Scientific Basis of Consciousness

Contact owners and managers

1–30 of 2282

Scientific Basis of Consciousness (Google Group)

Description: This is a focused "think-tank" discussion among consciousness researchers seeking to correct, modify, expand, or create theory providing a scientific basis for comprehending the existence and operation of consciousness. It is a semi-moderated list with rules for respectful and fruitful discussion. We request that members please limit the number of posts per day By acceptance of membership, each member agrees to the following conditions:

Founding principles: A condition of membership is that we agree to the following principles of science and discourse in order to have a fruitful discussion.

1. We adopt the following philosophical principles to ensure integrity and progress in our discussions:

a) Our emphasis here is on scientific exploration to improve theory and personal understanding of consciousness. By implication the nature of existence enters this discussion, but we will avoid dwelling on absolute ‘ontic’ claims (including religious perspectives) except for how such experience-based views inform methodical and verifiable modes of exploration and explanation. Our goal is to improve theory not to decide the nature of reality except as that informs the assumptions of theory. We understand that scientific theory will always be incomplete, but that it may be improved with new information or insight.
b) Theory development should be aimed to produce testable elements and predictions of theory, whereas the assumptions of theory and worldviews (including ontic beliefs) are tested by success of theory over many cases. In general, objective experience can be tested by deductive prediction and subjective experience can be tested by analogy.
c) No theory is too 'crazy'. What constitutes a genuine scientific theory will be decided by epistemological criteria and methodology. General consensus, while an important baseline for consistency and understanding deviations, is not confirmation. "Crazy" in this context means exceptional to the way we may currently be thinking to address otherwise intractable problems; it does not mean violating accepted science without sound reasoning and method.
d) Both science and personal experience are valid “ways of knowing” that we consider complementary sources of information. We accept direct experience as such and science as a way of explaining experience.

2. The group discussion will be loosely moderated to ensure the following constraints and principles:

a) About Nature, not Each Other: We will discuss topics related to the science of consciousness. Anything ‘off topic’ should be discussed elsewhere or privately. Discussion of other participants or external persons (as opposed to their ideas and work), personal comments or characterizations, are considered off-topic. Such posts will be removed from the archive. Repeated comment on the character of others may result in restriction or termination of membership.
b) Mutual Respect: The group discussion will remain respectful of all participants, their beliefs and their ideas, while allowing reasonable critique that does not sacrifice personal integrity or fruitful progress. This also means maintaining a professional discourse free of vulgar or offensive language.
c) Posts as Public Domain Publications: All posts are considered authored publications in the public domain and may be used for any purpose without copyright permission by members of the group and external viewers. Proper citation is expected with use of posted material.
d) Open Discussion: Any topic posted to the group is open for discussion by any of the members (see exception for “break-out discussions”, below). No one is restricted from commenting within the boundaries set here and no one shall be required to reply to a comment, nor should there be any personal implication made of non-response.
e) Non-Harassment: The right to post to this group does not extend to needless repetition of views or other actions that management considers harassment or ‘trolling’. Non-response is the preferred first solution to any insult given or taken, notifying management with a copy of the offending post if the problem continues.
f) Freedom to Associate: Google Groups does not have a structure for supporting “breakout rooms” but it is an important capability for productive conversation. Participants will respect when posts are addressed primarily to an individual or clearly identified sub-group and topic, to not derail the discussion or needlessly or frivolously post irrelevant material. This provision shall not be used, however, to censor members or prevent legitimate comment.
g) Moderation: Management’s responsibility in all these matters will be light or absent unless a problem arises, in which case moderators will first send a general reminder to the group without identifying individuals, then private reminders to individuals as needed, then private warnings of possible action; then, if there is insufficient compliance, action to physically prevent further interruption or harassment by blocking posting privileges or, in irreconcilable cases, termination of membership. This provision shall not be used to censor respectful free speech on the basis of professional content, but shall be carefully administered so as to prevent rule violation or harassment and to ensure freedom to associate on given topics.

Management structure

1. This is a privately-owned Google Group in the public domain that was established to serve professional interests. It is not an association, society, club, etc. As such it is not subject to democratic management by the members, who join (or exit) voluntarily and by invitation, and are subject to the policies set by the Group and by Google Inc. The final recourse for grievances is to appeal to the management committee described below, or to exit the group.

2. There will be three group owners who agree to serve voluntarily for an unspecified period to administer the group discussion, enforce these guidelines and rules, and to resolve any disputes requiring action, by 2/3 majority opinion.