User Tools

Site Tools


wiki:who_is_interested_in_the_topic

Who Is Intrested In The Topic? Any Interest In Connecting In Real Life?

I am tryiong to connect to people who are interested in studying 'human condition' in a scientific way.

I browsed this wiki and many topics sound similir to what I would say about them but not as I would frase them.

Many topics seem inconsistent with general premises.

I am part of the group that developped a lot of material on the topic of 'etiology of human condition'.

I am interested in discussion of the assumptions and worldviews of those who frequent these pages, are concerned and feel there is a need to do something about 'human condition'

Anyone interested?

what is the best way to begin a dialog?

Discussion

alex todorov, 2011/10/28 16:04

Subscribing

Robert MacLachlan, 2011/11/07 08:48

Hi,

I'm delighted someone wants a dialog. So far I've written almost all of the content here. I was thinking of writing a book, but it became clear that the scope was too large even for a book. The idea of structuring it as a Wiki was appealing because it both spreads the work across many people and also draws in multiple viewpoints. This means that the framework of the Wiki is merely a starting point for a dialog. It is my hope that it will serve as a good framework capturing this dialog in a way that others can benefit, even if they are not yet ready to contribute. There is not a huge amount of traffic so far, but looking at the server stats, it seems that there's a couple people coming through every day who have some interest in the subject.

Could tell us about your group and point us to any of your materials? By the way, I just put up the slides for a talk on genetic/cultural coevolution that I gave to the humanist group at my Unitarian Universalist church.

alex todorov, 2011/11/07 10:22

Hello Robert,

The materials of our group are hosted at www.condition.org

Although I find many of your writings on target I would not say that I agree with all of what you wrote. Or at least that I do not agree with whatever I understood your words mean to me. I of course could have misinterpreted your words - something that all of us do all the time.

As to the idea of wiki as collaborative project to be the best way to tackle the problem of defining and discussing “human condition” I disagree.

Even among those who are interested in the subject many are not willing to engage in dialogue to forge a science based definition of human condition and science based approach to “problems of mankind”

I will review your presentation and will give you my comments if you are interested.

I must admit that when people speak of churches my red flag instantly goes on because I consider religions and religious associations unproductive use of time and the debate on whether science and religion are compartible or not to me is a particularly wasteful activity

Robert MacLachlan, 2011/11/07 13:43

Could you tell us more about the condition.org community? How is it that you collaborate, and how is the web-site administered?

It would be remarkable if you did agree with all of what I have written. The interesting question is whether we could work out some consensus, either within your existing process, or my “limited consensus” framework.

What are the problems that you see with the use of a wiki? What alternatives do you propose? Bear in mind that I am proposing what is (so far as I know) a new structure here, of a Wiki based on limited consensus. I don't know if this will work, but I'm unhappy both with the consensus-of-the-most-persistent-contributors as seen on Wikipedia and the purely individual viewpoint of the blog. What I'm hoping to create is more like a “group blog” than any existing type of web site, but I hope to focus the energy on producing a consensus synthesis rather than on generating a large number of “posts” from individual viewpoints.

I entirely agree that I have no interest in debating whether science and religion are compatible. I don't see religion and spiritual practices as being a primary focus of the Wiki, but these things definitely are part of the human experience, and most people who identify a spiritual side of their lives see it as being very relevant to questions of meaning and purpose.

I would like people who have a variety of beliefs about spiritual life to feel welcome to contribute to the Wiki. That includes people who have no interest in any sort of traditional religion, but also includes people with either traditional or unusual spiritual practices.

alex todorov, 2011/11/07 14:24

our group is not large and our collaboration is focused mostly on trying to get in touch with people who are interested in sceintific approach to defining and analyzing 'human condition'

it has been extremely difficult to identify people who would be genuinely open-minded and curious to review material that does not come from academic establishment

at the current stage of evolutionary process our group is so small that simple e-mailing works fine; we do not expect significant growth any time before we could get to the media which has proven to be extremely difficult for the same reasons that are responsible for lack of proper scientific attention towards 'human condition'

the problem with wiki format is the fact that it aggregates opinions from anyone who cares enough to post and since 'the science of human condition' has not made into academic establishment yet most of the opinion you will get would not be science based but instead be belief-based (or faith based)

since all of us directly observe 'human condition' all of us feel that we have something to say on the subject but only rarest of us have an understanding that what we may be saying is merely artifact of thus-far intellectual development and not a scientific fact

this is a fundamental problem which renders wiki-format ineffective and bound to be 'same old, same old'

i am not sure what you mean by 'spiritual life' in your last paragraph but from the way you talk about it and your choice of language constructions i conclude that you might think that there is something more than matter/energy and that we can learn something about this extra 'substance'

we consider such language and ideas it purpots to denote to be a distraction and unnecessary diversions when one tries to understand the etiology of human condition: the substance underlying them cannot be defined and science cannot deal with something that cannot be defined

Robert MacLachlan, 2011/11/07 15:44

I have proposed the premise:

Reducibility and emergence:
The mind is a consequence of the anatomic organization and electro-chemical function of the brain. Aspects of mind such as consciousness and emotion emerge from this locally mindless activity without any need to invoke unknown physics or other unmeasurable influences.

So I am inclined to say that non-physical influences are beyond the scope of the wiki, which is not the same as saying that you must deny the existence of such in order to contribute.

the problem with wiki format is the fact that it aggregates opinions from anyone who cares enough to post

Wiki is a technology which can be applied in other ways than Wikipedia. For example, there are many private Wikis for collaboration. DokuWiki was originally developed as a way to manage technical documentation, and contains access control mechanisms. I will moderate the Wiki as much as necessary to maintain some sort of coherence with the premises. So far, the problem has been a lack of contributors, so I am reluctant to turn anyone away. If, at some point, we have a problem with people who say “Jesus/Allah/Buddha is the answer; we don't need science”, then I feel that a combination of technical and social means can bring this under control.

As I said before, I don't know if I can create the kind of community I envision, but I am proposing something significantly different from Wikipedia. There is a clear editorial vision, which is currently mine. This Wiki as it currently stands is intended to be a seed crystal. It is likely that important aspects will change in response to the interests and views of contributors, possibly including formal decision procedures for conflict resolution, such as votes. I'm not going to propose any such administrative mechanisms before they prove necessary.

alex todorov, 2011/11/08 10:39

I agree with your premisses even if I may phrase them differently

And the wiki format as the tool is good when you have a group of contributors that you know share into the premisses

This is why I contacted you.

And I understand the idea of the seed crystal - exactly what our group is trying to achieve.

I have reread the home page and have noticed that you do not have the goal of producing the _science_ of human condition and merely settles for “re-interpration” and “human story”

I suggest you review material at www.condition.org that in my opinion develops rigourously scientific account of evolutionary origins of human condition and what we can expect in the near term and long term future

To facilitate the proper analysis our group introduced certain methodology that may sound novel to you but is absolutely necessary given the fact that the language we use conveys different meaning to different people when we move towards higher levels of abstraction

I understand that your idea of the wiki is how you approached the problem of human condition on your own given that you have very little time to contribute to this project and given that it is mostly for the practical benefit of future generations.

Our group feels we have already worked enough on the theoretical basis for the science of human condition.

We are now looking for the people who would share into our understanding and will be willing to contribute a portion of their time towards operating of our group that we view to be a seed group for belief-free scientists to begin proper institutionalization of science eventually coalescing into government and a properly heuristic oversight of 'the human condition' -currently underway in any case -sub- speciation of Homo sapiens into Homo cogitans

Dean Hannotte, 2011/11/18 16:42

Hello Robert,

I would like to be involved in your project too. I'm the current secretary of the Paul Rosenfels Community, which keeps his works alive and freely available in cyberspace. You're the first person I know to publish online a serious analysis of his ideas. (But also see Ron Gold's work at polarityonline.org) I would like especially to thank whoever added to your website Paul's views on the human condition. Is there any way to learn the authors of individual pages and contact them?

Thanks so much, and please know that you have my full support in this long-neglected scientific project, the Enlightenment dream of a “science of human nature”.

Dean Hannotte, Secretary
dh2012@nyc.rr.com
The Paul Rosenfels Community
http://www.rosenfels.org

Robert MacLachlan, 2011/11/19 08:55

You can look at the page revision histories, but at this point I've written almost all of the Wiki, except for a handful of pages contributed by Dan Heyman, mostly on economics. So the Paul Rosenfels stuff is mine. I got his The Nature of Psychological Maturity off of the net, I think from your site. I've added those links to that page. It looks like polarityonline does a good job of making the ideas more accessible, and the feeling/acting terminology may drag in fewer undesirable connotations than submissive/dominant.

You could leave a comment if you were logged in.
wiki/who_is_interested_in_the_topic.txt · Last modified: 2011/11/17 09:16 by ram