Brent_Allsop replied 16 years ago (Nov 2nd 2007, 2:32:35 am)
Sorry about that last version.
We're debugging this as we go.
This version should be better.
The initial version of the Agreement Statement text was just a kind of temporary version to get things started. People like Robin Faichney have pointed out how biased it is towards the reality of the "Hard Problem" which is clearly controversial â€“ not what we want in an agreement statement where we want to remove all such.
I've taken some suggestions from Robin Faichney and come up with a new draft of the agreement statement. If anyone has any issues, or things that would be good to add, that would be wonderful.
Looking forward to hearing from you all on this here before I submit this. Yay / Nay?
The [http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs Journal of Consciousness Studies] has a great information page about the "Hard Problem". http://www.imprint.co.uk/hardprob.html
"One of the reasons for the current explosion of interest in the study of consciousness has been the development of new technologies for the study of the brain. This has given rise to a widespread optimism within the neuroscience community that a theory of consciousness could be just around the corner.
However many commentators have pointed out that although there has been undoubted progress in the study of the neural correlates of consciousness, there is still an 'explanatory gap.' What sort of theory would it take to bridge the gap between brain processes and phenomenal experience?
Philosopher David Chalmers gave eloquent expression to this at the first Tucson conference, when he drew a distinction between the 'easy problems' (cognitive functions like discrimination and the focus of attention) and the 'hard problem' (why should any of this be accompanied by phenomenal experience?)."
In addition to the published papers abstracted on that page, there is an exponentially increasing amount being published, debated, and said relating to this controversial issue. The goal of this topic in the Canonizer is to collaboratively generate concise statements describing the various "camps" on this issue and to come up with a quantitative measure or survey of how many people, and who these people are, in each of these "camps" on all sides of this issue.