richwil replied 13 years ago (Apr 6th 2010, 9:02:37 pm)
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!"