Hi, I am having massive formatting issues with medium, so forgive the multiple posts previously.
“First, I went and read sections of your white paper, the reddit thread and your medium article on Non-Dual Consensus. I wish I had done this WAY sooner…”
That is very much appreciated! Truly! But it is not required to understand our disagreement, it is merely an example of how distribution can address these problems while not censoring any voice.
Now, you believe this is flawed, but everything you mention tells me that you have not fully read or digested the paper (which is okay!) but all of your assumptions are in the actual paper.
I will address each one below
1. Boolean is not a paraconsistent logic, nor is it an organizing principle. 0, 1, and 2 is both a ternary paraconsistent logic and an organizing principle, this enables us to “do more with less”
2. It is solely because 012 is an organizing principle that we can assign psychological aspects (and very elegantly as well). Don’t confuse the organizing principle with the logical faculties, they are distinct.
3.The system never determines what is rational or toxic, that is decided by the community and the quality of the discussions.
4. “Toxic” information has nothing to do with the truth value, it has to do with the intention of the creator. If I say 1 plus 1 = 2 you stinking monkey, that is toxic communication.
5. You assume the process “assumes honesty” and this is furthest from the truth, it is the exact opposite; the system ASSUMES it will be gamed and assumes bad faith, manipulation, deceit, and delusion. The system requires disagreement for it to produce a resolution.
6. The system assumes human nature will try to game it.
7. Of course we are all biased, that is the point of non-dual consensus building, to identify our “shared” values as distinguished from our bias.
8. A “chicken or an egg problem” is a problem of dualistic or binary logic, not paraconsistent logic, which is A.) Chicken B.) Egg C. Both Chicken and Egg
9. We have our funding accounted for. We just completed the algorithm for this in 2020 and 2021, and launched our own fund as a part of a symposium of new technologies addressing web 2.0
9. You're just uninformed on the rest of your commentary, I give live demonstrations all the time.
I welcome you to watch a live demonstration https://bigmotherdao.com/dao-governance/
10. “According to your system, who wins our debate? I mean I know I did, but how does your system possibly ever classify it especially when people stopped using the clap feature?”
Nondual consensus building’s programmatic feature is “win-win”.
You are welcome to believe you are winning the conversation, that is the point.
However if you think you have “won” because you have lessened the value, the logic, the rationality of what I have been saying, you would be sorely mistaken!
