Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Steve Lehar takes early lead as top 'Mind Expert'

Expand Messages
  • Brent Allsop
    Hi Michael, ... perhaps, next, we should have peers rank who they think are the top Phlogiston Experts , or the top Cycle and Epi-cycle Experts (from
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 31, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Michael,

      Michael Cecil wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > The goal of the 'Mind Experts' topic here:
      > >
      > > http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/81
      > >
      > > is to have 'peers' rank who they think are the top 'Mind Experts'.
      >
      > And, as long as we are talking about things which do not even exist;
      perhaps, next, we should have 'peers' rank who they 'think' are the top
      "Phlogiston Experts", or the top "Cycle and Epi-cycle Experts" (from the
      Ptolemaic system).
      >

      You are completely missing the point. The problem you are pointing out
      already exists in our hierarchical 'ivory tower' and religious
      establishment society today. The majority tends to abuse the minority.
      All but what is well accepted by the masses is excommunicated or
      censored. The goal of canonizer.com is to address and improve this
      situation your are pointing out, not make it worse as you are accusing.

      Everyone knows that the majority does not dictate truth. A good example
      is when there was near perfect consensus amongst physicists that F = M *
      A. (and your examples of phlogiston and so on are also good examples of
      the majority being abusively wrong.) When Einstein came along he was the
      first in his 'camp'. And finally the evidence proved his new minority
      camp was THE right camp or at least a much better camp. And everyone
      quickly jumped to his camp. Canonizer.com is simply a comprehensive,
      rigorous and quantitative way to measure and track these types of
      processes. And to allow such to happen much more efficiently.

      Unlike all journals, religious 'canonon' and everything else in society
      today, nothing is cencored at canonier.com. It is a comprehensive
      survey of what everyone believes or wants. Yet the quality is
      maintained by allowing readers of the data to prioritize or 'filter'
      stuff any way they want by selecting their own personal 'canonizer' on
      the side bar.

      There is also history built in, so when people like Einstein do show up,
      they can be detected much sooner, tracked, and given much higher
      reputations by future canonizer algorithms, so these correct camps can
      be brought forward much more efficiently. All the intelligent and wise
      people (Not just the few Einsteins) that recognize the 'right' camps
      first, before everyone else, can be given much more influence the next
      time around. This already happens today for a few, but this process
      makes it much more comprehensive, rigorous, and quantitative. It
      enables the good data to stand out from the noise of the ignorant masses
      by rigorously tracking and quantifying it all for everyone - especially
      the more intelligent minority camps that might otherwise be censored by
      the hierarchies.

      > (And, in another few hundred years, I suggest we will have precisely
      similar views about such so-called 'Mind Experts'; such a paradigm
      having long been recognized as being fundamentally deficient.)
      >
      > >If you think there are better ways
      > > to think about consciousness,
      >
      > No, I don't.
      >
      > The problem is with the assumption that thought itself is the only
      way to understand consciousness.

      But this is precisely what you think is a better way to think about it.
      Which, like most ways to think about it, at least some people probably
      disagree with it.

      > > we also invite you to get just what you
      > > believe 'canonized' collaboratively with everyone else that may share
      > > your beliefs.
      >
      > It is a question of observation rather than belief.
      > Belief originates in thought.
      >
      > But, according to Eastern esotericists such as J. Krishnamurti, the
      best way to understand the mechanisms of human consciousness is to
      observe them directly without thought.
      > >

      This is precisely the kind of information we would like to concisely
      collect while quantitatively measuring how many people (and who for
      reputation purposes) think this way since when, and for how long.

      > > May the best theories become the most well developed and supported.
      >
      > I suggest what is needed here is more than a theory.

      Whatever it is that is 'more than a theory', one still should be able to
      state it concisely, or at least as best as is possible, and
      quantitatively measure how many people think that way right?

      Precisely that is one of the goals at http://canonizer.com

      Brent Allsop
    • Michael Cecil
      ... Experts . ... exist; ... top ... the ... Hi, Brent, That may very well be; but not intentionally, however. ... minority. You got that right. In spades.
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 1, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi Michael,
        >
        > Michael Cecil wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Brent Allsop brent.allsop@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > The goal of the 'Mind Experts' topic here:
        > > >
        > > > http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/81
        > > >
        > > > is to have 'peers' rank who they think are the top 'Mind Experts'.
        > >
        > > And, as long as we are talking about things which do not even exist;
        > perhaps, next, we should have 'peers' rank who they 'think' are the top
        > "Phlogiston Experts", or the top "Cycle and Epi-cycle Experts" (from the
        > Ptolemaic system).
        > >
        >
        > You are completely missing the point.

        Hi, Brent,

        That may very well be; but not intentionally, however.

        > The problem you are pointing out
        > already exists in our hierarchical 'ivory tower' and religious
        > establishment society today. The majority tends to abuse the minority.

        You got that right. In spades.

        More than a year ago I e-mailed probably every major researcher on consciousness on your list and have been ignored.

        They don't even have the courtesy to respond.

        My reply to this same post on the JCS-online group was, as happens quite often, ignored by the moderator.

        This happens to probably 50% of my notes and comments on that group; and that journal appears to claim to be the 'state of the art' in the understanding of consciousness.

        > All but what is well accepted by the masses is excommunicated or
        > censored. The goal of canonizer.com is to address and improve this
        > situation your are pointing out, not make it worse as you are accusing.

        As I read it, it seems to emphasize that people must have others who 'agree' with them before they are allowed to present or affirm a position; which, to me, creates a problem.

        I don't know of even one other person, other than Krishnamurti, who has the same approach to this issue as I have. And he is dead.

        It would be like Copernicus trying to vote for people who did not accept the Ptolemaic description of the universe. How many could he find?
        >
        > Everyone knows that the majority does not dictate truth.

        But this is precisely what you seem to be effecting.

        Those who get fewest votes are assumed to be so far off the mark as to be what? Crazy? or Deluded?

        The implication is that those who receive the most votes are closest to the truth.

        I understand this to be a problem in paradigm.

        So, we have found the absolute EXPERT at 'phlogiston theory'.

        So what?

        I am saying the entire paradigm is deficient because the existence of the 'thinker' or the 'mind' is based upon a foundation of sand and an illusion.

        > A good example
        > is when there was near perfect consensus amongst physicists that F = M *
        > A. (and your examples of phlogiston and so on are also good examples of
        > the majority being abusively wrong.)

        Precisely my point.

        > When Einstein came along he was the
        > first in his 'camp'.

        But someone is not allowed to vote for themselves. This comes across as fairly obvious.

        > And finally the evidence proved his new minority
        > camp was THE right camp or at least a much better camp. And everyone
        > quickly jumped to his camp. Canonizer.com is simply a comprehensive,
        > rigorous and quantitative way to measure and track these types of
        > processes. And to allow such to happen much more efficiently.

        Then I wish you all the success in the world.

        Perhaps I'll have to re-examine my fairly jaded perceptions.
        >
        > Unlike all journals, religious 'canonon' and everything else in society
        > today, nothing is cencored at canonier.com. It is a comprehensive
        > survey of what everyone believes or wants. Yet the quality is
        > maintained by allowing readers of the data to prioritize or 'filter'
        > stuff any way they want by selecting their own personal 'canonizer' on
        > the side bar.
        >
        > There is also history built in, so when people like Einstein do show up,
        > they can be detected much sooner, tracked, and given much higher
        > reputations by future canonizer algorithms, so these correct camps can
        > be brought forward much more efficiently.

        Well, this is all quite encouraging; but I have no particular regard for my 'reputation'.
        I am unemployed. I have no tenure or other such things to worry about; and my writings have been suppressed by academic journals and the media for more than 30 years.

        The issue here is much more important than that.

        > All the intelligent and wise
        > people (Not just the few Einsteins) that recognize the 'right' camps
        > first, before everyone else, can be given much more influence the next
        > time around. This already happens today for a few, but this process
        > makes it much more comprehensive, rigorous, and quantitative. It
        > enables the good data to stand out from the noise of the ignorant masses
        > by rigorously tracking and quantifying it all for everyone - especially
        > the more intelligent minority camps that might otherwise be censored by
        > the hierarchies.

        This is very encouraging, as no one has asked me to submit any of my writing to any of the journals on consciousness or to give a presentation at an important conference on consciousness, other than an invitation I received to a "Quantum Mind" conference about a year and a half ago in Eastern Europe; but I was unable to attend because I have been unemployed for quite some time and have no money for such things.
        >
        > > (And, in another few hundred years, I suggest we will have precisely
        > similar views about such so-called 'Mind Experts'; such a paradigm
        > having long been recognized as being fundamentally deficient.)
        > >
        > > >If you think there are better ways
        > > > to think about consciousness,
        > >
        > > No, I don't.
        > >
        > > The problem is with the assumption that thought itself is the only
        > way to understand consciousness.
        >
        > But this is precisely what you think is a better way to think about it.
        > Which, like most ways to think about it, at least some people probably
        > disagree with it.
        >
        > > > we also invite you to get just what you
        > > > believe 'canonized' collaboratively with everyone else that may share
        > > > your beliefs.
        > >
        > > It is a question of observation rather than belief.
        > > Belief originates in thought.
        > >
        > > But, according to Eastern esotericists such as J. Krishnamurti, the
        > best way to understand the mechanisms of human consciousness is to
        > observe them directly without thought.
        > > >
        >
        > This is precisely the kind of information we would like to concisely
        > collect while quantitatively measuring how many people (and who for
        > reputation purposes) think this way since when, and for how long.

        I really do appreciate this clarification of what you are trying to do.
        >
        > > > May the best theories become the most well developed and supported.
        > >
        > > I suggest what is needed here is more than a theory.
        >
        > Whatever it is that is 'more than a theory', one still should be able to
        > state it concisely, or at least as best as is possible, and
        > quantitatively measure how many people think that way right?
        >
        > Precisely that is one of the goals at http://canonizer.com

        Thanks so much for the reply.

        I'll see if I can come up with a cogent statement summarizing my position.

        Michael Cecil

        http://science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/

        >
        > Brent Allsop
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.