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