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

[Brent Allsop]

Yes, thank you Colin,

Getting your theory published like that is huge, and I like to take it even
further than that.  I want to find out how many people the peer reviewed
arguments do and and still don't convert, and why.
That is why we created Canonizer, to build and track this kind of
consensus.  So far, there is a consensus emerging around "Representational
Qualia Theory
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/6-Representational-Qualia>".
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.  As Colin says he values
being proven wrong, I do too.   I've been trying for years to get one of
the many popular consensus "Naive Realist" theory supporters to put their
theory up, as a competing camp to RQT, but so far I have failed.  Nobody is
willing to do it.  I argue that this says a lot about someone's theory.  If
you can't even get it published, and/or you are not willing to put your
theory up in a camp, where people who see issues with your theory can
create a competing camp, is such a theory worth anyone's time?

Collin, as I've been saying, we need to get your EM theory canonized, so we
can track how many people still aren't yet on board.  What would be the
best name for this EM theory?









On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 2:19 AM Colin Hales via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 1:20 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 1:51 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> One of these days, I'll figure out how to describe this simple concept,
>>> and everyone will finally get it.  Clearly, I haven't succeeded in
>>> describing this to anyone here, yet.
>>>
>>
>> Is it not possible that at least some people here understand exactly what
>> you are talking about and, based on the evidence, disagree?
>>
>
> Sure! Write it all up, construct the arguments, get it peer reviewed and
> published, like I did, and then I'll happily engage with it. I don't mind
> being proved wrong. I don't mind changing my mind with a well posed
> evidence based approach that has been properly peer reviewed. Bring it on.
> Send me an email when you're done.
>
> regards,
> Colin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c921ea40/attachment.htm>