RE: Time to ask yourself....

From: Camp, Christopher (CCamp@omm.com)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 14:15:01 MST

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "RE: Oil Economics, a (long) thought experiment"

    If the initial plan I outlined seemed to imply some level of censorship I
    must take the opportunity to clear that up now: I intend no ideas or
    messages to be censored only rated by the readers who in turn will be rated
    themselves. So freedom of speech would be a founding principle. There would
    be other founding principles that would attempt to establish a fair and open
    area for debate by establishing rights for all participants.
    As you well know systems of ratings are already being carried out, in an
    abridged format, in places like epinions, amazon, consumer reports and
    pcmag.com amongst many many others. Pcmag.com has a rudimentary forum
    rating system that allows people to vote on individual messages. I think
    that this property when combined with the ability for the community to rate
    the reviewers and then to filter the information as they wish would be more
    compelling. In addition to ratings on reviewers it would be helpful to have
    real time polling on the critical points of argument in a sidebar.
    If we throw Galileo into the mix we can imagine any number of scenarios. At
    first his idea might be ridiculed by the majority.* Evidence would likely
    come from both sides of the debate - Ptolemic scholars would site the fact
    that their astronomical predictions tended to be more accurate than
    Galileo's (which appears to be a well accepted fact in our modern academic
    literature). Galileans would argue that their combination of simplicity
    (Occams razor) and predictive ability gave them the edge(at some point the
    sun-center method would result in superior predictive ability as well).
    Over time the two sides would battle it out on the field of memetic warfare
    and new evidence/information would be integrated until a new state of
    equilibrium was reached.
    I think this sort of system where meaning is determined democratically (w/
    high speed interconnections and an effective automated collaborative
    filtering structure in place) would result in more efficient decision making
    for individuals and societies.
    Implementing such a system - at least in a rudimentary fashion is becoming
    less and less expensive over time and I think something like this would
    serve our group well for a number of reasons. As far as I can tell it would
    play in to our support for the merging democratic and technological systems.
    It would give us a concrete goal as a group and would allow us to begin to
    work constructively together instead of spending most of our time locked in
    bitter argument.
    This project would also fulfill some of our early supporters visions of how
    information will be processed in the future - see Chislenko on ACF -
    http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/articles/ACF.html

    Chris Camp

    *(Remember too that Galileo, in his time, was severely censored - this
    system wouldn't completely avoid censorship but it would hopefully allow
    censored memes to have their day in the sun earlier if they were in fact
    deserving of such an honor.)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dehede011@aol.com [mailto:Dehede011@aol.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:45 AM
    To: extropians@extropy.org
    Subject: Re: Time to ask yourself....

    In a message dated 2/4/2003 11:42:08 AM Central Standard Time, CCamp@omm.com

    writes: How is this achievable? I have a couple of suggestions. Most
    arguments have identifiable points of dispute. These points should be
    identified and polls should be taken. Polls can be easily made via yahoo or

    other sources.

    Chris,
           That sounds like an attractive idea that upon reflection is highly
    defective. During the days when everyone thought the Earth was flat Galileo

    would have been voted down. And, if he persisted I suppose he would have
    been censored and possibly even disciplined if he persisted further.
           That illustrates why some prefer a republic to a democracy. There
    has
    to been guarantees for the minority. Are you intending to give the majority

    the right
     to do anything at all that they wish to the minority?
           I have saved Amara's latest contribution -- the one beginning, "I
    don't see the disagreements here that way. In my view, 'hawks' and 'doves'
    is
    a narrow view, which doesn't help anyone understand each other better
    because
    they are labels that pidgeon-hole someone and closes people's ears that
    could
    be used for listening."

           What if her viewpoint or viewpoints had been censored by the vote of
    the majority? She presented a view that I would never have imagined she had

    and frankly I would have been diminished by not having the privilege of
    reading what she has just written.
           I believe the term to apply to the present situation is that it is
    some form of a dialectic. We argue it is true but we also inform and out of

    the complex circumstances of our discussions I believe we grow and learn.
           As those that feel timid in presenting their case. Well, in that
    case
    I can only speak for myself. But I am reminded of Carl Sandburg's old
    story.
     Mr. Sandburg was very active at one time in the politics of the Democrat
    Party. He saw a friend carrying a club and asked his friend where he was
    going. His friend answered that he was on his way to a Democrat unity
    meeting. That is not verbatim but close -- I think. So, speak up, we
    aren't
    nearly that bad. <G>
    Ron h.
           



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 14:21:03 MST