[ExI] Digital Consciousness .

[Brent Allsop]

Theoreticians,

Very good points!  The entire purpose of creating Canonizer.com, was on 
the premise that communication and terminology is the biggest problem, 
possibly the only thing standing in the way of a significant scientific 
discovery (the mappable relationship of qualities, to their particular 
underlying physics.)  Before canonizer.com, you could never even start a 
conversation with most other people, especially if they were in a 
different field, until you spent hours and days, trying to agree on what 
various ways of saying things means.

The goal is to survey for, so we can know, concisely and quantitatively, 
how everyone still currently thinks about this stuff, and for those in 
the camp with the least problems, to be able to collaboratively point 
out the problems in other camps, especially the most popular ones, in a 
way that is from the target audiences point of view, from within their 
current theoretical model, using their preferred language.

This includes the most efficient development of any required improved 
language terminology.  The most effecient and definitive way to 
determine the best terminology, is to build consensus around, and survey 
for what the most people consider to be the best way to say things.  By 
default, everyone should use the state of the art of the most popular 
expert consensus terminology.

On the Canonizer.com main page, you can set the "namespace" to be 
"/terminology/".  When you do this you will find survey topics for 
things like:

"What is the Best word to mean communication that which is ineffable"

and so on.

So feel free to participate in this survey or to start any other 
proposed surveys for new definitions, and I will always use whatever the 
state of the art expert consensus says, is the best terminology to use.

Brent Allsop






On 4/30/2013 7:25 PM, spike wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
> ...
>
>> ...btw, spike:  what do you propose for the name of the unit of
> quantitative measure of a quale?  (not to be confused with Quayle)
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Dunno.  Quant is taken.  Quante?  Many quante are a quantia?
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat