Several people have suggested creating a new topic solely for the purpose of collecting a concise representation of the most well accepted theories of consciousness. This topic on the 'Hard Problem' obviously has resulted in something similar as it relates to the 'Hard Problem' but the need for something independent of the 'Hard Problem' is obvious. Towards this end Michael Cecil has created a new topic entitled: "Theories of Mind and Consciousness" here: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88 The current thinking is that the basic information about various theories of mind contained in this topic can be moved over to that topic. Then how the various theories specifically do or don't relate to the hard problem can be focused on in this topic with references back and forth as necessary. A great camp structure has naturally evolved in this topic, and some of us expect a similar parallel structure to develop in this new topic. However, there may be a better more intentional way to structure things - given more people being initially involved. A new topic describing how the 'camp structure' system currently used at canonizer.com is intended to work, and its purposes here at http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/89. If you have any input on how to improve such a process such is always welcome in that topic. To get started we invite everyone to initially register as a supporter of this new topic on theories of the mind at the agreement statement level. This basically just indicates that you initially agree with the purpose of the topic as stated in the agreement statement. As such a supporter, you will be subscribed to the topic forum where we will be discussing various proposals for a new camp structure and how to proceed with the development of such. Then as sufficient camps start to develop, your support can be moved from the agreement statement to the various camps. Of course the ultimate goal will be a dynamic comprehensive set of concise descriptions of the most well accepted theories of mind, along with rigorous quantitative measures of consensus for each. Brent Allsop