Several people have proposed a better name for this topic. To express your opinion on this issue please do so here
The purpose of this topic is to establish the best and most rigorous possible quantitative value of expertise on the topic of the mind for canonization purposes. The study of the mind is a very large arena. However, the focus of this particular topic, and the resulting canonizer, will be regarding what many refer to as the 'Hard Problem'
. Specifically, it has to do with the relationship between introspective subjectivity, and the objectively observable functioning of brain matter.
There are many competing theories, models, and ways to think about this relationship. As you rank these experts, think specifically of who would be the best to know which of these theories is the most valid or likely to turn out to be true. Many people are experts on the functioning of neurons, and many other things such as psychology, and other things sometimes regarded as the easy problems of consciousness. While all of that is related, and may have bearing on how much of an expert someone is; the focus of this topic is not necessarily about this easy stuff, it is simply ones expertise or ability for someone to understand this relationship between the subjective and objective.
Some people believe we are about to discover, demonstrably, this relationship; some that such a discovery will be the greatest, most world changing scientific achievement, ever. Others claim something like this will never be possible. Whichever turns out to be the case, one goal of canonizer.com is to find rigorous ways to quantitatively identify and concisely state, the best and most likely candidate theories for the real truth as soon as possible.
The current documented understanding of this field is in quite a mess. It is near impossible for a normal mortal to get a good grasp on it. Even experts have troubles expressing which theory is the most well accepted theory and concisely stating such.
Some argue that our blindness, because of this lack of good quantitative and concise documentation, is making it more difficult to perform an effective objective search for the truth. One goal of canonizer.com is to bring some organization to these theories and models and make concise and quantitative understanding of all this approachable by normal people.
It's kind of hard to discover something if you don't know where or how to look for it. If you were going to ask someone for advice on where or how to look for this relationship, who would you suggest, in ranking order, for the best possible advice.
Wikipedia, for obvious reasons, has a general guideline that discourages people from contributing to articles on themselves. The 'camp' system at canonizer.com is designed to eliminate such biases and problems. If someone distorts the truth in any way here, fewer people will be willing to support any such distorted statement motivating people to be as accurate in their descriptions of themselves as possible with the goal of getting as many people in their camp as possible. So you or anyone can contribute to your statement in an attempt to better describe your qualifications and to win more support and a higher quantitative expertise ranking on the study of the mind.
It is also accepted, even encouraged, to rank yourself top on such ranking topics as this one. The only thing that is requested is that if you do rank yourself, that you also at least rank 5 or 10 other people besides yourself so the entire system will still have valuable comparison information about more than just you. As always, the more experts all peers in this field rank the better the information will be.
Ooops, this is a 'topic' not a camp.