It’s sort of there. But I think it’s missing the main point, that we don’t tell

It’s sort of there. But I think it’s missing the main point, that we don’t tell people what they must do other than defend one another’s interests – we only tell them what they may not do – such that anything that is not bad (criminal, unethical, immoral) is either neutral or good, and as such all of evolutionary computation of opportunities in reality remains open for investication innovation and siezure.

So instead of telling a computer what to do (via positiva) we use the same form of grammar and logic to tell people what they must not do (via negativa).

WHy? Machines aren’t embodied and experiencing the real world through the sme measurs as humans are, and as such they don’t have all the constant ideas that h umans do or the instincts that humans do. So they need positiva programming.

Conversely humans only need via-negativa RULES of what not to do (limts, boundaries)

Reply addressees: @Josh_Ebner