[ExI] Fwd: New article: EM Field Theory of Consciousness

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Sun Jun 19 18:16:47 UTC 2022

Thanks Mike,

Adrian mentioned "expected censorship" and even Mike mentioned "curation",
but there is none of that on Canonizer.  If you support a camp, you have
editorial control of that camp, so it won't deviate from what you believe,
you just can't stop someone from creating and then doing the same with a
competing camp.  Beyond that it is about falsifiability to force consensus,
and you see this occurring in real time.  All the Theories of Consciousness
topic <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/1-Agreement>
is. is  a concise and quantitative representation of what the 65 or so
people currently participating believe, as THEY have curated their camps,
and as it progresses towards consensus over time.

The bleating and tweeting that is done in forums like this and everywhere
else (including heavely censored peer reviewed journals) just polarizes
everyone, and to me is an infinitely repetitive waste of time.  The
arguments that thrive in that environment are the ones that are most snarky
and get retweeted and referenced (both pro and con) the most, while at
Canonizer, we can track how many people a mew argument converts.  If you
publish something that converts thousands of people, that is a good


On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 11:56 AM Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022, 12:26 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 7:19 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> Sure, people can make the argument that this is because I'm the one most
>>> active in recruiting people.  But I argue that IF there is a better theory,
>>> with better arguments, people will see that, and the better theory will
>>> gain more consensus, and RQT will be proven wrong.
>> Not if you continue to be by far the more active recruiter, with those
>> who might be able to post a convincing counter-theory seeing Canonizer as
>> "Brent's site" where it is not worth the effort to post things that Brent
>> disagrees with (whether due to expected censorship, preaching to an
>> audience that sides with Brent out of personal loyalty rather than
>> seriously thinking about the issue, or whatever reason).
> If any criticism of "Brent's site" I don't think you can argue Brent is
> champion of any specific bias - the whole point is to qualify "camps" so
> transparency and completeness can be featured as support for the prevailing
> camp.
> That one might assert "i don't care enough to bother with establishing a
> camp" while at the same time writing pages of opinion on list/forums might
> speak more to the 'chore' associated with curation on Canonizer... it might
> also speak to the unwillingness of the author to be "on the record"
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220619/d9d60677/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list