Picture of the author
Topic :
Thread Created at Invalid date | Started by
Number of Post in this thread: 11Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
Brent_Allsop replied 12 years ago (Mar 16th 2012, 5:43:51 pm)
Theoreticians, I'm excited that TSC 2012 is only about 4 weeks away. I'm working on the [http://canonizer.com/files/2012_TSC_Poster.ppt poster] we're going to put up in the poster session, and the [http://canonizer.com/files/2012_TSC_survey_flier.docx survey flier] I'm going to be handing out to as many people as we can that asks if people are a Material or a Functional property dualist. There is clear consensus on almost everything, with most people that will attend TSC, till you get down to this level, and we don't yet have enough sample data to know if there is a consensus, or not, at this level. I'm betting there is also already a clear consensus even at this level, so it is going to be fun to ask as many experts as possible, what they currently believe, to find out for sure. Either way, it should be very easy for the neural scientists to demonstrate which of these is right, once they know what to look for (i.e. us theoreticians can effectively educate them about such.) So I hope you'll all review the poster, and the flier, and let me know your thoughts, or if you know of any way to improve things. In the poster, I've somewhat arbitrarily selected some camps, over others, to simplify things. If anyone is upset about their camp being left off, or whatever, please let me know, so we can see if we can work out some version that is justified, and makes everyone happy? Who else is going to be there this year? Upwards, Brent Allsop
John Clem replied 12 years ago (Nov 13th 2011, 8:37:56 am)
I would be careful. You may be jumping the gun. The LHC has not yet demonstrated that SUSY does not exist. It just does not look promising, and it if true eliminates most of string theory in its present form. I doubt if you want to be the one to make that announcement.
Brent_Allsop replied 12 years ago (Nov 13th 2011, 7:47:51 am)
Hi John, Are you kidding me? Wow, an honest to God falsified theory of consciousness. That is big news. Thanks for this info! Hey, I was once in the camp that assumed the universe would end in a big crunch. There's no shame in being wrong like that, is there? Looking forward to seeing your camp get updated / or seeing what new camp you join. And this has been very educational, quantum wise, to watch this. Do you mind if I use this as a great example of one of the first canonized camps to be falsified by demonstrable science? Folks, you saw it here, all canonized and recorded for posterity's sake. Unless you say otherwise, consider your name added as a co-other. Brent Allsop
John Clem replied 12 years ago (Nov 13th 2011, 6:35:33 am)
The LHC experiment appears to be taking the Supersymmetry out of String Theory, and therefore removing the basis of my consciousness theory. So at this time I suggest that it may be counterproductive to include me as a co-author. The same may apply to other higher dimensional theories based on string theory. John
John Clem replied 12 years ago (Nov 13th 2011, 6:35:22 am)
The LHC experiment appears to be taking the Supersymmetry out of String Theory, and therefore removing the basis of my consciousness theory. So at this time I suggest that it may be counterproductive to include me as a co-author. The same may apply to other higher dimensional theories based on string theory. John
Brent_Allsop replied 12 years ago (Nov 13th 2011, 6:15:28 am)
Theoreticians, OK, I've taken all the great feedback and produced a much improved draft of the abstract I soon intend to submit (included below) for [http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/ TSC 2012]. Any other ideas of how to make it better? So far these people are willing to have their names included as co-authors on the submittal: * Simon Raggett * Richard Wilson * Steven Lehar Thanks Guys! Are there any of you new guys that recently joined interested in lending us your names to give us support? JLCarrol, are you listening, you have a PhD. Would you be willing to lend your name to the effort? Anyone else? Last call... Upwards, Brent Allsop =============== '''Rigorously building and measuring for scientific consensus.''' Our goal with the Consciousness Survey Project ( http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/105 ) is building as much consensus as possible on the most important things; determining the most concise and unified language to describe such; and rigorously measuring for consensus in a way that allows everyone to definitively see any falsified trends. For several years now, volunteers have been attending conferences, interviewing, surveying for, and 'canonizing' experts views. Our tool is the all volunteer driven, leaderless, crowd-sourced, wiki with camps, bottom up, open survey system being developed at Canonizer.com. The diverse set of publications, previous attempts at surveys, Wikipedia, the internet... all seem to support the pervasive belief that there is no expert consensus on much of anything in this field. While our results are still far from comprehensive, it already appears that, after all, there could be a significant amount of consensus on many important things. To date, it has never been possible for as many diverse experts as we have participating, to develop any kind of consensus on much of anything. The current consensus clearly indicates the most fundamental issue to be whether or not consciousness is approachable via science. About 33 of the 35 participators agree that it is. At the next level down, surprisingly, there is almost as much consensus around what the experts recently unanimously agreed to call "Representational Qualia Theory". (http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 ) There is clear expert consensus on many issues at this level, such as where redness is located (not on the surface of the strawberry) and about the "Quale Interpretation Problem" describing why quale are ineffable and how to overcome such. Below this are various competing theories about just what redness is including the leading "Mind-Brain Identity" camp. At this level, finally, some significant supported competing camps start to appear such as "Higher-dimensional Theories" and "Panexperientialism". Things start to get even more dynamic at the next level down, where David Chalmers' "Functional Property Dualism" established a clear early lead. Despite this camps continued growth, the competing "Functional Property Dualism" camp seems to be on the verge of overtaking this lead. Where Chalmers predicts if you have the right 'functionality', regardless of if it is neurons, computer chips... you will get redness. Material Property dualists are predicting that it is the right material that has redness, and without it, there is no redness. This minority, yet accelerating camp includes Hameroff's Orch OR theory, which assumes we need to descend below the quantum level to solve this riddle while a lesser camp is predicting ineffable properties can just as easily be observed and effed in any classical or macro level system - maybe even in bouncing billiard balls, sunsets, and so on. Our goal is to expand this survey to include all leading experts and theories in this field and to track the developments until science falsifies all but one theory, forcing all experts to adopt the theory with the highest objective support.
richwil replied 12 years ago (Oct 31st 2011, 7:44:59 pm)
Count me in too, Brent. The quantum magic epithet for Orch OR is IMO appropriate but then i'm a biologist who believes that microtubules have nothing to do with consciousness :) Agreed that your piece shouldn't be pejorative, however, so best to leave the word "magic" out of it.
Junius replied 12 years ago (Oct 31st 2011, 6:19:20 pm)
I agree with rolfk about 'magic' and 'weirdness'. Magic implies something outside of science, while weirdness implies some special extreme case that we don't need to bother about. The argument that quantum rules are the norm and classical/macroscopic rules are a special case might be nearer to the truth. It might be better to talk about classical/macroscopic versus fundamental physics as Penrose type ideas involve not only quantum theory but require some form of theory of spacetime. Junius
Brent_Allsop replied 12 years ago (Oct 31st 2011, 9:22:42 am)
Hi Junius, Thanks! I'll add your name as a co-author. Also, I got a personal e-mail from [https://canonizer.com/support_list.asp?nick_name_id=222 rolfk], one of the newest supporters of the Representational Qualia Camp. He included an attached document where he made some great comments and significantly improved on my very poor English. Thank you so much Rolf. I hope you don't mind if I reply to your e-mail here, so I can include others in this discussion. One of my particularly bad sentences was the second to the last one in the first paragraph where I try to cram a description of the canonizer tool we are using in one run on sentence. We can't increase the number of words, so perhaps someone can provide a better description than what I have, without increasing the number of words (or possibly point out some other words that are less important?) Also, Rolf had some great comments about the fact that my usage of the words "magic" and "weirdness" unnecessarily denigrated quantum theory. So I also wondered if anyone had any suggested ways of briefly describing the differences between these two camps without being negative or anything? Thanks for all the help, this is fantastic! Brent Allsop
Junius replied 12 years ago (Oct 31st 2011, 12:43:18 am)
By all means include my name as interested/involved etc. I'm unlikley to make the conference until such time as its back in Europe as I have an aversion to both the cost and experience of long haul travel. However, if there was some substantial reason I could reconsider. Junius