Consciousness Survey Project Canonizer

1. Consciousness Survey Project Canonizer.com 38 Theories of Mind and Consciousness 35 Approachable Via Science 27 Representational Qualia Theory 21 Property Dualism 11 Mind-Brain Identity Theory 5 Functional Property Dualism David Chalmers 4 Material Property Dualism 2 Orchestrated Obj. Red. Stuart Hameroff 6 Panexperientialism 2 Absolute Space is the Noumenal Source 1 Underlying Force of Physics 5 Higher-dimensional Theories 1 Smythies-Carr Hypothesis 4 Representational Functionalism 3 Ideal Monism 1 Is of Divine Origin and Unfathomable Apart from God 1 Is Structurally Coded Significant Consensus Significant Lack of Consensus • How Much Consensus Is There, Already? • There is emerging evidence that there is a clear expert consensus on many critically important things the populace and many neuroscientists are missing in the theoretical field of consciousness including "Approachable Via Science", "Representational Qualia Theory", "Mind-Brain Identity", and "Property Dualism". The emerging evidence seems to indicate there might not be any significant lack of consensus till you get down to the level between David Chalmers' "Functional Property Dualism" vs Stuart Hameroff's "Material Property Dualism“. • Might there already be a consensus at even this level? Obviously, more samples are required. Are there going to be any significant consensus revolutions in supported camps at any of these levels before science proves to all of us sufficiently to make us all converge on “The One” that explains reality? Canonizer.com is a Wikipedia like system with added camps and survey capabilities. Rather than fighting endless and repetitive wiki edit wars, when there is a difference of opinion, you can simply fork a camp resulting in concise and quantitative representations of both. Any proposed changes to a camp go into a review mode for one week. Supporters of a camp can object to any such proposed change, preventing it from 'going live'. This allows the 'petition' to change and improve while maintaining unanimous support of all signers. If anyone objects to what you believe is an important change you are proposing, you can fork the camp, taking all that agree with you to the 'improved' version of the camp. But of course splitting a camp diminishes consensus and influence of both camps - providing strong motivation to come up with creative ways to be conciliatory and to avoid such where possible, especially on the more important and actionable issues. It is primarily a tool implementing a set of rules, and some structure, designed to enable large crowds of people to collaboratively develop a concise, quantitative, real time representation of what they all value. Good sources of information tend to have very severe filtering, and vetting mechanism in place - usually controlled by some bias prone hierarchy leadership. Canonizer.com flips this censoring notion upside down and allows all entries in. Instead, it provides any prioritizing or filtering (or canonization, if you will) to be controlled by the reader. The reader can configure or select an algorithm on the side bar that most values the experts in a way they choose. The above listing shows the values using the default one person one vote popular algorithm. When you select the 'mind expert' scientific consensus algorithm, the “Material Property Dualism" camp rises above the otherwise default popular “Functional Property Dualism” camp. Today, it seems most have a perception that there is no consensus on much of anything, especially in this still theoretical field of mind. But this is largely because any time anyone agrees on anything, the discussion stops. This includes that contained in the scientific publications. They get bogged down in the eternal yes it is, no it isn't merry-go-round. Arguments degenerate into nit-picking. The important issues are side-lined. Our aim is to cut through this mess by building clear camp statements and voting on them in a way that allows the expert consensus to be compared to the popular consensus.. The hierarchical camp structure is such that indented sub camps support, or agree with the parent camp. This allows the more agreeable and important principles to rise to the top, where they can be focused on - while the less important disagreeable issues can be pushed to ever less supported sub camps. A good example of this is the way critically important doctrines like perception is representational, qualia are important, and the prediction that science will soon be able to 'eff'' such ineffable qualities are powerfully contained in the "Representational Qualia Theory" camp that so far has near unanimous expert consensus. While the lesser important more disagreeable doctrines, like what qualia are (Functional vs Material), and so on, are concisely and quantitatively represented in the supporting sub camp trees. Whether or not you agree, come and have a look and participate in solving the greatest problem today. For more information contact support@canonizer.com .