[ExI] mind body dualism

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Tue Jun 29 01:57:48 UTC 2010

On 6/28/2010 7:59 AM, x at extropica.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Ben Zaiboc<bbenzai at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> To clarify things, you need to start precisely defining terms, and most people are just not interested in doing that.  They know what they mean and if other people don't, well, it's just tough.  Some people even use Humpty-Dumpty's tactic, and change the normal meaning of a word to suit themselves.
> Yes, many people fail to distinguish between "minds" (a matter of
> function) and "selves" (a matter of identification.)  Then they
> compound the confusion with the Aristotelian (A = A) assumption of
> discreteness: that a particular mind is the same regardless of the
> environment of interaction (necessary to any process), or that a
> particular "self" is the same self regardless of the observer
> (necessary to any identification.)
> We will imagine/discuss/create so much more after we get past these basics.
> - Jef
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

And there are many other problems.  While some theories have been 
falsified, they haven't been sufficiently falsified for absolutely 
everyone to give up their charished beliefs.  Also, there are still many 
theories that are still in the running for  being "THE ONE".  And of 
course, any time someone states something for one camp or another, 
everyone else in all the other camps feel compelled to explain why all 
other theories but their own are wrong.  And this is always done in half 
backed off the cuff ways, with little or no work to make a good concise 
statement.  There is never any summary going on with concise statements 
about what the net net of the conversation was, so it is all lost in the 
archive forever, where nobody can benefit from it.

Another critical problem is, as soon as anyone agrees, the conversation 
stops.  No reason to publish or say the same thing yet again.  The only 
time people say things is when they disagree.  Leading to a very false 
perception that there is no agree on anything, when in reality there is 
a great amount of agreement, especially amongst the experts.

All of the problems everyone else has mentioned, and these problems, and 
so much more do not exist with the canonizer.com Consciousness Survey 
Project comunication system (see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/105 ).  
All the people in similare camps can effeciently collaboratively develop 
the best statements and arguments as a team, and you can get a rigorous 
quantitative measure of how convincing each set of arguments are by how 
many people are in each camp.  And the best part by far, is you don't 
have to ever repeat yourself again, in some lazy  half baked way - you 
just say I'm in the expert consensus unanimously just agreed to call 
"Representational Qualia Theory" at:  http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6.

Finally no more confusion about the words, what you believe, or 
anything.  Everyone can find out very easily from the concise statement.

And the most important part is having the definitive indication of who 
is in what camps; the very exciting horse race way in which the leading 
camps pass each other - as ever more arguments and demonstrable 
scientific proof come in.

We are clearly in a state much like when Galileo when he was one of the 
first in the heliocentric solar system camps, while the rest of the 
world was in the geocentric camp.  Today, most people think a red quale 
is a property of a strawberry reflecting 650nm light.  But as is being 
proved as ever more experts participate in the survey, and as the 
"Representational Qualia Theory" continues to extend the amount of 
scientific consensus (see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/53/11) it has, 
it is clere that  like in Galeleos time, the experts now clearly know 
the way things really are.

There is now 4 years worth of extensive conversations and debates that 
have taken place in the camp forums, by experts like Chalmers, Hameroff, 
Lehar, Smythies, and so many more, to argue for and develop these 
concise camp statements.  And anyone can get up to speed on all this 4 
year history almost instantly by reading the camp statements.

It's going to be fun to see how long it takes for the rest of the 
general population consensus to finally realize and catch up to what the 
experts consensus evidently already is.

Brent Allsop

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list