Agreed, Charles.

The result of the last interaction (the discourse can be viewed on this topic thread of 'Rules and Moderator') revealed it unnecessary for moderation.

I need to just clarify that, by recommending the Philo Research group, I was not recommending a halt on discussion traffic in this group OR indicating a distinction in Members - merely indicating that there are very real philosophical arguments that could translate into very real solutions that just require a 'refinement' of sorts.

It's about 'better-packaging' the sets of information as opposed to packaging contributors.

Let's think about it: there is no limitation on philosophy or its problems in this 'group'. The experience remains open and decides its own flow - as it should be.

If a flow on a particular argument begins to attain a formal development, which may require a formal method, the topic may indeed prove to be - by its very nature of focus - an intimidating and unnattractive carrot for motivating contributions or newcomers.

Of course, choice is always open to members on RG as a whole as to whether or not they feel they want to start a group or not. With respect to Philosophy as a topic in general, there ARE unarguable levels of distinction - and I feel robust arguments AND members (irrespective of professional level) have a right to dedicate their appropriate distinctive flow in an appropriate, distinctive space. So, the different 'groups' do not imply the 'user levels' but rather the 'level of focus' required for robust research.

I would like to respectfully request to David H, Bill and Charles, [and other members] however, that - for puposes of maintaining both information groups in a balanced fashion - you keep in mind the focus level of your discussions when posting. In other words, if it's a general topic still to be formulated/debated and dialectic is not quite a focus as yet, that it perhaps be presented and discussed here.

Essentially, the "Philo Research" group should be dedicated to RESEARCH OF AN ALREADY FORMULATED PROBLEM and NOT RESEARCH IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM.

Would you agree?

I recommend that anyone immediately speak up when animadversions or misadventures occur--i.e., comment to that effect. It may take a little bravery but shame does work--ask anybody from an honor-based society. Pretty soon everyone will have presence (of/in mind) of the prospective remarks upon entering any comment. In some instances just the occasional threat of such a policy will be sufficient, say in a general note to the membership.

I would go further and suggest that a meme of some sort be adopted: maybe XX or XXX (for the obvious reasons). One might also allow a question mark at the end for those wondering if they are correct though feeling themselves so.

And, obviously, there is always anybody's resort to personal messages to the repeat offender, at first by whomever, then by an administrator, depending on how it all comes out.

The semiological routine, btw, serves to depress elevation of barbarisms as no one can say anything, only utilize the symbols adopted. Serves as does a 'yield' sign on the highway. No animosity intended, just a notification, and everybody's note is the same. I think it works well for the presumption of mutual respect. After all, most of the off-line stuff is pretty natural reaction that simply has to be watched to make sure it doesn't go beyond bounds in any sense of volume.

I might add that I have myself in mind as I write these remarks!!

CSH

How can they not be online?

I assume that what DH means by on-line is on-topic, and that complaints have been received re comments off-topic, and further to the effect that they were not appreciated, which has happened several times before. Indeed, I have previously suggested a response to the issue, less specific and pointed than the present effort.

OK Bill, I let myself in for that one; but RG nomenclature is such that if I'd said "on-topic" you STILL could have got me

I don't know what to think. I see threads where we have somehow made a transition from logic to discussions about goldfish. Is that the sort of thing meant?

Or are we discussing topics that are not politically correct --- as when I posted from Aristotle's ***On the Soul?*** Is that subject somehow off-topic?

If it were easy to both recognize and avoid, we wouldn't have delivered up a controversy so often.

That said, I venture some thoughts.

On the one hand there's the argument that practically any statement or observation can be claimed to represent philosophy or, at the penumbra, something "philosophical". The same has been said of art. In each case the assertion is logically erroneous. It may well be true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but beauty is essentially distinct from art and philosophy even though these two disciplines have much to say of beauty. In brief, when a word is permitted to mean anything, hence everything, it logically must mean--nothing!! Ergo, we must assume that some topics are, re philosophy, on-topic, as some are off-topic.

To whom, therefore, do we turn to determine what is, and what is not, philosophy???

Here are some guidelines, imperfect albeit, but i put them out for discussion rather then to announce what must be philosophy--after all, ask any 100 persons claiming the mantle, and you will get nearly as many answers to the question!!

1) Philosophy is a profession, and so is also an office, and, as such, carries a grant of authority as well as prerogatives and responsibilities. Argue with that set of propositions all you will, that is fine, but at the end of the day I claim they will make more sense than obviate the same.

2) Let's call that office the "Office of the House of Intellect" (with thanks to Jacque Barzun--DH must occasionally wonder why I read so damn many Frenchy-sounding authors...). In all academic disciplines, but none more so than philosophy, this office requires, as points of stewardship, the following: adherence to the pursuit of truth and all matters ancillary thereto, the most necessary being honesty and integrity.

3) Honesty and integrity require, in order to be understood re the philosophical context, some grounding, to wit: we recognize that truth, when approached philosophically implies methodology--which is to say, philosophy is NOT a mere discussion of some topic or another, but IS, rather, a series of integrated statements linked by a train of logic and requiring justifiable facts as the glue.

4) Meaning, naturally, that in this orientation philosophy speaks somewhat to us as any other SCIENCE does. We discuss philosophy utilizing, by and large, the points of discourse normative to strict science. We do not easily, except in select circumstances, tolerate much that is not within such bounds of modality. We do not enjoy off-handed opinions lacking explicit or implied justification, for such cannot hope to assure the reader a path to truth. Further, the scientific community will agree with us that such off-modal methods cannot be properly the subject either of honesty or of integrity.

Let me leave the discussion at this early juncture in order to receive comments as to these introductory points. And I summarize them by rephrasing the original question raised by DH and the complainant(s): How can we ensure that our discussions are more properly and strictly on-mode??? How do we direct any and all readers to understand what we mean in thus declaring ourselves reliant upon what is normatively MODAL in the sense of adhering to scientific strictures?

I would like feedback on whether and to what extent anyone agrees with this line of thought. That is to say, am I right to insist that this is far different from any ol' public chat room???

CSH

I wonder what Diogenes of Sinope would have to say on the subject.

By raising Diogenes you impliedly raise a putative defense, one which will not fly.

What I hear you implying (correct me if I mistake the point implied) is that Diogenes praised truth, not unlike Christ in a sense, btw, but was, for all his ingenuous concern for the ultimate in philosophy, branded "Cynic" by his own people, after 'kuon' = dog. But now let us note something in addition to the strict etymology and go to the source of it, asking 'Why did the Greeks so denominate him?" According to Harry A. Ide (U Neb, in Cambridge Dict. Phil., 2nd) he was so monikered because he was "as shameless as a dog". Now in an honor-based society, which Greece assuredly was (see, amongst others, "The Greeks and the Irrational"), one is not being accused of untruthfulness, but of impropriety.

Everyone knew, or at least broadly suspected, that Socrates had truth pretty much on his side, and it was truth that he argued. But it was the manner and to whom he argued thus that got him into trouble. He acted like a foolish bipolar (which he doubtless was). He was, unjustly, from truth's perspective, or justly from propriety's perspective, punished. Admittedly, we today would hardly agree that the punishment fitted the crime, but that is telling only that we fail to understand Greek society. Any honor-based society takes shamelessness as a serious crime, and in many (look at Islamic-based societies for way too many examples) it is a capital crime. Consider in your off-moments why this phenomenon resists change so effectively...

Now Christ and Socrates were often compared, and for good reason. And Christ was in trouble less for the truths he elaborated upon (chiefly of which was hypocrisy) than those whom he chose as exemplars of those truths--Pharisees, err, wealthy and powerful folk, the very same to whom Socrates complained. The Jewish Orthodoxy has always allowed such shamelessness to carry heavy punishments, as, again it is a very good generality--as do all thorough-goingly honor-based societies.

But Christ differed uniquely from Diogenes, namely, in that he was willing to be reasonable. He obeyed the basic proprieties. He argued that one must render to Caesar, for example (which, if it angered the Orthodoxy, made good sense to anyone with common sense--which the Orthodoxy cared not to dabble in, whence the trouble it finally faced with Rome). Diogenes took truth beyond measure. He failed to explicate it through means adaptable to common sense and reason.

On this site, when truth is expressed beyond the dictates of common sense, it is apt to be shot down as contrary to the rules of honesty and integrity. Assertions of truth, whether factual or actual--or not--must accord with certain proprieties, namely, the modality of disputation widely accepted in the community of scholars. Diogenes' truths would be welcomed, but not as he delivered them. I would rebuke him fairly violently,a and I have often mentioned in public that i wish never to be associated with Socrates' methodology. I don't even teach him to my own students (though for more reasons than his mannerisms).

As has been correctly said, it is not meet to present truth from the butt end. There are many ways to interpret that, but in the present context the correct interpretation would well appear to be this-- Diogenes and Socrates, for all their claims to truth, must learn some manners and perspective and act accordingly in a professional context. They may say what they will, how they will, in a public chat room and face the specter of a facilitator booting them out of the room. In this room I will personally chastise them in public, and do so as the exemplification of principle.

And so, Bill, if Diogenes means something special with regard to truth--"deface the coinage!"--to which even I wholeheartedly agree, along with Christ (!!)--nonetheless, to raise it as a point against correct modality of disputation will not fly, not in a professional setting, and probably not for very long in any setting whatever.

CSH

Sorry for the incessant irrelevancies - I think that the start of irrelevance often marks the end of a thread as a serious debate. In such cases, it's up to those of us who want to continue the debate to reposition it in a new thread (I'm trying to do something similar with the discusion over possible worlds, but that's not because of irrelevancy - it's avery worthwhile discussion - it's just that the topic's become so complex that the "main drive" needs to be repositioned while allowing for further clarifications in the original thread.

I think you're both adding a lot to the quality of the group, and bugger PC! If you're not superadmins already, I'll rectify the error...

I guess that explains the dead goldfish.

Perhaps the first question can now be rephrased: When does a discussion come to include irrelevancies? Not sure if that has much to do with goldfish, perhaps I just missed the reference that most should be expected to know. I would suggest that irrelevancies can be discerned broadly by the principles I above brought forth, namely, the failure to maintain a train of reasoning and/or logic.

That said, it is easy enough to become irrelevant without intending it. We all commit the inadvertent error. The opening question asks how to identify it before it becomes a sore point for the readership, a perfectly reasonable question. A linguistic parallel illustrates what I believe I am intending to get across: We apply a word metaphorically, then that usage is itself applied likewise, and soon enough the original work has been done a serious injustice. Discussions are often like that, a portion of a conversation raising a related (metaphorical) thread, which then takes on a life of its own, and so forth.

Obviously, as David says, it is up to those drifting into irrelevance (relative to the original thread topic) to start a thread elsewhere. Well, that is perfectly evident and reasonable--and apparently difficult to do in actual practice, else we would not be having this discussion, would we???

Again, the question: How do we identify irrelevancies prior to offending the modality of accepted disputation--which treats irrelevancies as it will any 'hamartia'--declension from accepted practice. And again, I suggest a stock meme, something that is least likely to stoke flames but which gets the point across. Of course other methods must exist, and it is these methods we are looking for, it seems to me.

What does not seem helpful is clever evasion, a restatement of the problem that defines the problem out of existence. If DH believes there is a problem, we owe him the respect to presume the problem or otherwise demonstrate why it is not a problem. Cleverness doesn't cut it. It in no way explicates why the problem doesn't exist or doesn't exist as portrayed, etc. Indeed, such attempts are themselves an example of what we are attempting to redress. They are, because needless or effete, irrelevant into the bargain. It isn't what we expect in philosophical discourse.

I fully agree that PC is suspect; but style guides, which often reduce to illicit attempts to restrict access to life's greatest goods, do have a legitimate function just as governments do. The issue is to protect what is right in offices and avoid PC wherever it in turn incites or invokes injustice to honest intentions and integrity of thought. Every office employs its style guide, and rightly so. The issue here is not that truth isn't unpleasant, for obviously it typically is. The issue is in how we present and justify it. To me, those who are more careless over these points are apt to be more careless over maintaining accepted principles of scientific discourse.

By the same token, we are, as a group, expected to be understanding and cordial. We do not want truth to be taken as "personal". It simply is what disputation hopes to suggest it to be, and even then we allow that it may not be fully on target and even if it seems so, it may not remain so. And I have also argued before now that irrelevancies are perfectly natural consequences of lively discourse, and I, for one, am willing to allow a fair degree of fuzz.

One question is, therefore, whether the one offering irrelevancies, or those who read and view them as such have the first responsibility to speak up. I opt for the latter, understanding that it may not be an especially popular approach.

CH: "Philosophy is a profession, and so is also an office, and, as such, carries a grant of authority as well as prerogatives and responsibilities."

Well, I am anything but a professional philosopher. I have never been granted any claim to a philosophical office. And I can claim no particular authority. Personally, I don't much care. I shall continue in my uneducated ways until someone in authority silences me. I hope to do so in a way which will not offend anyone, practicing the Golden Rule as much as is in my nature.

Personally I tend to lose interest when the discussion becomes too terribly irrelevant. There is no sense in complaining. Silence seems to be the best response.

What you are is in part what you claim and in part not. The distinction is interesting. Here is an example--

A young man gets on the internet and speaks with authority--not, mind you, claiming authority by title, just speaking the lingo and allowing rhetorical flourishes, wiith implied promises that should his advice be followed the client should expect a favorable return upon her investment. In acting the part, this young man established a 'constructive office', and thus placed upon himself certain responsibilities that our legal system has had a timorous time coming to terms with. The kid was brought in for questioning but given a slap on the wrist. The prosecutor was afraid the kid's lawyer could make trouble. Obviously--to me, at any rate--the prosecutor did not know legal theory solidly enough to convince a judge and/or jury. Too bad.

Well, Bill, I think you catch the moral of this story. You are on a professional site: ReseachGATE. It is presumably for scholars of all stripes, academic or otherwise. When you are in art-space you are presumed to carry an attitude and aptitude appropriate to art appreciation. When you are in philosophy-space you are, well...(fill out the blank).

The fact that you are not, any more than myself, an academic, is rather beside the point, isn't it? You are sufficiently 'anything but a professional' as to carry some pride at discoursing for other nonprofessionals (and some professionals as well I suspect) when adding your two cents to Wikipedia articles. Is there no sensibility for intellectual offices in that effort??

The young man who made a minor fortune posing as a broker on the internet could as well have made all the same claims in order to divest himself of legal responsibility. He never claimed to be a 'broker'. Everything was implied, and, well, only fools believe a jester!! Caveat emptor is the motto, no?

Oh, yes, Bill, I really actually do understand what you meant if what you said was said in all sincerity. And while it serves to mitigate the sentence, it does not excuse the failure to steward the office you presuppose when discoursing here. I know this may sound peevish and maybe even a little severe and uncompromising.

But to make a point necessary to be made, especially in context of the question asked by DH, allows me some leeway. My office is truth, and it is frequently the gadfly who must play the obtuse jester when the king rejects truth in other garb.

That said, I also heartily agree with David that you offer a great deal to this site. I only ask that you offer it with a view to your responsibilities and stewardship of all that lusty talent you obviously possess.

Please recall that truth is usually all that is required for excitement. Real philosophy--working out the methodology--is dullness personified. There is no cowboy philosophy that generates anything different from the disposition offered by cowboy capitalism. In philosophy the safest course is to shy clear away from cuteness and cleverness. They are rarely appropriate and even when they add to the discussion must serve, rather than detract from, the readership's understanding of the discourse.

As for answering DH's question(s). When a post appears not to address the stewardship of the principle implied or stated in the thread, chances are the seed of irrelevance or worse is in store. But as soliloquies have their charm, we should be careful not to proscribe asides, as they are frequently offering up worthwhile philosophical material. What we desire is simply a quick and reasonable return to the topic. Absent that, readers have a responsibility to kindly inform the posters of a wayward track, and at that the posters have a duty to presume the complainant as likely correct and so to terminate matters there or complete them in a different thread. Frankly, I really don't see why this needs to be an inextricably complex issue. It takes balls to speak up, but responsibility enjoins nothing less--recall that office? Even those rarely offering comments are in the same philosophy-space. Why on earth have they no responsibility to the conversations they silently but nonetheless fully indulge in?? It isn't a silly public chat room. It is a professional site and the readership has a responsibility to be other than a limp noodle. If such is unenforceable it doesn't mean we can't still speak to it. Customs were 'legally' unenforceable but were well spoken to in early society.

It sometimes happens that there is a thread which strains the very concept of methodology. For example, consider... What is "I"? It was created in the Language family of threads so one might suppose it to be about language. On that front it would seem to be about the meaning and usage of one pronoun, ***I.*** But the thread seems to jump from Linguistics to Metaphysics, to Existentialism, to Theology... Much of what is written in one context seems irrelevant in another.

Personally, I have decided not to respond to some of the content based on my belief that the author of certain comments is not going to be persuaded by anything I have to say on the subject. Perhaps you would think of that as a cowardly approach?

I prefer to think of it as a good Poker strategy. If playing a card will weaken me down the line then it is best for me to preserve my hand by not revealing too much. If I say anything in such a context it is likely to be an attempt at humor. Such humor, however might, I suppose, inflame someone deeply intent on his own beliefs.

On the other hand, there are threads which seem to have outlived their usefulness. It seems that one person makes an irrelevant comment simply to respond to another irrelevant comment. And so we go around and around with no clear purpose.

This is not to say that the thread... What is "I"? has no purpose. It seems legitimate to ask such a question. But given the complete lack of agreement among men today on the bounds or methodology to be pursued it seems inevitable that it will generate more heat than light.

But I for one, would not discount any of the opinions expressed. It is just that I desire to preserve my hand to win at another game.

You will find no quarrel with me on anything in your recent post. In fact, BRAVO!!

Oh, drat!!

LOL

:-)

How awful - we're all in agreement with Bill!

There is, of course, another function of Research Gate (at least, for me): certain comments strike me as based on a general confusion about what philosophy - or for that matter, "science" - are "all about". My usual response - if I don't just ignore it - is to attempt to clarify what's at stake (and the most fundamental comment is to recall that philosophy is a linguistic activity, and not some kind of unmediated access to the Divine Light of Noumenal Reality). How useful this is to my correspondents is a matter of some doubt, but for me it's of the gretest value ;-)

XX

The remark is an aside, which I accept in my general attitude of tolerance. But clearly it does not follow the original question and further discussion requires a distinct thread devoted to it. Next time I will restrict my remarks to the x's as I earlier advocated.

CHEERS!!!

Dear colleagues

I find it interesting that, close to a year later, the Philo group finds itself questioning another 'state of affairs'. The previous being a need for 'control' w.r.t. moderation and rules. The outcome of that, of course, was that it was not necessary. The experience of that excercise however, was indeed, needed.

This is how I see the current state: The group has been based on a mixture of in/formal approaches, creating a foundation of sorts [in its categories] into which and from which theories can be extracted. Of course, the knowledge base available has been limited to a few people and different levels of expertise - not necessarily hindering the process, but certainly trimming the scope available.

Now, having been cursed by some blessed "common-sense" as David constantly accuses me of, I have to say that the abstract of Philosophy is not 'made available' to this woman or that man - yet it's *skill* is most definately acquired and awarded to the committed scholar.

I recognise and respect the committed members' need and frustration at focusing on thread topics that require a rigorous philosophical methodology. Having said this, I have equal respect for the unqualified Philosopher's natural curiosity and wonder to exploring knowledge. A stalemate.

I have mentioned before that controlling behaviours as well as the argument is rather counter-productive. I would agree with sentiments here that a professional and firm, well-placed reminder if a topic [or contributor] is 'off-track' is the best one can do for the quality of the interaction. Other than that, I'm not one for veto-ing contributions and contributors on a group that promotes and encourages outside involvment on general [yet still focused] concepts. We're mostly adults - at the best of times.

But, back to 'aside remarks' and 'value': it may not be a case of a *need for clarity* in a general group's topics, but perhaps rather one of *a need for method* to a particular problem. David HAS been rolling his eyes at the weak formulation of arguments, and I would have to agree - for Serious Philosophy's Sake. However, for Philosophy of the People (that dratted common sense-thing sneaking in again), I think the unstructured development of knowledge, methodic doubt and discourse is our best bet if we want something [more] substantial to work with.

I recommend, that, should you find your topic has 'promise' in developing a worthwhile theory that can be formulated more seriously, perhaps mark the discussion as a 'Formulated Argument' that continues. Then take its dialectic forward in the downright fabulous 'Philosophical Research' thread started by David some months back - it's a closed group but in no way implies a closed thread or mind :).

uber-Natasha

Natasha, Charles - might it be worth throwing open the old "philosophical research" group to public access as a knd of "seminar-room" for work on the more technical and formal aspects?

The Philosophical Research group is now open to public inspection. Forgive the unsightly stains on the carpet.

I like the idea of arriving at "formulated arguments"--why does it recall to mind methodology? My issue is whether such requires a separate group. I can see a separate group for matters of formal logic or where terminology tends to reduce discussion to gobbledlygook--too often a way to discuss more about less of significance. Methodology doesn't have to imply a straitjacket.

This is all making me wonder at the real intention behind "off-line" or "off-topic". Is it being proposed that if one person's methodology doesn't stand well with another then someone is off-topic? It ought not to be a matter of method v. method but of method v. no method. Philosophy implies method--though I have known professionals who question that--wonder how much real philosophy they actually read. If you pay attention to what you read you find that the people we all acknowledge as great philosophers were exceedingly concerned with methodology. That ought to settle this aspect of the problem. Next issue is to settle on what is a minimum of acceptable methodology--if, that is, 'off-topic' is primarily concerned with manner and mode rather than with substance ( = topicality, as in 'on-topic').

My consideration of 'off-line' or 'off-topic' is that as substance goes by the wayside, it goes haywire methodologically as well, if only because the typical reason for veering is either inattention -or- over-focus upon a portion small enough to lose contextual contact with the whole, either of which implies is a failure to attend to methodological considerations per se--in short, method v. no method. This is where the aspects intersect for me. Many asides are internally logical and acceptable methodologically but off-topic nonetheless, and so, *relative to the topic*, un-logical and so un-methodological. And therefore 'off-topic'.

I like Natasha's effort to accommodate professional and non-professional. I have no problem with identifying issues that appear to have arrived at formulation, but in light of a desire for accommodation shouldn't that be a thread in the general group rather than a separate and private group within the general group? Natasha mentions 'thread', David mentions 'group'. Apparently I am missing something. As it has been re-opened, I will look it over and report back.

DH: This group is now a "child" of the Philosophy group. I've opened it to public access as a "seminar room" for more technical discussions of topics in "academic philosophy". The group will be moderated in order to maintain the basic standards of academic discussion - if you want to participate in the moderation process, just ask!

CSH: I have suggested that the best "moderation" is for people to speak up. In the group Technology Assessment you will note a recent example of this which worked exactly as intended. It is the method I have frequently recommended and I will recommend it again until someone officially degrades it

DH: One basic rule: be ready to defend any claims or assumptions you make; and if someone questions a claim or an assumption, THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS OF PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE - it's not a personal attack.

There are many different poistions & persuasions represented here; nonetheless, we all tend towards the Western tradition. While there might at times be irreconcilable differences concerning the domain and the methods of philosophy, we can I think find common ground - and we must at all times maintain common politeness!

CSH: Why on earth is it impossible for these to be the understood rules for everything on this site? To suppose they can only be effectuated in an elitist group is, well, elitism. I suppose if it has become impossible to instruct outliers in methodological discourse then the better solution is to deal with them directly via private messages with, ultimately, a threat of expulsion. I find a special group devoted to 'real' philosophy somehow distasteful and an insult to non-professionals (whereat I include myself as one of the 'professionals').

DH: If anyone has any remarks on the object of this group, on the moderation process, on the kinds of approach which are appropriate etc., could you post 'em here?

CSH: I thought this discussion belonged normatively to the present thread.

The best I can suggest at this point is that threads be of two types, soft and hard (loose v. rigorous). Or, use David's choice of 'seminar' as 'hard'. Maybe 'Open discussion' as 'light'.

No separate groups! The same topic goes both ways, every topic is doubled to incorporate each, and we see how it falls down--who opts for which, what sorts of discussion result in each, etc. Anyone should have the option to go to both, either, or neither. Anyone can ultimately be taken off to the side and counseled. It is up to participants to speak up, and up to supers to 'deal' with problems. There is no need for 'moderation' of any of this in my opinion.

CSH

Agreed, Charles.

The result of the last interaction (the discourse can be viewed on this topic thread of 'Rules and Moderator') revealed it unnecessary for moderation.

I need to just clarify that, by recommending the Philo Research group, I was not recommending a halt on discussion traffic in this group OR indicating a distinction in Members - merely indicating that there are very real philosophical arguments that could translate into very real solutions that just require a 'refinement' of sorts.

It's about 'better-packaging' the sets of information as opposed to packaging contributors.

Let's think about it: there is no limitation on philosophy or its problems in this 'group'. The experience remains open and decides its own flow - as it should be.

If a flow on a particular argument begins to attain a formal development, which may require a formal method, the topic may indeed prove to be - by its very nature of focus - an intimidating and unnattractive carrot for motivating contributions or newcomers.

Of course, choice is always open to members on RG as a whole as to whether or not they feel they want to start a group or not. With respect to Philosophy as a topic in general, there ARE unarguable levels of distinction - and I feel robust arguments AND members (irrespective of professional level) have a right to dedicate their appropriate distinctive flow in an appropriate, distinctive space. So, the different 'groups' do not imply the 'user levels' but rather the 'level of focus' required for robust research.

I would like to respectfully request to David H, Bill and Charles, [and other members] however, that - for puposes of maintaining both information groups in a balanced fashion - you keep in mind the focus level of your discussions when posting. In other words, if it's a general topic still to be formulated/debated and dialectic is not quite a focus as yet, that it perhaps be presented and discussed here.

Essentially, the "Philo Research" group should be dedicated to RESEARCH OF AN ALREADY FORMULATED PROBLEM and NOT RESEARCH IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM.

Would you agree?

#H1-131. Completed reading this thread (2 pages). Now, I aw aware further postings to this thread may not be required, but any way as is my usual, I list my gleanings from reading this thread. Only to summarise the best ideas as interests me, not else.

1. Charles Herman, 1217090227.

2. Natasha van Rooyen, 1221090218.

3. Natasha van Rooyen, 1223091643.

@*. The third is my opinion also, on the subject of this thread.

I am New too, and seemed to have confused two different threads by accident and commented regarding the one, on the other, sorry. After reading this thread, however, I may, as a newcomer wish to comment on this...

"Essentially, the "Philo Research" group should be dedicated to RESEARCH OF AN ALREADY FORMULATED PROBLEM and NOT RESEARCH IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM."

Does this mean I am back in 1st and 2nd year university where one has to merely copy and regurgitate information or theories pre-established by others? Is personal twist/interpretation not welcome? Of course, pre-established research should be studied and understood before formulating one's own opinion, but this site (ResearchGate) asks the person what they are looking for to get out of this site and "research partners" is the option I have chosen as I wish to collabourate with other proficient researchers in developing ideas and theories, and perhaps conduct experiments testing the new hypotheses generated from general discussion. I am always in search of a problem that unites all other problems. =) Are those on this site seeking "research partners" not welcome? Please correct me if I have interpreted this statement incorrectly!!!!!!!!!

Well as an older but probably not wiser hand, I think that most of the Research Topics I have noted, were not well formulated, and tended to take one or another side of the discussion, without regard to the plethora of responses that there might be. How do we deal with new insights where the tried and true Bilateral discussion where neither side is willing to budge is no longer enough for those in the know, and there is a need for something more? Perhaps a new paradigm?

I strongly agree with Natasha and sometimes I fill like into a "theological" discussion, where is only one non contestable truth and all you could said is to be in agreement with the Pope,bishops and priest of this Cult. But, science and philosophy are not closed and Research Gate is a place to discuss different point of views.

SK: "I am New too, and seemed to have confused two different threads by accident and commented regarding the one, on the other, sorry."

It's not a problem for me. Threads are always getting confused. The thread you refer too had already switched from its original subject. But that's alight. It happens... nothing to be sorry about.

SK: "Does this mean I am back in 1st and 2nd year university where one has to merely copy and regurgitate information or theories pre-established by others?"

Not at all... at least not in the Philosophy group. We frequently discuss ancient ideas... and then turn right around to consider very modern ideas.

GM: "I strongly agree with Natasha and sometimes I fill like into a "theological" discussion, where is only one non contestable truth and all you could said is to be in agreement with the Pope,bishops and priest of this Cult."

How strange!! I can't think of a thread where anyone has appealed to authority of a Pope, bishop or priest. I only know of a handful of individuals who seemed opposed to the free discussion of philosophical topics... in general the discussion tends in the opposite direction, toward a free-for-all.

BO: Not at all.

It is rather hard to avoid theological considerations when it comes to the topic of consciousness and emergence, especially if one is a panpsychist as myself and believe that consciousness permeates the universe (see Fechner). My specialty is actually in the emergence of consciousness and have done extensive research in the area. If consciousness permeates the universe, as panpsychism states, then it is impossible to pinpoint a specific time, place, or creature throughout evolution in which consciousness is thought to emerge. Thus some theological considerations come into play. Also, if consciousness permeates the universe, discussions of a unified field as according to Physics is also relevant. Philosophy, is after all, the mothership of all branches of thought.

Yes Sandra, its unbeleivable that we see what outside is in us

Right Sandra, Panpsychism is all the rage, which is of course one reason why my own theory that nothing before the hotblooded reptiles needed to be conscious, is often ignored, and that there is evidence that previous body types were missing some aspects of consciousness, that we assume are related to human consciousness. I have yet to see any evidence of these missing aspects in PanPsychic fields, but then I am not surprised that the theory exists either, it is, after all an appology for believing in something that is Omnipresent.

As it seems to me, all animals --- perhaps even all plant cells --- are somewhat sensitive to their environment. Arguably, small particles of matter --- for which Quantum effects are significant, reacting to their environment in ways which science can not explain --- possess something analogous to sensitivity.

But is such sensitivity, conscious? What is consciousness?

My own tendency is to be a bit more cautious --- more conservative --- in my use of the term.

Charles Hartshorne was the primary exponent of panpsychism and cringed at the thought that anyone could suppose an iron rod to possess consciousness, never mind the attempts to confound 'sensitivity' or 'reactivity' with the concept. I knew Hartshorne personally and asked him about this very matter quite specifically, so I assure you I am not mistaken in the reference. Word use normally benefits by a consideration of the context utilize to frame the definition, because metaphorical uses are dependent upon that central idea for their validity. Consciousness was developed around the presumption of an aware and environmentally-responsive brain. Until someone can rationally assert that of the universe, the application favored by "all is consciousness" set is metaphorical at best and frankly, even that argument is shot through with inconsistency. When honest questions arise as to such matters, Bill's posture of 'conservatism' is always the respectable and usually the correct response, and this comes from a political liberal - I view this matter much as Lincoln (another liberal) viewed the proper 'conservative' view of the Constitution, namely, preserving its integrity, including in particular its original context - the Declaration and Preamble. Of course, context is not the same as etymology, and I refer specifically to context for this argument.

Right, a small group of philosophers and religious groups has attempted to bend the concept of panpsychism for their own benefit, but, because of the rise of the "Spiritual" age, this concept has taken on a greater respect than is due. I have certainly heard no real arguments that the quantum layer has any advanced characteristics of consciousness, yet many groups claim the right to promote that view as if it was scientifically provable. However a full discussion of consciousness and why panpsychism can't be extended that far, is not germaine to this discussion. Is there a better place for it to continue?

Ok, It's not a philo-group, but anyone who wants to discuss panpsychism is welcome

http://www.researchgate.net/groups/Artificial_Consciousness/Board/thread/25215_PanPsychism_is_consciousness_a_Quantum_Field_phenomena_or_limited_to_advanced_species_such_as_birds_and_Mammals

Hmm.... Can't edit the link to go directly there.... My appologies

GS: "Hmm.... Can't edit the link to go directly there.... My appologies."

No need to apologize. ResearchGate's HTML code is far from perfect. Perhaps you can link to it by going through http://bit.ly/ ? I frequently use it to get around the limits in ResearchGate. In other words, where there's a will, there's a way...

There is another thread in this group where Sandra has stated her opinions regarding these matters...

http://bit.ly/eoRmc9

CH: "never mind the attempts to confound 'sensitivity' or 'reactivity' with the concept."

I do not understand what you mean by 'confound.'

I think that there is real continuity between sensitivity and man's rationality. Thus I disagree with Aristotle. Are you saying that we must go back to Aristotle's sharp division between the two?

As for 'reactivity' and Graeme's comment...

"I have certainly heard no real arguments that the quantum layer has any advanced characteristics of consciousness..."

I would once again state that I am "a bit more cautious --- more conservative --- in my use of the term." Thus I wrote...

"Arguably, small particles of matter --- for which Quantum effects are significant, reacting to their environment in ways which science can not explain --- possess something analogous to sensitivity."

I would emphasize the word "analogous." Thus I did not claim that the "quantum level" has "any advanced characteristics of consciousness" or even that it is sensitive after the fashion of animals. But the analogy is there, as many men, wiser than myself --- at least when it comes to Quantum Mechanics --- have said. Indeed, as I recall, no less an authority than Albert Einstein called Quantum Entanglement, "spooky."

In line with my general tendency to be somewhat conservative, I do not make much ado about Quantum Entanglement. (In fact I question the arguments justifying what some claim about it.) On the other hand, I do think that Quantum Mechanics in general is significant. It does seem to offer the only real solution to the problems which have been noted by J. R. Lucas...

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/2truth08.html

and Roger Penrose. I don't, however, necessarily agree with the solution proposed by Penrose and Hameroff...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR

But these arguments are serious ones proposed by wise men, and are not related to any "rise of the 'Spiritual' age." Indeed, I have little respect for 'New Age' spiritualistic claims, 'per se' though some of what is thus proposed is interesting, philosophically.