[ExI] Canonizer 2.0

Sun Dec 23 16:57:08 UTC 2018

I am highly critical of people who don't just say something - they make
pronouncements, on topics they can't possibly understand without a
doctorate or just tons of study.

So I would not my my two, or possibly, one cent opinion in on
consciousness, global warming and many others.  Chat group members have
kindly advised me that some of my opinions are just not right - don't
square with evidence - so I have become a bit shy about my opinions and
certainly don't make pronouncements about anything outside my maid area -
psychology - and many things in psychology I have not studied, or am not up
on, and so on.

But outside the two you mention, I certainly would like to offer my opinion
on topics you will have on your website.  Keep me posted.

bill w

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:10 AM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I'm glad that helps, at least a bit.  Thanks so much for your interest,
> and for asking questions, rather than just dismissing.  Since we want to
> get the largest possible sample sets, anything you, or anyone else could do
> to indicate your currenting thinking about things like Consciousness would
> certainly be helpful.  For example, what are your thoughts about the
> emerging leading consensus "Representational Qualia Theory" solution to the
> so called "hard problem" of consciousness or "explanatory gap"?
>
> https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6
>
> Do you agree with the experts and think it works to bridge the explanatory
> gap and resolve the so called hard problem, allowing us to "eff the
> ineffable"?  If so, you could easily join that camp by selecting the "Join
> or directly support" button.  Do you think any of the other competing camps
> are better?  You could do the same for that.  Or if you have another
> theoretical possibility that hasn't been canonized in a camp yet, that
> would help to.
>
> And you, or anyone could do the same on any of the other topics you have
> any beliefs about.  In the future we will have canonizer algorithms that
> give the people that were in the right camps, before anyone else, much
> higher weight.  So the more people that are right, sooner, the higher your
> trusted reputation will be in the future.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 4:32 PM William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20181223/1b8bb287/attachment.html>