The problem with people are that they hear and see what they want to; that their perception of truth is subjective; and that their will to supplant the rights of another person when it come to me or them is pretty much universal.
So how does computer program accommodate the perception paradox? We both see the same thing and yet we see it differently. What is my truth is not necessarily your truth. What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. The age old problem of perception has always been exacerbated by the self-interest and self-delusion.
The global mind records everything. Our actions, reactions, words, and physiological state of being. If a disagreement occurs it is easy to replay the last interaction in which the disagreement revolves. That is only part of the issue.
” I still think I am right, I don’t care what we just watched.”
The algorithms of the global mind compare the circumstances against the average, mean, medium, and the mode of each situation which are being collected and indexed constantly. Over time the values of a society are being quantified and qualified. In any given situation the algorithm passes judgment announces the verdict. Restitution is made and the appropriate value is assigned to the parties involved. If the judgment is protested it is logged and referenced for future consideration as the global mind database is amassed. On the anniversary date the decision is reviewed and affirmed or in rare cases revised as data reinforces the change of societal values.
This presumes that the leading edge of change is counter to the accepted norm and the first evidence of change is not viewed as congruent with the current values but over time and with each occurrence the change of value is represented in the data and gradually affects the calculations.
At first the judgments of the global mind were submitted to human juries, appealed to human courts and new algorithms were developed until the incident of appeal was so small that people simply didn’t think about it. The actions of an individual were so closely scrutinized that atypical behavior was quickly identified and the relative value of it being beneficial was entered into the database. Because of the normalization of data the tendency to stifle innovation was too great. The problem was that abnormal behavior would not be calculated positively. However, the global mind was programed to not squelch but to accommodate because innovation comes from opposition. Any behavior that was out of parameter for the current setting would be referred to a second algorithm, which would seek comparable circumstance instances where the abnormal would be more normal and without taking the individual out his setting the behavior could progress under a different scrutiny.
If the behavior proved to be completely disruptive then a change of venue would be directed and unless the behavior was completely antisocial the individual would be allowed to associate with like-minded individuals and societies.