[ExI] Canonizer 2.0

Sat Dec 22 23:30:06 UTC 2018

This is much clearer - I think.  You are setting up a forum for people to
post their ideas and data, and are not generating any data or vetting any
data.  You are letting users do that.  It does sound like a very good idea
and I'd probably get involved, which is not the same thing as saying that
it has any market value.

I am not in a position to contribute to you or anybody - sorry.

I would be glad to offer any suggestions and receive any emails that you
send out.  I appreciate the time you have spent answering me.

bill w

On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 2:32 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Bill,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the continued feedback and questions.  That really helps!  I’m
> realizing we are completely failing at communicating about the Canonizer
> use model.  In traditional systems, you do, indeed, need vetting.  But
> Canonizer is completely different.
>
>
>
> Canonizer’s use model us more like Wikipedia, where the crowd does the
> vetting.  Wikipedia works great if everyone agrees, but if someone
> disagrees, currently, you end up with polarizing edit wars.  With
> Canonizer, when disagreement shows up in Wikipedia, instead of an edit war,
> you just say: OK, we’ve discovered disagreement, so let’s move the
> disagreeable part over to canonizer – where both competing camps can be
> represented in multiple camps, concisely and quantitatively – everyone
> getting what they want in a win win way.
>
>
>
> Canonizer.com is for theoretical fields where there is not yet a
> scientific census.  Consciousness is a good example field.  Currently, in
> this field, everyone writes a book or article.  First, they classify the
> field into the way they perceive the various competing camps, then they
> point out the flaws they think they see in these camps.  However, they
> often get this wrong, their ideological religions polarize things, and the
> criticisms usually are just talking past each other.
>
>
>
> They present their own theory, in their own language (different than
> everyone else’s language) and from their own unique religious (including
> atheism) point of view.  Since every expert has their own book, in their
> own language, from their own point of view – it gives the perception that
> nobody agrees on anything.  Because everyone is using different ambiguous
> language, nobody can communicate.  Nobody talks about what people agree
> on.  And everyone ends up focusing on minor disagreements – completely
> missing any consensus that may exist.
>
>
>
> With canonizer, the first person starts the competition by creating their
> own camp on the topic.  Then when a competing camp comes along, you build
> as much consensus as possible (canonizing the best terminology and so on
> through continued negotiation) and build a supper camp on what people can
> agree on (usually the most important doctrines where most people do agree,
> like “approachable via science”).  Everyone is highly motivated to find
> some terminology to agree on, because forking the camp reduces the
> consensus and influence of your camp.  More and more competing camps can
> show up, pointing out different yet to be falsified theories.  Obviously,
> the more diversity the better, as you want to capture and test for all
> theoretical possibilities.
>
>
>
> The focus is always on falsifiability.  Everyone is encouraged to come up
> with and describe experiments that could validate their camp (or falsify
> it).  We ask everyone: “What would falsify your theory, and force you into
> a competing theory?  With this theoretical information, the
> experimentalists can then perform the experiments being described that
> people agree would falsify their camp.
>
>
> Good arguments also work.  You can measure the quality of a new argument,
> by how many people it converts - these can rise to the top and be focused
> on.  Ultimately, the experiments are done till there is one remaining camp
> that can’t be falsified.  We’ve already seen one camp on at Canonizer.com
> be falsified, by data coming from the large hadron collider.  Being able to
> track things like this makes it better than a very dramatic sporting
> competition, with definite leaders and losers in the competition as more
> camps are falsified.
>
>
>
> Unlike a traditional survey, At canonizer.com getting everyone into the
> same camp (or at least as few camps as possible – what communicating
> concisely and quantitatively means and how you measure progress) is the
> ultimate goal.  Once you get everyone into the same single camp, by
> experimentally falsifying all the others, you know, rigorously and
> definitively, you have finally achieved a “scientific consensus”.  Then,
> you can throw it back to Wikipedia, since everyone now agrees.  Then you
> move onto the next yet to be resolved scientific controversy, where you
> start the competition over – continuing the amplification of the wisdom of
> the crowd process, significantly accelerating the scientific process, and
> knowing, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants.
>
>
>
> Does that help?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:47 PM William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Next, we want to use it for things like global warming.  I can’t wait to
>> see what kind of consensus people can really find on supposedly important
>> topics like that.
>> Now my question is:  who are the people?  National surveys?  Surveys of
>> the intelligentsia?  Vetting other surveys done by, say, National Science
>> Foundation or some other like Roper?  If you are going to actually perform
>> surveys, then you need psychometricians/social psychologists so avoid
>> asking question in a biased way, or in such a way as to get biased answers,
>> and to survey people in a statistically appropriate way.
>>
>>  We want to find, build consensus around, measure it rigorously, what
>> people agree on  with room for any different points of view.
>>
>> On the topic of consciousness citing people like Dennett, you are likely
>> to find high reliability - same answers next year.  On topics like global
>> warming, you are likely to find variations, sometimes wide, in what people
>> think today and last year and next year.
>>
>> I guess some of my concerns are about: are you going to vet other data
>> for rigor, or are you going to produce raw data and who is going to vet
>> yours?
>>
>> bill w
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:22 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> William,
>>>
>>> You seem to be thinking of this as a traditional survey.  It is not!
>>> When David Chalmers herd about our survey, he had the same concerns you
>>> did.  The egghead stole my idea, but thought he could do it better, so he
>>> did it the traditional way:
>>>
>>> https://philpapers.org/surveys/
>>>
>>> That was a disaster, and it just falsely reinforced the belief everyone
>>> had that there was no consensus, whatsoever in this field.
>>>
>>> Traditional surveys are about what people disagree on.  We want to find,
>>> build consensus arround, measure it rigorously, what people agree on  with
>>> room for any different points of view.  A very different task.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM William Flynn Wallace <
>>> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> to brent alsop\
>>>>
>>>> I went to the website and still don't quite know what you are up to.
>>>> If it is any kind of surveying, questionnaires, etc.,  I want to know who
>>>> you have and what are their qualifications.  Designing these things takes
>>>> experts.  I am a social psychologist and know very well that you can sway
>>>> opinions wildly and inaccurately by the designs - the wording of the
>>>> questions, etc..
>>>> bill w
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cool!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brent where the heck have you been man?  Seems like a long time since
>>>>> we heard from ya.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> spike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> *On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 8:56 AM
>>>>> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>>>>> *Cc:* Jim Bennett <jim at bennettgrouputah.com>
>>>>> *Subject:* [ExI] Canonizer 2.0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi fellow extropians,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who haven't heard, now that we have a little Ether money,
>>>>> we've launched Canonizer 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My Partner Jim Bennett just put together this video:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://vimeo.com/307590745
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone is interested in "investing"  (legally, we need to call it
>>>>> donating, at least for now - till we do our canonizer security token
>>>>> offering.) to help move things forward, let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brent Allsop
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181222/9505d188/attachment.html>