I have not seen any proof that such a system would fare better than our current one, so I cannot support it

You’re likely not going to find any; it’s just an idea at this point.

Some important details are being left out.

I do apologize, if you have any questions or even recommendations I would be happy to discuss it with you. I don’t have it all completely hashed out yet and I welcome your input and critique.

To what extent is this going to be applied to our governance? If this were implemented in the US, would it stop at our federal government, or would each individual state/municipality have this system?

I proposed the idea regarding the federal government but I suppose it could serve as a blueprint for just about any size of administration, even business conferences or town hall meetings.

Since you mentioned that this would replace having one elected president, would this simply replace the function of our executive branch?

Executive and legislative branch. But I still acknowledge the benefit of having representatives elected by the people as well as a judicial system… I just abhor the way they get elected a lot of times, I strongly believe that a nation of critical thinkers would be less inclined to elect representatives based on rhetoric and instead base their decisions on practical reasons.

Which "problems" in particular would this computer program be solving that current computer data generating engines wouldn't?

Computer tech is continually growing; it’s not so much about what this one would do that the current models don’t. Current models will be updated and/or replaced eventually as new tech is developed.

To my knowledge, a computer module with a code reflecting critical thinking attributes is not used by our administration the way that I proposed. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the current computers, just that they’re not actualized for the potential benefit they can serve in reducing the amount of control and corruption select individuals have over the country.

Would there be a section for discussion on each facet of public policy?

Yes. I imagine a forum that separates like-topics into groups for discussion, accessible at any time of the day. And maybe a separate forum for the actual real-time discussion events for people to observe and comment.

Would this computer interpret the feedback and send a synopsis of the views expressed on the forum to these experts?

Yes, that is exactly what I imagine. The computer module could facilitate in the mention of particular issues to be addressed and during the deliberation it could serve as a visual reference with scientific data and graphics. Throughout the meetings, it could provide feedback from the public based on the frequency of particular issues being addressed and their relevance.

I understand that there are a number of experts in various fields included within government meetings, as well as relevant reporting and data collection being done, but I think it would be more beneficial to bring the computer, the experts and the public out from the back burner and become more of a arbitrator or focal point during discussions within the administration.

To give you an example, I picture in my head a large circular table with a large hole in the middle containing a concave computer which generates an interface of various holographic projections for reference. Whoever is speaking could be speaking to the team via projection or, if more beneficial, a detailed graphic serving as a visual aid could be generated to offer people better understanding to what the speaker is proposing. Any questions or concerns that the team or observing public has, any calculations or data analysis that needs attention could be simplified and illustrated via the computer. Another person could then go off the original idea that was proposed and build upon it, or s/he could propose a completely different solution; the computer can calculate each idea's effectiveness to the given problem or even suggest more efficient solutions based on the input it receives all the while pointing out flawed reasoning and logical fallicies should they occur.

I'm not trying to imply that we need to implement this change ASAP, as I mentioned to another commenter:

"What I’m more concerned with is if people would accept this idea on the following merits:

1. The use of a ‘critical thinking’ computer module helping to reduce the amount of human error, bias, corruption and irrational reasoning.

2. Recognition of the fields that can actually serve as a benefit to a society as opposed to a system run by lawyers and bankers.

3. Encouragement of a system that places value in critical thought instead of persuasive propaganda for direction.

4. Allow for an open observation, participation and evaluation of government meetings by the public."

You bring up a lot of great questions. This is obviously still an abstract concept, but please continue to bring up these relevant points.

I do like the idea, but I am against the institution of government.

I am as well. But this is mainly because I detest the systems that have been tried or are currently in effect.

At its core I do not have a problem with the idea of a community of people gathering together in discussion and arriving at some sort of consensus. I do not consider government an inherently bad thing just because so many systems have failed to represent the people and succumbed to corruption, I consider that failure a fault and offer a potential solution.

I would not claim that the average person needs governance in order to make sure they do what’s “right.” But I do acknowledge the overall benefit and strength of a people united in a cause.

I'd rather have a small and minimally powerful government than this complex system.

The system proposed doesn’t really present a large size or complexity, it can work at a micro level; like cities or counties if you prefer.

What I’m more concerned with is if people would accept this idea on the following merits:

1. The use of a ‘critical thinking’ computer module helping to reduce the amount of human error, bias, corruption and irrational reasoning.

2. Recognition of the fields that can actually serve as a benefit to a society as opposed to a system run by lawyers and bankers.

3. Encouragement of a system that places value in critical thought instead of persuasive propaganda for direction.

4. Allow for an open observation, participation and evaluation of government meetings by the public.

I realize these should have been more explicit in the description, but theres a limited amount of space.

It may work well, but I am sure that taxation, moral law, business ventures, and other things shall still be regulated by this institution of government.

Only in as much as they should.

Personally, I think individuals should have the right to opt out of any affiliation or contribution to a community. This, of course, would bring with it the exclusion from various community based benefits. i.e. you can opt out of paying taxes, but that means you forfeit your right to benefit from the taxes generated by the community (public school, public roads, law enforcement, etc.) I’d rather not debate this point here however, perhaps another time.