Picture of the author
Topic :
Restructuring this topic?
Thread Created at Jan 1st 2013, 9:52:58 pm | Started by Sam123
Number of Post in this thread: 2
Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
Sam123 replied 11 years ago (Jan 2nd 2013, 7:58:18 am)
Hi Brent, Thanks for your guidance, I am now able to get easy with the system, initially I thought its bit complicated but now having some understanding of what it is like. Just need to get clear about these things first: 1. I must know the system first, how it works and then plan accordingly. 2. The agreement statement should be a short one, to get consensus and support/contention anyway. So it should simply be a statement 3. The camp statement supporting the agreement statement it is where i could push my thoughts up there, be elaborate or descriptive, and perhaps can put in some original ideas, WHICH, I suppose could again be contended by someone else who might have something else to say, in a "no" camp. 4. Now, what if I would like to continue with the discussion under research/new findings or anything other supporting my agreement statement? Shall I create more camps with subheadings as subtopics or start with a new topic? 5. and finally, how can i recruit new supporters? who are the new supporters who can support me, and how do i get to them? Thanks for your help Brent. Best Regards, Sidharta Chatterjee
Brent_Allsop replied 11 years ago (Jan 1st 2013, 9:52:58 pm)
Hi Sam123, I agree with much that is described in this topic and set of camps, but not sure how to best support this. For example, you seem to have added a survey questions as a sub camp of the main agreement statement. If there is a survey question, the best place to put that is usually in the agreement statement, where the purpose of the topic is defined. The problem is, if I support either the yes or no camp, it implies I don't agree with anything in the sibling (i.e. competing) "Artificial Minds and Synthetic Thoughts" camp - yet I agree with most of what is over there? Finally, it's not good to make assumptions about camps that might be competitor ideas to your camp. It usually best to just start with one petition like camp which you think is the best theory, and start recruiting new supporters - only creating new camps when absolutely necessary. As an example, to me a 'robot' is, by definition, just an abstracted or non phenomenal system. So, since phenomenal knowledge is required for true 'self consciousness', it makes it hard for me to join any of the camps. And I do believe it is possible to create artificial consciousness, I just wouldn't call it a robot. Also, it is possible for a robot to be 'self aware' in a non phenomenal or non conscious way, but all this kind of detail and such is not possible to specify or survey for in this structure as you currently have it? Perhaps you can more concisely state the purpose (remove as much unnecessary stuff as possible) of the topic in the agreement statement, and then just add one camp describing exactly what you currently believe. Then, if I agree with all that, I can also sign your petition, or join your camp. Only if there is something we disagree on, (probably some very minor issues) will we need to then negotiate to create two sub camps below the supper camp, representing these minor differences. That way all the most important stuff and definitions we agree on can be in the supper experts consensus petition camp, along with a good concisely stated survey of the lessor things we disagree with, if any? Thanks for your continued work to add all this great content to the system! Brent Allsop