The Global Knowledge Forum Program – Introduction

 

This document is a brief introduction to the Global Knowledge Forum (GKF) Program. It provides a very brief summary of the:

• purpose of the program
• key problems it addresses
• key components of the solution
• how the process is expected to reach results
• expected participants
• anticipated audiences

Each of these summaries are expanded in the The Global Knowledge Forum Program Overview.

 

Purpose of the Program

The communications processes in modern society have gone over a tipping point. This problem, itself, is now severe enough to cause the collapse of civilization, regardless of the equally severe issues of climate change, resource depletion and over population. Ironically, the climate, resource and population problems are all caused by the communications failures. The primary reason the communication problem, which has always been part of human culture, is occurring now is the explosion of modern technology combined with limitations of human brains.

The human brain has been refined by evolution over millions of years for survival in a primitive natural environment. This refinement was primarily driven to address basic human survival needs. Our brains focus is on quickly processing primary sensory input to generate fast attack or defense (fight or flight) muscle motor responses. The thinking process we call “logical reasoning” was only secondary. It has only been placed under evolutionary pressure since the advent of agriculture and the formation of cities.

That is, despite the hubris of most humans, humans essentially still have Stone Age Brains. (This is discussed at length in an article titled Complexity and Stone Age Brains. )

Now bring in the recent explosion of modern technology. The primary day-to-day challenge humans face, as it has always been, is addressing basic survival needs. All of a sudden, however, within only the last few hundred years, the social interactions we need to comprehend are very different from what our brains have evolved to interact with.

Using just food as an example, to eat as hunter gatherers, we hunted and killed animals and pulled fruit from plants. We learned how to do this by mimcing actions performed by parents and people in our local clan that we had personal contact with. We either lived in a naturally protective shelter – a cave – or a primitive temporary shelter – a tent. The same result today requires dozens of much more complex processes:

• Grow up in a very complex technology driven world.
• Go to school, typically for 10 or more years.
• Learn form many communication forms how to get food, what combinations of food are preferred, how to store it, how to process it for eating.
• Establish a household that includes a complex living environment.
• Find an occupation.
• Get paid some form of token related to what work has been done.
• Establish a bank account to protect and track our tokens.
• Travel to many locations that have food items.
• Bring those food items home. Store them.
• Use special appliances to prepare, and arrange the food to eat.
• Use special services to deal with the packaging material and food waste.
• Use special appliances and chemical to wash and clean the eating utensils and preparation devices.

The human brain has not evolved inherent brain skills beyond those it had in the Stone Age to deal with this. And, remember, this example only addresses the most basic human survival need: a single individual getting food. To make the time element of the problem even more clear, remember, the list of processes presented above did not even exist for the society referred to in the U.S. as “the little house on the prairie” – i.e. only 150 years ago.

If the world had limited both its population growth, and the level of its technology, to what existed in the basic agricultural society of 1880s America, then the earth could have provided a fully sustainable system. But, the capabilities of our Stone Age human brains, and specifically the “logical reasoning” and communication skills, needed of all the individuals of the world to design and manage a larger and more complex “civilization” were, and still are, not up to the task.

This brings up one of the key discoveries behind this program. How could all the amazing technologies we see have been created if “humans” didn’t have the ability to create them? This is a misleading question. It falsely implies that all humans have the same abilities. They don’t. True “creative” skills only occur in a very few humans. Looking back in history, how many humans do we know with the level of creativity that we saw with Leonardo da Vinci or Archimedes? Once those few inventors presented a truly unique breakthrough, then many other 2nd level creatives could produce many variations. Once those variations were produced, regular “craftsman” could duplicate the breakthrough.

The next question to answer is, are the breakthroughs safe for humanity? Stated from a different viewpoint, who is responsible for the 3rd level of introduction? Is it the inventor? Usually no; nor the craftsman. The major distribution of a new product is usually a large number of copiers. And then comes the most relevant question. Do these large number of copiers take the responsibility to determine the safety of the breakthrough? That answer is clearly NO.

This provides an answer to the first question. Only a very few key breakthroughs, from a very small number of creative people were needed to explain all the technology we now have. The explosion of products that use those technologies only required Stone Age principles in the hands of Stone Age thinkers.

What the GKF program is attempting to do is comprehensively collect and analyze the pertinent underlying information behind all the unfolding collapses to determine if and how world sustainability can be achieved.

 

Key problems it addresses

Recent research suggests that the most significant problem world society faces is a collapse of the ability of even the most prestigious governments, universities and specialized coordinating bodies, like the United nations, to sufficiently understand the current problems. The research also suggests that these failures, which are commonly referred to as grid-lock, politics, and polarization, are due to serious problems in human communication. The GKF program was developed based on the research discoveries that explain these communication failures. In summary:

• Humans learn language first as emotion and sensory pattern matching, not as reason or logic. That means in adult conversation, the emotional element is still processed first and easily blocks logical reasoning.

• Typical stream of consciousness communications like email, forums, news and academic articles are easily derailed by emotional trigger words.

• Most language is learned as a local dialect. This means, the meaning of words varies drastically from location to location. When people from different places have discussions, they frequently misunderstand what they hear.

• When dictionaries and encyclopedias are created, they do not have a goal of establishing precise word meanings. Their goal is listing the most common uses of words. That is, listed words frequently show multiple meanings. If these variations are not clarified during discussions, drawing logical conclusions fails. Examples of dictionaries that do attempt to list words with specific meanings are legal and medical dictionaries.

• Stream of consciousness discussions are totally inadequate for complex topics for many reasons. These are summarized on the Justification for Structured Dialog page. Two examples are: complex topics require simultaneous consideration of many subtopics and external references; multiple people in such a conversation want to pursue different fine points. In typical emails or forums, this leads to wandering discussions.

• For most discussion formats, there is no effective way to capture any wisdom or knowledge improvements that are made. The discussion is simply lost to the “Internet Landfill”. To adequately address any complex topic, wisdom produced during a discussion process must be captured in a structured system in real time.

 

Key components of the solution process

The key components that make up the solution process are:

1.  A novel “Structured Discussion” process. This process uses a novel “Structure Forum” to coordinate the collection and analysis of a comprehensive knowledge foundation.

2.  A novel “Knowledge Map”. This is a temporary knowledge repository which can be accessed quickly for reference in parallel with forum discussions. Specifically, this repository must hold all the knowledge needed to reach answers to all major questions.

3.  An annotated “Reference Index”. This is a conveniently available bibliography of reference material related to the information on the MAP. Specifically, the full collection of needed knowledge will greatly exceed the ability of any human or even groups of humans to use directly as decision material. A big part of the program will be the creation of annotations that capture the primary conclusions and “proof” logic of the “primary” reference material. The “Reference Index” provides the traceable paths to the primary material.

 

How the process is expected to reach results

The fundamental discoveries behind this program show how Stone Age human thinking has corrupted humanity’s primary basis for communication: human language. The discoveries then show how human brain limitations also corrupt information transfer, especially when dealing with complex topics. Once these corrupting factors are understood, ways to eliminate them become clear. The approach to a solution can be summarized as follows:

1.  Collect a comprehensive knowledge foundation.
Not only are the “mainstream” beliefs captured, but a full complement of alternative views. Alternative here means both variations within the mainstream logic, but also criticisms of mainstream ideas, alternative views, dissident views and even related false claims. Each view captured should have a full analysis that evaluates its impact on the mainstream belief.

2.  When sufficient doubt exists in any “mainstream” concept that a substantial “consensus” does not emerge, an analysis must occur to resolve all the word definition and logic issues. The analysis must continue until the underlying barriers to consensus are understood and explained in detail.

3.  A solid process of unifying the knowledge foundation, by itself, is expected to resolve most of the problems we now see. Where lack of consensus still remains, it will primarily be due to lack of sufficient empirical data. But the process will identify what data is missing. While efforts are directed to get that data, statistical values will be settable for what is known.

4.  Each step taken above will also suggest significant changes that society needs to make in our cultural foundation.

 

Expected participants

The primary expected participants will be world experts in topic areas. These, however, may not include those with the highest prominence on the world stage. They have gained their positions with a specific world view. Since the new process will challenge some element of almost every existing position, many of them will view the process as a threat. I have been repeatedly turned away and told that my breakthrough ideas would upset on-going funding which took years to establish. That is, truth and knowledge were not their highest priority.

The second source of participants will be any individual who has experience gathering factual data and honestly organizing it. This opens the door to the entire academic community. It also includes many retired researchers. But, importantly, it includes non-academics as well; people like science writers, social thinkers, and those who just want to help with data management.

It’s important to comment on who the process will exclude. This effort is not open to the general public for posting. There will be ways for the general public to “watch” what’s going on. But, one of the primary reasons for the collapse of current social media and “user groups” has been the onslaught of “Trolls”. Many of them are actually “brilliant” fact gatherers – i.e. bare knowledge. But they flaunt the need to “respect” the rigor and difficulty of searching for truth. Any overt attack on any member or the character of a person will be grounds for immediate removal.

 

Anticipated audiences

There are many audiences for the information that this process is expected to produce:

• Any school of learning, at any level. They will gain from both the output wisdom and learning the processes used.

• All national and local governments and NGO coordinating agencies – i.e. the United Nations

• Every individual or business in the world seeking to make sound decisions for a sustainable future.

• Every organization that focuses on communications with society – i.e. the news media, documentary videos, talks shows etc.