[ExI] Critiquing democracy

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Fri Mar 6 17:29:15 UTC 2015

(Warning: this is another plug for Canonizer.com and building consensus in
general, so all you haters may think you want to stick your head in the
ground and censor this post, for whatever reason.)

What matters way more than any particular method of governance, is the
ability to build and measure large scale consensus.  When you think about
it, if you want to accomplish anything, it all depends on building
consensus.  It could be political consensus, to change government
(regardless of the form), financial consensus to start a new company (or to
get an established company to invest in a new project), governmental
consensus, religious consensus, if you want to get Mormons to support
bisexual people, it's all about building and measuring consensus.  For
educating the masses, it's scientific consensus. People can't know what
scientific consensus does, or does not exist, if you can't measure it.

Everything is all about building consensus.  No matter what you want,
getting it is only a matter of building consensus.  Once you have found
enough people that want the same thing you do, it will just happen.  Building
consensus is the only hard part.  Everything else is trivially easy with
enough scale.

All traditional organizations and methods, even modern “democratic” voting
ones are set up in a way that destroys consensus and censors at every level.
Minority experts that see a better way, get censored because of why?
Because there is still not yet consensus.  All systems today find minor
issues where there is disagreement, and all the time and effort focuses on
that, with the most important things everyone wants being a casualty of
that endless polarizing infinitely repetitive war.

And it’s great that everyone is noticing that the same conversations come
up on this list every few years, everyone repeating the same old same old
positions.  There is no memory in the system, no measuring for consensus,
no progress is ever made.  New people have no way of knowing of any
progress that may have been made.  That is, except for the issue of qualia
or the subjective nature of consciousness.  Remember how upset everyone
got, whenever you brought that issues up, at least until Canonizer.com came

Once the participators in that discussion started canonizing their views,
things launched, and the amplification of the wisdom of the extropy crowd
went through the roof.  New people and even high school students could
participate, and it is so exciting to see how fast such people could get up
to speed on what was important, and where everyone stood.  You can see the
current stratospheric state of the art, and the very surprising amount of
consensus we've achieved on the most important things (notice you no longer
need to spend time on the trivial mistakes the bleating herd once focused
on, infinitely repetitively), here:


And for a paper summarizing the theoretical science of mind results
describing how to detect qualia, showing how the so called “hard problem”
is really just a solvable qualitative interpretation problem can be found


Again, everything is all about building and measuring for consensus.
the ability to push small minor disagreeable issues out of the way (to
lower camps) so everyone can finally focus on what is  important, and what
most leading experts agree on, so the entire crowd can amplify their
accelerating wisdom.

If you can build and know, concisely and quantitatively, what EVERYONE
wants, you do not need any rules, or governments or hierarchies or
universities, or bureaucracies.  Once you build enough consensus,
traditional rules and governments no longer matter, everything you want
will just happen.

Brent Allsop

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:26 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Walker
> *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 4:41 AM
> *To:* Rafal Smigrodzki; ExI chat list
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Critiquing democracy
> ### This is also called demarchy, going back to St. Friedrich Hayek. We
> used to discuss this option on ExI, oh, about ten years ago, didn't we?
> Rafal
> >…Everything has been discussed on ExI about ten years ago, including
> whether everything was discussed on ExI about ten years ago.  Mark
> Mark we discussed self-referencing paradox on ExI, about ten years ago.
> Reminders and updates are always welcomed.
> spike
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150306/32b4d530/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list