[ExI] Fwd: Fwd: About your "Open Letter on Brain Preservation" petition signature

[Giulio Prisco]

Forwarding from Brent who cannot post to the list.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com>
Date: Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: About your "Open Letter on Brain Preservation"
petition signature
To: giulio at gmail.com



Hi Giulio,

There is a current problem with the ExI list server, and it will not
accept posts from me.  Max, Spike and people are working on the
problem.  So I wondered if you would be interested in forwarding this
response to the ExI list?

Thanks,

Brent Allsop

=======================================================

Giulio,

In my opinion, such primitive petitions are, and this petition
specifically, is inefficient, immoral and hateful.

* *I don't agree with everything as currently stated:*  For one thing,
for me, using words like 'demand', is far to strong.  I hope for
perfect justice some day, so I'm good with other's getting what they
want first, trusting that such is an investment in the future, and
they'll have to eventually make it up to me.  There is much there that
I do agree with, and I don't want to lose the fact that some people
want to use words like 'demand'.  Petitions systems like canonizer.com
supports all such.  You can include everything everyone agrees on, in
the higher level supper 'camps', and include supporting sub camps,
some using strong words like 'demand' and some not, so you can get a
precise, quantitative measure of just what everyone thinks on all
this.  And this is not to mention the various diverse beliefs about
what are the best methods (chemical, cryogenic, whole body...) for
preservation... for which this statement is obviously needlessly
biased towards one.

* *Primitive*:  Once I, or anyone, invest effort in signing such a
petition, it is locked in stone and can never change.  Going in to the
future, this petition will  get progressively out of date and
worthless as the world changes, and there are specific needs to come
in the future, that such should be able to adapt to, as they occur.
Modern petition systems, such as the one at canonizer.com, do  not
suffer from this problem.  The statement can always improve in a
collaborative wiki way, as long as all supporters don't object during
the 1 week proposed change review period.

* *Inefficient:* The original authors of any such system are condemned
to spending an infinite amount of time in a futile effort trying to
survey for what everyone thinks is the best way to say whatever it
says.  Either that or try to forcefly twist the words to say just what
only the original authors want, in a way that will hopefully not keep
to many people from not signing it.  It is impossible for any one to
ever achieve this perfectly with such a system.  Modern wiki open
survey systems like canonizer.com don't suffer from this problem, and
everyone can work together to come up with very efficient ways to
collaboratively develop concise and quantitative representations of
precisely what everyone believes.  And it changes very dynamically
going forward, so it can hallways be up to date as scientific data
falsifies various beliefs and so on causing people to jump camps.
Also, if people aren't interested in participating in dialogue and
descussion, or aren't an expert on a particular moral topic, they can
delegate their vote to another supporter, and thereby still fully and
efficiently be counted and involved.

* *Immoral and hateful*:  Because of the way primitive petitions like
this work, it is apparent that those pushing for signatures, hate and
want to destroy or ignore anyone with any different point of view or
differing wants.  To me, any time one fails to acknowledge any
diversity of desire, it is hateful.  Canonizer.com does not suffer
from this, as there is room for all desires to be developed, concisely
stated, quantitatively measured, and most importantly - acknowledged.

* *No way to know who signatories are:* With canonizer.com, you can
browse through all the supporters of any camp, and find out who they
are, what reputation they have, what other beliefs they have, and so
on.  You can specify algorithms to select people with values that
match your own, to survey specifically what people you trust (while
ignoring people with values you don't trust) believe... (and, if
desired or necessary, people can 'support' petitions anonymously, and
of course, if the reader wants, they will be able to filter such
support out....)

And another similar petition has already started here
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/86 (obviously still needs a lot more
work), so starting up and spending time on yet another one, that will
likely be worthless in a few years, it seems to me, fractures
everything and is a big waste of time.

Brent Allsop


Giulio Prisco wrote:
>
> I wish to encourage everyone to sign this petition:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I
> recently signed:
>
> "Open Letter on Brain Preservation"
> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/brainpreservation/
>
> I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage
> you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes just a few seconds
> of your time.
>
> Thanks!
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>