Candidate: I find your writings very interesting. I've read through your web-page and believe I understand your concepts and view. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks as though you are striving to obtain purpose through logical patterns of life existence?

I've read through most of Michael's bio and various thoughts. I still need to read the rest of the bio information and Dima's info. Your website strikes me as intellectual, and takes an intelligent approach to your concept.

One point I would like to make about your writings is that they seem to be somewhat contrary. For instance you paint a picture of social influence determining social behavior in today's environment, but your experiment is designed to achieve the exact same thing only on a "logical" playing field. With this line of reasoning you are not impartial, just singularly directional. In essence replicating what is currently in place, but "improving" the social decor.

From what I've read you seem to be convinced that your society and social surroundings have influenced you to act the way you have. Now you are defecting from those influences and coming to your own reasoning for existence, and searching for others that reflect the same views.

Please keep in mind I mean no disrespect on your views this is just my observation of what I have read on your web-site. One question I have for you is can you, or anyone else ever be totally bias?

I'm writing you from work so I'm going to cut this short. I will continue my email from home.

Talk with you later.

Dima: Your reply isn't too unusual, but this week I've been responding to any email that goes in. In a way everything you say is accurate, I've presented similar arguments to myself in my mind. By the way, I am the individual who is Dima's profile, though Dima is an alias.

Can you give me more background and profile information on yourself? From the profiles posted you have some essential information about us and this kind of information often helps in establishing a common language for first communication.

I would ask that you clarify your point in the 3rd paragraph where you state:

"For instance you paint a picture of social influence determining social behavior in today's environment, but your experiment is designed to achieve the exact same thing only on a "logical" playing field."

Do you see any alternative? Human behavior will always be influenced by their environment, if that factor is unchanging then the only option is to create a scenario where this environment is controlled logically rather then randomly. Maybe eventually in such an environment a better intelligence can be engineered that is no longer controlled by it's social surroundings, however, at the moment we have no means to pursue this and thus no need to concider this possibility.

You also say what we describe is nothing but an improvement to social order, and I will disagree. It is completely opposite of present social order. The present social order is governed by micro-competitive systems -- that is, systems that compete for dominance against each other with no other goal. The structure we describe seeks to eliminate micro-competition and turn it toward macro-competition -- all structures collaborating toward a singular logically derived goal.

Most of the statements you make are "fact-based". That is, they state something that is arguably true but with no point, expressed or implied. By stating:
"From what I've read you seem to be convinced that your society and social surroundings have influenced you to act the way you have. Now you are defecting from those influences and coming to your own reasoning for existence, and searching for others that reflect the same views."

you fail to suggest and alternative form of action. The alternative to "fact-based" logic is what we called "decision-based" logic. Its presumption is that the action with the best logical chance of success will be taken. So even if there is no way to be certain that our views aren't just another influence of this society that does not provide sufficient reason to abandon all actions. We will act the best way we logically can based on our limited information.

Since there is nothing that can be proven to 100% certainty, for every argument there is a counter argument. This flawed method of reasoning is part of what keeps this society in balance. It is flawed because it fails to consider that even if certainty can not be reached the action with the highest logical odds of success should be taken.

You can create endless counter arguments, but I predict none will contain a more logical alternative to the actions described on our site. If you do come up with a more logical alternative to our actions we would accept that alternative.

Candidate: Thanks for writing back.

I'll attempt to clarify some of my points and then give you a little background.

First I think I should point out that 80 - 90 percent of communication is defining terms and reaching a level ground for understanding. So as we come across points of concern we need to decipher what is actually being meant in the terminology used.

With that said, I do not believe social surroundings "make" the person. Influence comes into play, but people still hold accountability for their own actions. To clarify this point I will use a simple illustration such as shoes.

We have tons of options on the type of shoes we could wear, but as individuals we choose a pair of shoes to fit our bodies and our comfort range. Now I'm referring to shoes that you wear for pleasure not because of a job demand or a particular activity (which may dictate the type of shoe you wear). Some people buy what looks good, some buy what feels good, some make their own because they do not like what is offered or have the capability to make a better shoe for themselves.

Social "influence" may come in to play for some people, but others are not influenced by social surroundings in making this decision. Some decisions may be made purely out of need, which negates social influence completely.

Therefore if you build a society on "logic" you will still have people who will go against logical thinking and practices. The one thing we are all born with is the ability to choose. You choose to go to work, or you choose to stay home. Social influence may play a part or it may not, but the choice is still yours.

I think changing the mindset of individuals will have a greater impact on social surroundings than changing the surroundings or the influence. Teaching people how to think for themselves and not become a lemming is the real challenge.

One of the things that impresses me is your intellect. I can tell you are educated and a deep thinker. Unfortunately this is a rare quality in our society. One thing that puzzles me is the amount of research you've done on some of your topics and the amount of disregard you have for history. Keep in mind I'm only going by what you have written in the web-page I have no first hand knowledge of your personal studies.

It appears you have scratched the surface on many topics and came to a rather quick conclusion on the subject at hand. You talk briefly about religion and evolution (I'm choosing these two because I've only read that far in the bio's). The experiences you've had with religion seem to be more of a brush with religious people or a few writings you've encountered.

Have you ever taken a some time and studied the origins of God and studied the actual writings of the bible? Where you aware that the bible of the Jews is the old testament of the Christians? Both of those bibles are a collection of 66 books written over hundreds of years? ( I could go on with the Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Buddhist, etc..)

Have you read any of the writings of Darwin? Have you researched the methods he used to date items? Did you know Darwin questioned his own theories?

I'm not attacking you here these are sincere questions. I haven't read the rest of your writings (but will) I'm just curious how you are coming to some of your conclusions. I know that some of this studying seems tedious, but if you really want to know something you need to dig in and research to truly understand something.

Getting to what you said in your email:

There are many things in this world that can be proven to 100% certainty. Boil water and the results will be the same everytime. Which has always risen the question in my mind if we are constantly evolving why doesn't the basic elements of functional existence change? Gravity has always stayed the same, why? In my mind something must be keeping it the same. What?

Here is a little of my history. In grade school (I believe around sixth grade) I was tested for my comprehension level, and it was found that I was at a post college level. I came from a lower middle class family with few luxuries. We never needed for anything, but never had the best of anything either.

I have somewhat of a photographic memory (but I also believe everyone has that to some degree they just have to learn how to tap into that). I'm an extrovert (thus why I work in sales), but have many introvert qualities because I can focus for long periods of time without interruption till project completion.

I feel I have a purpose in life and will share that purpose with anyone who asks, and go into detail on why I believe what I believe.

Here is another clip from your email I'd like to comment on:

My purpose in writing you is not to create a counter argument, but to understand what it is you think and why. You have went to great lengths to build a web-site devoted to your thinking. That tells me you seem serious about your views.

Challenging a view point is not necessarily a counter argument. Sometimes it's needed to reach a greater understanding of the person you are communicating with. If I've come off as argumentative I apologize, that is not my intention.

I'll look forward to you comments.