1. If you want to continue to call it null boolean and not its proper term, ternary logic, fine with me.

And logically you are correct in that it does apply logic that way as a system, however I don’t need a quantum computer, I just need people to use it, because 0, 1, and 2 is both a logic language and a metalogical (psychological) language.

Yes, it is applied to a “whole system psychology” inside of a consensus process, and yes it can account for all possible psychological states that need to be expressed in the consensus process, this is where the tagging comes in, and the tagging gets far more sophisticated from a semantics perspective.

0, 1, and 2 programs the entire platform, by the users themselves. It programs which discussion room they are in, where the context of the conversation is, everything.

The narrative logic is the intuitive side and which accounts for intuitive psychological states.

That’s why, if you are curious about learning more of this unique langauge, looking at it more than just the hard logic ( I call it ternary, its proper term, and you still want to call it conceptual null boolean–but either way thats just one layer) is where the “paraconsistent” comes into play.

I am going to go into detail explaining it to you, you deserve it :)

This is a “whole system” not just “a” system.

So as a whole system, it uses a whole system logic; this means that it must remain consistent no matter what people are talking about, including logically, psychologically, and philosophically.

It must be flexible enough shape with human psychology in consensus, and it must make a place for everything, which it does.

So when a ternary logic is a paraconsistent logic, it means that whatever values A and B represent, the third value MUST be the absorption of both of them, as both of them make up the system of both of them.

What is true and false, absorbed at once?

Mystery (unknown).

What is yes and no, perfectly absorbed? Maybe.

Its these softer semantics that become “tags”, which allows for measurements around things that normally are immesurable.

So that is how it accounts for all possible psychological states as a markup language.

The other psychological states are either collaborative or competitive, where as competitive, divisive, dare I say Bannon type techniques, simply offer no payoff in the system whatsoever.

"Flooding the zone with shit" just creates more work for whomever does it, and it leads to less attention, not more.

Deception, delusion, competition, these activities actually psychologically produce contradictions in high order, and these contradictions simmer down when communication becomes more honest, and trust building has been won.

This system has already been endorsed in numerous areas, and does have application in social media, Twitter for example. It was endorsed by the former CSO from Google Jigsaw, as well as numerous computer scientists, including lawyers, for all sorts of different systems, most of them way over my head.

The walkthrough you saw was for our DAO structure, so the context perhaps was not clear, but you can expect social media tools emerging from this.

The 0, 1, and 2 would just replace the thumb up or down in any system. That’s really what it is doing, removing voting (which is dualistic, and creates competition)

The systems language of 0, 1, and 2 and the markup language of tagging is adjustable, as well as the “narrative theme”, this is customizable to any scenario, in principle.

Also applications in journalism, I’m going to be launching a pilot with a university early next year.

I like to believe that accomplishing all of this without censoring any voice, and by allowing a truly secure pathway for completely rational consensus building, is one of the main features of the design :)

Exactly, try to “game” the system. The rules are only enforced by you and your partner, that’s it.

All users will try to game a system, it is human nature to try to game it. If you try to game the system away from its purpose, everything becomes impossible. If you try to game the system towards its purpose, which is resolution, everything is easy.

“Resolution” is simply the only possible programmatic outcome.

You ask a lot about bias, as in “whose bias is correct?” Well, all viewpoints are going to have a 0, 1, and 2.

A biased view still contains shared information with other viewpoints.

Ex: Bannon is a shit show starter, or Bannon is a visionairy.

While both are two views of Bannon, they both share “Bannon” in common.

It is natural to attempt to want to compare non-dual consensus process with binary consensus, but there is no comparison, because what is still a challenge for you here is that the platform is not making any decisions.

All the platform does is a.) filter our worst natures and b.) incentivize our best natures.

Users who are collaborative will be apart of every consensus, users who are competitive will keep themselves out of every consensus.

You ask “What outcome? If I think I’m always correct, and you have the same view, how is there ever going to be an outcome, especially between two people?” The platform only begins with disagreements, and disagreements are the only pathway into obtaining any write or edit permissions.

If there is no conflict, no disagreement, there is no resolution.

Stalemate will occur between two competitive psychologies, and they will keep themselves out of the consensus.

A competitive psychology will have to adjust to the dominant strategy in the system to compete at all, and that strategy is a collaborative strategy.

You ask " What outcome? If I think I’m always correct, and you have the same view, how is there ever going to be an outcome, especially between two people. Based on what I saw in your video, it seems as long as I stay in the conversation, I can impose my bias or my resolution. However, it also seems if both people stay in the conversation, there can also be a stalemate.

It seems as though I can change one word, say the other person is misleading, and go round and round forever in that type of system."

You can do that, yes, but there wont be any payoff. If you try to game the system to keep your opponent OUT, you are also keeping your self out, while the opponent can still keep the consensus going with another user, and you will be stopped until you account for your contradictions.

You ask about the discussion rooms, as in “how do we get there”. Are you asking me a UI problem? I still dont understand your question, its like you are asking me “how do I get to a Reddit upvote button?”.

All consensus articles have a dedicated discussion forum with three rooms. You get there simply by wishing to participate in an online discussion, and that begins by going through the consensus points, tagging and selecting and commenting. Prompts direct what ever happens next. So there are prompts. Is that what you mean?

You claim the system is not practical, okay. I am many many others, highly qualified in these areas, simply disagree that is the case, and are joining the project to further develop the system.

You say “As I was watching your video, the whole time I’m thinking, what’s stopping Joe and Bob from being completely toxic in the chat bot?”

The chat bot just leaves DMs, its not a conversational medium, chat bot is just guiding users through the narrative events. Users talk to each other, not the chat bot.

Yay, glad its resolved that i am not pro censorship :)

And that means, simultaneously, that "freedom of speech is not freedom of reach" is a design principle for distribution of speech.

Cheers

Rome