Thank you for your feedback and info on "rules of how the change occurs in the canonizer".
There are a couple of points I'd like to make in attempt to clarify my approach and thinking, and in response to your posts.
Firstly, while it may not help at all in persuading you or others to join the newly created alternate main branch of "Consciousness is structurally coded", my slant on the "Not supernatural", comes as being a follower of Jesus Christ. Having trusted in and been changed through faith in the message in the bible and in the supernatural healing power of Jesus Christ, over time I have done enough experiments and observed enough change, in myself and other "believers", to convince me that holding and developing the one particular thought or belief can and does influence cognition, character development and behavior. Thought influences thought; some thoughts more than others. Can I explain or prove Christianity scientifically, to your liking? No, not all that well. Items of faith are extracurricular in that way. That is what the word "faith" is all about.
Secondly, following on one of Steve's suggestions, at the James Randi, site, their FAQ states:
>2.2 What is the definition of "paranormal" in regards to the
> Webster's Online Dictionary defines "paranormal" as "not
> scientifically explainable; supernatural."
If we face facts, presently consciousness is not scientifically explainable and thus it already IS supernatural! I mean, the situation is consciousness is an anomaly, it's not accounted for or seen as an issue within the currently dominant scientific paradigm. We face, therefore, developing an alternate scientific paradigm -- with different tenets and a more general expression -- which also provides some reasonable supports for one or more trial scientific theories descriing the what's and how's of consciousness. Shifting paradigms, seeing the unseen and describing what previously has no description is not a straightforward, rational process. It minimally borders on the supernatural and the extremely rarely repeating (aka, lacking in scientific repeatability; untestable) events.
So, if you catch the drift, agreeing that there is a "natural, scientific description for consciousness", or as Brent wrote about the earlier discussion: 'consciousness is scientifically approachable or testable' seems rational and reasonable enough, particularly among a group with the stated goal of grokking improved scientific theories of consciousness.
Going the next step out to claiming consciousness is not supernatural, when by present dictionary accounts consciousness presently IS supernatural -- lacking a scientific description -- strikes me as coming from a highly energized but highly emotional, irrational place within a person. There are more beliefs supporting that belief.
It might be helpful to unearth those deeper motivations and evaluate whether those motives really apply in this scientific endeavor. If the threat of one or a few people leaving is resting on, say, a deep-seated resentment due to one or more slights or abuses by, say, "religious people", or perhaps a commitment to the tenets of New Age or one of the other major world belief systems, then it seems appropriate to unearth and present that actual underlying belief clearly in the canonizer hierarchy -- to get the categories straight.
Along this line. consider also the natural rule that "for every re-action, there is an equal and opposite action" and then re-consider the sentiment and strength of "Not supernatural". The entire camp statement can be deleted (or revised) with no ill effects, assuming that the actual task, developing an improved scientific theory, is carried forward.
Otherwise or related, Brent, you also included the phrase: "I think it is very likely that very similar POV structures could form underneath the supernatural vs not supernatural main branches".
I would like to point out that it looks to me like you are seeing through the traditional "either/or" binary logic where you are thinking since you already have a "Not supernatural" branch that a competing branch can only be in the "Is supernatural" category. The perspective I hold and which is presented in the camp statement for the alternate main branch of "Consciousness is structurally coded", is the new branch is "NOS - not otherwise specified" with respect to the supernatural. Consider it from a multi-state logic perspective. Also, stating IS/not supernatural, before the development of a preliminarily functional trial theory is simply pre-mature. It's irrelevant. Do the real job first and the characteristic ought to sort out and be self-evident.
I believe the direct route through the woods is to hammer out the new paradigm and the new scientific trial theory of consciousness first: to focus attention on getting the structural coding working first.
As for: "I'm just curious if you would support a camp that stated everything about consciousness is approachable via the scientific method.", I'd generally agree, probably would hedge on the absolute of "everything", but, this seems pretty self-evident if you are aiming at a scientific model.
I'm beginning to get the impression that I sometimes am thinking differently than other people particularly when I reflect on the underlying principle of structured duality supporting an underlying multi-state, or multi-value logic structurally coded system which, for our introductory purposes supports the structural coding we see in the genetics, epi-genetic and now in the 10^20 molecules per second flux of ordered water being created in our respiration sites, coincident with our experience. If you notice, all this structural coding is happening in a moderately coherent and somewhat connected manner at a level of organization, and energy level below and prior to, say, structural coding in the secondary neural/synaptic/dendrite level. Plus the new model is pretty compact with a good information compression ratio.
It would be different to have people agree with the new branch or my specific entry in it. I'd welcome all the agreement I can get. Like you said, Brent, the new branch does open a way for alternate structural codings, I'd see it it as along the neural lines, or the dendritic lines but inheriting the genetic and epi-genetic structural coding cnnections in their own specific ways.
I agree, though, it would be good to have a few more participants.