How to accomodate a "meteor" that affects the consesus?
From:
Michael Allan
Date:
Feb 18 09:10 UTC
Short link
Robert Leming wrote:
> What happens in these models of consensus if an event simply changes the
> field? Is it back to start?
On the technical side, it's easy to answer (at least for a
systems-head). Consensus is dynamic, so the model must be dynamic.
In society, consensus exists in human memory. It forms and maintains
itself in response to a continual process of discourse. It shifts in
response to external events (as you suggest), or reflexively, in
response to itself. It is reinterpreted and renegotiated on the fly.
It eventually dissipates.
We can model memory as texts. We can model consent as votes. Changes
in textual content and/or movement of votes between texts would thus
model a dynamic consensus. None of that is difficult, technically.
But what then happens on the social side? Consensus will form,
persist, and adapt. Every consensus that forms will find allies in
government (and elsewhere). Action follows. If action fails, then a
reason becomes known. Consensus then self-corrects. Over time, the
community attains competence. Over time, the community attains
whatever it aspires to.
We know what government aspires to (power). We know what a business
aspires to (money). Who can predict what a community will aspire to?
(Not this systems-head.)