The purpose of this topic is to rigorously measure the 'expertise' of experts on theories of mind and consciousness based on a peer ranking process. The real time peer ranking data is used in the Mind Experts canonizer algorithm which can be selected on the side bar to see quantitative measures of how much scientific consensus there is for competing theories represented in 'camps'.
Camps in this topic are not the appropriate place to describe theories which they may hold since some people may think a person is an 'expert' even if they do not agree with their theories. Also, many of these experts are in the same camp so it makes no sense to duplicate the data in each expert's camp here. Please add descriptions of theories to other topics like the Theories of Mind and Consciousness topic. Then you may indicate which camps experts are in by referring to such.
The study of the mind is a very large arena. However, the focus of this particular topic, and the resulting scientific consensus canonizer, will be focusing on 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 THE ONE true theory of consciousness as might be eventually proved by demonstrable scientific results.
Many people are experts on the functioning of neurons, and many other things such as psychology, social nature, and other things sometimes regarded as the easy (but only as in not the 'hard problem') 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 one's expertise or ability for someone to understand this relationship between the subjective and objective.
There are currently 18000 plus documents on this topic listed in Chalmer's MindPapers bibliography. Surely, most of that is either complete junk, or various repetitive versions of good theories with myriads of slightly different variations. Most of it intelligent people just saying yes it is, no it isn't, over and over again. One of the motivating factors driving the developers of canonizer.com is the belief that many such controversial fields likely already have significant 'scientific consensus' for very correct theories, it is just that nobody ever makes an effort to rigorously produce and measure such. We believe such simple lack of capable group communication is all that is holding back many still controversial fields.
Note: 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.