Picture of the author
Topic :
Thread Created at Invalid date | Started by
Number of Post in this thread: 10Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
Brent_Allsop replied 13 years ago (Apr 10th 2010, 8:09:28 am)
Hi Richwil, Thanks for the great feedback. I've made a bunch of these changes and thinking about them all. As far as adding graphics, your idea would be great but I'm not a graphic artist, and it looks like since color posters are so expensive, we'll be doing it in black and white. I don't mean to attack Chalmers at all, only the body of 20K publications for which it is impossible for anyone to fully approach. Chalmers is definitely a hero for at least creating and classifying it all with his great bibliography. How could I say this, without it sounding like an attack on Chalmers? I've removed the reference to Chalmers, for now, and just mentioned the 20K+ publications in the field. I do think it is important to say more than just "science will discover the answers, do you agree?" The definitive way to first know if we have done this, is when there is a clear scientific consensus emerging - and I think this is already happening for many critical ideas. It's just that since nobody is measuring for this consensus, nobody can see how much consensus there already is, or what the experts already know about many critical ideas such as that perception is representational and the importance of qualia.... Brent Allsop
richwil replied 13 years ago (Apr 6th 2010, 9:02:37 pm)
Brent Good to see you spreading the word with your poster. How about adding a picture or two such as a bright pink brain with a big rainbow question mark on it? "Without you, the survey will not be complete" is better not bulleted as it's a heading. Why not change it for "Our survey needs you!" ? "Much of the people" should be "Many people". Surely the reason why most budget guardians won't finance consciousness research is because the problem is outside their remit: you mean to finger those who do have the problem within their remit but have other priorities. Is it wise to attack Chalmers? Why not acknowledge his valuable contribution and say how we are complementing it, actively building structure and consensus? Instead of "Eventually science will disprove the incorrect theories, as indicated when the experts abandon all but the one theory science demonstrates to be valid.", how about "We believe that science will, sooner or later, discover the answer to the problem of consciousness. Do you agree?"? Don't see the appeal of stating "Who will be the first supporters of the one science ultimately proves valid?" Suggest changing "Help educate everyone which could enable what might become the greatest scientific discovery of all time by supporting the best theories" to "You could be part of making the greatest scientific discovery of all time by supporting the best theories and or suggesting your own." Suggest changing "All good sources of information..." to "Sources of information tend to be..." Suggest deleting the negative and dubious "Obviously there is lots of pent up demand for people with bad theories, everyone trying desperately to get such published - but failing. All these crowds tend to flock to canonizer.com, but already the good theories and important information are clearly rising to the top. Arguably already much more so than in the 20K+ publications contained in the censored 'scientific literature'." Suggest replacing " including that contained in the scientific publications - stops. You get the eternal yes it is, no it isn't - repeated in all the literature over and over again, on less important nit picking issues. The only way to know you are in a particular camp - today - is to publish yet another paper saying the same thing as all who agree with you have already done. And even with this, it is arguable and can be contested as to who is in agreement with what, even if someone did attempt to make a claim of such." with " including that contained in the scientific publications - can get bogged down in the eternal yes it is, no it isn't merry-go-round. Arguments degenerate into nit-picking and so the important issues are side-lined. Our aim is to cut through this mess by building clear camp statements and voting on them to arrive at a consensus." Suggest replace "While the lesser important more disagreeable doctrines, like what qualia are, and so on, are concisely and quantitatively represented in the supporting sub camp trees." with "Whether or not you agree, come and have a look and participate in solving the greatest problem on earth!"
Brent_Allsop replied 13 years ago (Apr 4th 2010, 6:37:13 am)
Theoreticians, I've got a power point draft of the poster for the presentation at TSC the week after next [http://canonizer.com/files/2010_TSC_Poster.ppt here]. I'd love to hear any feedback from anyone. I'm also going to be carrying around a petition trying to get people's signatures and e-mail addresses (so I can harass them later to do it here.) For the content of the petition statement, I'm planning on using a printout of the updated statement in the "Is the Topic of 'Qualia' Appropriate at Conferences on the Mind?" camp supporting qualia [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/91/2 here]. (be sure to click the 'include review' option on the side bar to get the latest version that will not go live till Wed Apr 7.) It starts out with: "We believe neural research to be by far the most important of all scientific endeavors of today. We believe that such has a good probability of leading to the greatest scientific discovery of all time - what and how consciousness is. We believe more scientific funding should be applied to this field of study than any other field of science." because I want to demonstrate the power of the open petition like nature of things, and how hopefully good causes can become a real viral movement for good in the world. Then it goes into the importance of qualia to this research and so on. Of course, if more of you would support this camp that would help immensely. If anyone has any other ideas of how to better help push our effort here forward and make things more comprehensive, I'm all ears! Upward, Brent Allsop P.S. If you don't make clean up changes to your camps soon, they will likely not be live in time for TSC which start Mon Apr 12.
Brent_Allsop replied 14 years ago (Dec 1st 2009, 6:51:04 am)
I'm about to submit the proposed abstract for TSC 2010. Before I did, I wanted to create a summary topic that lists all the survey topics related to consciousness, includes the abstract, specifies the goals, describes the current state of the project, and so on. [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/105/1 Consciousness Survey Project] I just did this draft in a quick and dirty version of this topic in time so I could include a link to it in the abstract proposal for more, information. I hope we can greatly improve it. This is all stuff you've heard me say over and over gain. And of course, as always, I would love to have any feedback thoughts, or suggestions of ways to improve it. Thanks! Brent Allsop
Brent_Allsop replied 14 years ago (Nov 30th 2009, 1:54:30 am)
Ken, Ah, good call. I just added these to the just uploaded Nov 29th version. Thanks Brent
KenCook replied 14 years ago (Nov 29th 2009, 12:59:19 am)
Add as keywords: "collaboratively communication" and "agreements" ? After all these are what it is all about.
Brent_Allsop replied 14 years ago (Nov 28th 2009, 9:08:53 pm)
Hi Folks, Grey, I appreciate the response and am sorry to here of your health problems. I understand, completely, money problems. I'm very glad I live relatively close to Tuscon (SLC, Utah) so I can barely afford to go myself. One need not be attending be able to be included as a co-author for this project. Steven Lehar, for one, has graciously volunteered to help out and be included as one of the co-authors. He's been helping me significantly improve the Abstract and I have the latest version updated to the same spot [http://canonizer.com/files/2010_TSC_Abstract_Proposal.doc here]. I would like to submit this before Dec 1, so will probably submit this Monday Nov 31. So if anyone else would like to have their name included as a co-author, please let me know before then. Thanks! Brent Allsop
Grey replied 14 years ago (Nov 24th 2009, 7:11:18 pm)
Sorry Brent, Health won't let me attend, and money is in short supply, but good luck!
Brent_Allsop replied 14 years ago (Nov 24th 2009, 10:40:58 am)
It would be very productive if we could put on a presentation at the upcoming TSC 2010 conference. Towards this end I'm working on a draft of a proposed "Abstract" for such with the title: '''Scientific Consensus, The importance of measuring for and methods for tracking such.''' The deadline for submission is Dec 15. I keep a copy of my most up to date version of the draft abstract [http://canonizer.com/files/2010_TSC_Abstract_Proposal.doc here]. I of course would love to have any assistance if anyone is interested in reviewing and such. I have no idea how to go about doing something like this. It would be great to have one or more co-authors, even if you did not plan on attending and all you did was review what we have and are just willing to explicitly support the effort by adding your name to the effort as a co-author. I really think knowing concisely and quantitatively what all the experts believe could cause a revolution in this field of study. Thanks!! Brent Allsop
Brent_Allsop replied 14 years ago (Oct 17th 2009, 11:54:00 pm)
Folks, Is anyone here planning on attending the [http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/Tucson2010EnterConferenceSite.htm "TOWARD A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS 2010"] Conference in Tucson AZ Apr 13-17? I'm planning on attending and would sure like to meet all of you some day. Brent Allsop