time T(n-1), the external forces that impacted the brain through perceptions between T(n-1) and T(n), and any analysis that occurred between the two time points, and of course any biological changes from aging and any disease or injury.

Note that Identity at time T(n), which can be denoted as ID(T(n)), cannot be a very precise term. For an individual to accomplish any act, including the act of completing a thought, it takes some time range, e.g. T(n-1) to T(n). And during that time range, the individual has identity that ranges from ID(T(n-1)) to ID(T(n)).

D. Freedom and Will

The freedom to act in situation S is where there is a will to act by the individual ("will" is the motivation/desires of an individual as determined by the internal brain forces), and an absence of external forces in situation S to prevent or significantly interfere with that act.

Will over time: The will evolves as the individual encounters new energy that shapes the individual's identity through perception and repercussions of perception, including the adoption or formation of new circuits or evolution or diminution of existing ones. The will also evolves because of biological changes, e.g. hormonal changes or the processes of aging, injury, or disease.

Freedom and will in circuits: The will includes the forces from self-regenerating circuits, including those wholly contained in the brain and those that go through other brains, i.e. a group circuit. At an instant, one can represent the force of a group circuit as an internal force, though over a larger time frame it would be more accurately represented as a partially if not mostly external force. Thus, in the smallest time frame following those circuits could be represented as an act of individual will and thus so-called "individual freedom" but in larger time frames it could not.

Manipulation example:

(a) As individual X exerts will in changing the brain (mind) of individual Y (e.g. changing Y's beliefs or understanding), then Y's brain in part becomes an agent of X's brain (X creates a circuit in which Y's brain is included). Then Y's brain may be a function of X's will. If the relationship is symbiotic and the circuit serves Y as well as X or the goals of some larger group then the relationship and circuit may be manipulative but not abusive. If the circuit serves X at the expense of Y, then it is abusive manipulation.

(b) If Y acts as a result of X's creation of the circuit and manipulation of Y, can Y's act be represented as an expression of freedom? It depends on the time frame from which freedom and will are analyzed. From the time frame starting after manipulation T(m+), Y's will was exercised and Y's act may be expressed as an act of Y's individual freedom (ignoring other forces acting on Y besides X). From the time frame before manipulation T(m-), X's will was expressed in Y's actions, and Y's act cannot be expressed as an act of Y's individual freedom.

(c) Note that if X creates a circuit that includes Y's brain and the circuit is beneficial to Y and so X's act is not abusive manipulation, from the time frame before X's influence T(m-), X's will was expressed in Y's actions, and Y's act cannot be expressed as an act of Y's individual freedom.

E. Control

Note that the term "control" most often provides greater clarity if substituted for the term "freedom." Discussions without context about the freedom of X can be misleading as they ignore that X's freedom to act may limit Y's freedom in some way and vice versa. When the term "control" is used, it becomes much more clear that in many situations that X's freedom to do A and Y's freedom to do B are mutually exclusive, i.e. cannot exist together. What X seeks in the freedom to do an act A is control over the environment in some manner so as to allow X to do A. That control may be indirect or it may be in cooperation with others, as in a democracy, but it is critical that X acquire the means to carry out A or the freedom to do A is illusory. And X's control over the environment to do A may be inconsistent with Y's control over the environment to do B.

One example concerns the freedom of speech. In order for X to exercise the freedom of speech, X must be able to control the means to produce the speech and, possibly with government help, control the means to block others from preventing, restricting, inhibiting, or drowning out that speech. Without such control, the freedom would be meaningless.

3. Another example concerns the freedom to control one's own health, which requires control over the quality of the air. In order to exercise the freedom to control one's own health X must be able to limit the freedom of others in the vicinity to create dirty air.

F. Harmony

The harmony that X achieves internally is based on the extent to which X's circuits meet X's needs and that requires harmony between X's circuits and the external environment. The extent to which X achieves harmony, i.e. forms circuits to meet X's needs that are in harmony with the external environment, appears to be the most critical factor in determining X's quality of life.

SYSTEMS OF ETHICS FOR GROUPS

History of Systems of Ethics

1. Humans developed rules of social behavior in order to better regulate behavior within a group of humans, including behavior with regard to other potential members of the group, to improve the welfare and increase the probability of survival of the group, but also probably to some extent to serve the interests of the group elites who made and enforced the rules. Over time, it is likely that humans evolved to appreciate rule-based systems for behavior. As human brains and intellect grew, more sophisticated rules of behavior, systems of ethics, developed and typically were accepted by most individuals in the group, particularly in the groups that would flourish and dominate.

2. For early humans the social circuits involved only small groups, but over time groups merged and populations increased and so the size of the group grew, and the leader of the large group became known as a king and the territory of the large group became known as a nation. And these larger groups prospered only to the extent the circuits within the group were healthy, i.e. consistent with group welfare, and the probability of this increased when rules were developed with regard to what types of circuits, particularly those involving behavior affecting other members of the group, would be allowed or promoted. So rules of ethics can be thought of as limitations on circuits, ideally with the limitations designed to maximize group welfare, though often the limitations were designed to maximize the welfare of the well-positioned group members.

Design of Systems of Ethics

A successful system of ethics must be a function of, be developed consistent with, human motivation potential because rules unlikely to be followed would not achieve their purpose and as a result the group would weaken and would not survive. And the system of ethics that succeeds best maximizes the welfare and probability of survival of the group. So the system should maximize the extent to which strong self-regenerating circuits are available that are consistent with group members' desires and potential desires and consistent with group welfare and survival. There is a strong argument that innate sensitivities to certain types of stimuli, phenomena, were developed through evolution that maximized the probability of survival and welfare of the group. Thus, it appears likely that actions that result in a perception of achieving such goals (survival and welfare of the group) have the potential to take advantage of such innate sensitivities and stimulate pleasure centers, thereby creating healthy self-regenerating circuits for individuals and for the group. And a rule of ethics that guides individuals into choosing such actions, and thereby creating such circuits, would be likely to be adopted and followed by many or most individuals in the group, thus not only increasing the number of healthy self-regenerating circuits but also strengthening its own ethics rule circuit. And it could strengthen the general ethics rules circuit promoting belief and trust in rules of ethics and the advantages of following them -- as it achieves the primary purpose of rules of ethics.

Determining What is the Group

A group is a set of individuals who commonly interact and for that purpose usually have common rules of behavior. Members of a group share certain common circuits that are crucial to their welfare and survival. Groups constantly form and grow and also decline.

Because of the growth of communications technology, international travel, and international trade, communication and interaction across the globe has become common in the 21^st Century and that has created global interconnectedness composed of a great many circuits. So the most fundamental and important choice of group in the 21^st Century has become the entire human race.

D. Manipulation in a Group and Dead-End Circuits

Individuals may produce circuits that involve the manipulation and use of others, which may be characterized by a predatory relationship in which the manipulator gains from the relationship while the one manipulated loses while there is no net gain, and even possibly a loss, for the main social group. Typically deceit is an essential component of such a circuit. Those who are manipulated or used come to feel part of a circuit that takes from them more than it gives back. Often the manipulators make use of primal impulses, e.g. sexual impulses or basic desires for social status, that they connect in the victim's brain to phantom rewards. These are dead-end circuits for those who are manipulated and such individuals become weaker as a result. The manipulators reap all the rewards of such circuits and are strengthened unless a greater circuit that they are subject to, e.g. the main social group, provides punishment for such manipulative behavior.

E. Group Action

Group actions are usually initiated by those identified as leaders, i.e. initiators of new circuits within an existing group or forming a new group. Though the main circuits and sub-circuits of the group may encompass all members of the group, the individual that is the leader might not participate in any strong circuits that encompass all or nearly all members of the group. Sometimes the leader only participates in strong circuits that encompass only a small subset of the group, though the leaders may participate in weaker circuits, particularly ones where the leader is in a dominant position and most are in subservient positions, with all or virtually all members of the group. Note that the leader may engage in manipulation, particularly in the weaker circuits. Also note that in a circuit where there is competition for resources, as the position of some is maximized, the position of others is weakened, particularly when it is the same individuals whose positions are maximized time and time again.

F. Political Economic Cultural Systems (PECS)

Political Economic Cultural Systems (PECS) are highly developed human groups that survive and maintain themselves through the generation of strong self-regenerating circuits. Competition and conflict within a PEC may serve to weaken or strengthen the PEC as a whole, depending on the specifics of the competition or conflict. PECS may even interact with other PECS to form greater PECS or at times may compete and even war with other PECS.

G. Comparative PECS

Example: PEC X is superior to PEC Y in environment E if in E the expected value of the extent to which X meets the needs of X's members, e.g. survival and welfare through establishment of strong self-regenerating circuits, is greater than the expected value of the extent to which Y will meet the needs of Y's members. No PEC may be stated to be superior to another PEC as a blanket statement, i.e. without a specified E or set of Es, because it is virtually certain that for at least some time frames in some environments any arbitrarily chosen system Y will be superior to any other particular system X. Also note that a victory in war between PEC X and PEC Y only proves that PEC X was superior in the war environment and does not prove the superiority of PEC X with respect to any other environment. Also note that PEC X and PEC Y can combine in a postwar environment to form PEC Z, and that PEC Z could very well have been better off had the result of the war been different.

Note that because of the limits of attainable knowledge, by any particular entity in any time frame, because analysis of any phenomena may be unbounded in depth and breadth, and because the complex processes involved in PECS are far removed from the fundamental and reliable knowledge from the hard sciences making extrapolation from such of dubious value, for the foreseeable future theories with regard to optimizing PECS must rely heavily on speculation grounded only in unproved assumptions and anecdotal evidence.

DIRECTIONS

Randomness of Most of History and Current Governments and Institutions

Concept of historical inevitability: Those with power often recognize that their hold on power is tenuous and in large part depends on the acquiescence or at least absence of resistance by others. Thus, they have an interest in convincing others that current trends and forces are irresistible. It aids that argument when they convince others that history and current patterns were historically inevitable and the natural result of unchangeable natural laws and not the result of individual human decisions.

Argument against historical inevitability: Given the exact makeup of the universe at state X1 it may be argued that the universe must evolve into state X2 only one outcome is possible under the application of natural laws. But the exact nature of X1 or any possible X2 is unknown and unknowable. Also, each part of the universe has part of the power and force of the universe and is a source of causality. What happened did happen because of the combination of all forces acting, but the natural laws, the makeup of homo sapiens, the flora and fauna of the earth, the amount of solar radiation, the geography of the earth, and other factors outside human control did not suffice to completely determine what happened. Every force contributed, meaning every decision of every person, however arbitrary or well-thought-out, and every motivation and goal-directed activity had an impact. And when history is studied closely, it becomes apparent that minor forces often contributed in a significant way to determine the outcomes, in a completely unpredictable manner. The very minor and alterable may have changed the outcome and changed succeeding outcomes, and those in control prefer to hide or prevent recognition of that so as to convince the non-elites that they are powerless and should not resist.

Arbitrariness of governments and institutions: It is clearly in the interests of those receiving benefits from any governmental or other institution to defend the current form of that institution, as well as its general purpose, and so propaganda is often generated to achieve that goal. However, it is obvious that an infinite number of forms of any institution are possible, and there are an infinite number of possible institutions to choose from. Furthermore, arguments regarding the optimal set of institutions or the optimal form of such institutions must rely heavily on speculation and anecdotal evidence as the field is far removed from what is demonstrable by scientific experimentation and the application of mathematics. Mostly the institutions that are created and that are continued exist because of their own inertia, the inertia of other related or similar institutions that imply their existence is necessary or inevitable, or the inertia of more general social forces.

Suggestions for future institutions: One promising method for attempting to maximize the harmony and welfare of individuals in the group, while also maximizing the probability of survival of the individuals and the group, would be to design institutions for maximizing the probability of survival of self and group over time, which would entail determining potential healthy and strong self-regenerating circuits that could be created and promoted.

B. Blame

Blame is often assigned in the process of determining new directions for governmental and other social action. This process is often subject to manipulation. Every incident that occurs is the result of infinite chains of causality and every link in those chains could be assigned the blame. An appropriate place to put the blame would be the weakest links, i.e. those easiest to remove, so that reoccurrence of the event can be prevented. However, the repercussions of cutting such links must be considered, including possibly unknown repercussions, so a careful consideration of all factors would be prudent.

C. Interests

Note that one's circuits correspond well with what is often termed "self-interest." So that as one forms more and more broad circuits, with the recognition that such circuits must be re-energized with rewards in order to be maintained, then one's self interest expands and to some extent merges with the community interest. In this way, traditional leftist politics may be seen as an attempt to create broader circuits and more merging between self-interest and community interest, and traditional rightist politics may be seen as an attempt to prevent the expansion of circuits and the expansion of self-interest to the broader community.

D. Superior Direction

There is the potential for the creation of a new system of ethics that can gain broad acceptance. The goal of the new system would be creating self-regenerating circuits consistent with short- and long-term survival needs, the health, the vitality, and the welfare of individuals and the group as a whole. Certainly small circuits, e.g. the circuits of the family, could be of value as they provide immediate rewards and dependable connections. And these small circuits could be woven into larger circuits of communities of larger and larger size.

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.