Talk:Multiple drafts model

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Mind Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

More detailed citations?

Should the citations in these articles--particularly for the initial quotation--be more detailed? Page number, place of publication, etc?

"philosophical zombies"

"and the possibility of philosophical zombies" this sentence is inherently misleading to what dennet was trying to say. he was trying to say that the defintions under which such notions as thooughts and feelings were explained in relation to the "philosophical zombie" meant that in these ways we are all philosophical zombies because the notions are nonsensical or misleading. if you look back at his book, he described(it was almost a turing like description): that if something could act so like a human in all ways and under any scrutiny not come under doubt as to it being human then in no way could it ever not be human: it simply is human, because it would be impossible to replicate such behaviour and body-structure in that much depth.

this is what i got from it anyway, if you think i am incorrect i would like some feed back: my email is burtcataract@hotmail.com

and don't give me arguments in the vein of an intuition pump to do with blade runner (they weren't really robots, they were actors...hehehe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.202.4 (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

background to Multiple Drafts

I have amended the entry to demonstrate the background to Multiple Drafts. Yes Dennett is an extremist in the field of consciousness studies and an encyclopedia article should make this clear. loxley 16:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the peer review notice in 5 days if there is no more input/comment. loxley 13:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another draft

There were some flat-out errors, as well as some distinctly unsympathetic POV comments. I did my best to correct them without a full rewrite, since the original did have plenty of good material despite these flaws. As always, I'm open to any comments and suggestions. Oh, and by the way, anyone who calls Dennett an extremist clearly has a POV. Alienus 02:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is the policy and it does not mean NO point of view. Hitler was an extremist. Of course Dennett is an extremist in the philosophy of consciousness. loxley 09:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a horrid and extremely misleading analogy. Hitler was an insane, megalomaniacal mass murderer. Still, if you look at his entry Adolf Hitler (which I have been helping to construct BTW), you will find no mention of words like extremism, lunatic, evil monster, etc. etc.. These charaterstics emerge fro the desrciption of the actions, belefs and opinions expressed by Hitler celarly enough without the need for op-ed language.

In the case of philosophy, the epithet extremist is just flat-out meanignless if not a compliment. Today's extermist is often tomorrow's foresighted genius badly understood in his time. Just describe Dennett's opinions, the criticism of Dennett's opinions, Dennett's responses perhaps (this is where philopshy artciles get into difficuly IMO) and so on. Let the reader decided what is extrsmist or not extermist in Dennett's positions. --Lacatosias 12:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the previous version showed some rather obvious hostility (not to mention confusion) on this matter, and that's not NPOV. If you want to comment on the substance of my changes, feel free. Alienus 09:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed. Your latest changes were pure POV, and not at all accurate. For example, Descartes believed that there was indeed a seat of consciousness where it all had to happen in order to count. In specific, he thought it was the immaterial soul, as contacted through the pineal gland. While this idea has, quite rightfully, fallen out of favor, its remnants remain in the notion of a hard before and after, as if the pineal gland now housed a homunculus sitting in front of a projection screen. This is one of the most strongly stated ideas in "Consciousness Explained", so I have trouble imagining how you might have missed it. Alienus 11:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Dennett used a straw man Cartesian Theatre argument in which things were instantaneously present is not a biased POV, it is accurate. Descartes, Kant, Clay, James etc... have all noted that conscious experience requires time. That Dennett incorrectly describes earlier ideas of consciousness as involving instantaneous awareness is crucial to understanding his ideas. Have you read Descartes or Kant, who both describe ideas as having duration? The big point here is whether Wikipedia should just report philosophical theories verbatim or put them in context. Apart from Augustine of Hippo I cannot think of any major philosopher of mind who has failed to notice that conscious experience requires a duration to be conscious experience. Even Augustine admits that God must be able to manage durations. You should have seen that Dennett was using a straw man argument the moment he mentioned Cartesian theatre - follow the link, it says that the "Cartesian theatre" was created by Dennett to disparage his imagined detractors. loxley 16:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was never whether there was a "during" to consciousness; it's obvious from the macro level that takes time to observe, decide and then act. The issue is whether there's a "before" and "after". According to the Cartesian model, all the sensory processing that occurs before the data arrives at the pineal is unconscious. Only when it arrives at the seat of consciousness (read: Cartesian theater) does it become conscious, such that the mind is truly aware of the data and can do the deciding, which leads to (equally unconscious) actions. In the course of deciding, the seat of consciousness can compare the input with prior memory and record new memories, so the perception actually "counts". If it is intercepted before, this is Stalineque. If it arrives but later arrivals overwrite the memory, it's Orwellian.

Lets concentrate on Descartes for a moment, although Dennett was trying to tar a wide range of phenomenal philosophy with the brush of "cartesian theatre". "Ideas", what descartes calls the images in the pineal, have a duration:

"2. But before considering whether such objects as I conceive exist without me, I must examine their ideas in so far as these are to be found in my consciousness, and discover which of them are distinct and which confused.

3. In the first place, I distinctly imagine that quantity which the philosophers commonly call continuous, or the extension in length, breadth, and depth that is in this quantity, or rather in the object to which it is attributed. Further, I can enumerate in it many diverse parts, and attribute to each of these all sorts of sizes, figures, situations, and local motions; and, in fine, I can assign to each of these motions all degrees of duration."(Meditation V).

But Descartes is not unique in this, Aristotle, Locke, Hume etc. all mention that ideas (things available to or in the mind) have a duration. The before and after is considered by these and other philosophers and they tend to agree that it this is very problematic. Even as early as Aristotle philosophers understood the problem of duration:

"...mind is either without parts or is continuous in some other way than that which characterizes a spatial magnitude. How, indeed, if it were a spatial magnitude, could mind possibly think? Will it think with any one indifferently of its parts? In this case, the 'part' must be understood either in the sense of a spatial magnitude or in the sense of a point (if a point can be called a part of a spatial magnitude). If we accept the latter alternative, the points being infinite in number, obviously the mind can never exhaustively traverse them; if the former, the mind must think the same thing over and over again, indeed an infinite number of times (whereas it is manifestly possible to think a thing once only)."(Book I)

"..we must fall into an infinite regress or we must assume a sense which is aware of itself." (Book III,425b)

In other words the mind, according to Aristotle, extends over the duration, ie:

"In every case the mind which is actively thinking is the objects which it thinks." loxley 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Dennett's take on this distinct is that he denies that there is ever such a place for things to arrive at.

Along with most other philosophers. His Cartesian theatre really is a straw man! loxley 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, the moment any part of the nervous system senses something, it is potentially conscious and can be acted upon immediately, without waiting for instructions from the homunculus. It doesn't matter whether you agree with Dennett on this, what matters is that you be able to understand and fairly report what Dennett says, without nasty editorializing that attempts to undercut him. Remember, the NPOV policy requires that we offer a sympathetic description.

NO, this is not nasty editorialising, it is just putting Dennett in context. In his book he does not cover the fact that numerous philosophers have been over this ground before and, like hime have concluded that mind is not at an instant. My edits are NPOV, yours are failing to put Dennett in context. loxley 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for following the link to Cartesian theater, it turns out that I just rewrote that page, so I'm quite familiar with its contents. Once again, you have the issue wrong. It's not whether the term is intended to be somewhat disparaging -- of course it is, though not in a particularly crude way. It's whether the term is dishonest to the point where it's incontrovertibly a straw man. To say that it is, without attribution, is pure POV. Then again, using phrases like "imagined detractors" reveals that you've got plenty of excess POV, which you can't seem to curb. Any amount of research will turn up the fact that Dennett has a number of entirely real detractors, as well as real supporters.

No, you have the POV. I was just quoting from the article that you rewrote:

"The Cartesian theater is a somewhat disparaging term coined by philosopher Daniel Dennett to pointedly refer to the remnants of Cartisian dualism in modern materialistic theories of the mind." - ie: he was disparaging Cartesian dualists - who, incidently, along with many other philosophers of mind do not hold that "Cartesian ideas" are instantaneous. loxley 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an edit war with me over this would be a mistake for many reasons, not the least of which being that you are demonstrably in the wrong. I'm sorry you disagree with Dennett,

NO, I am not disagreeing with Dennett, I am disagreeing with you. The report on Dennett's ideas is fine. But in Wikipedia we do not just report ideas of philosophers as gospel truth, we put them in context. loxley 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but I'm not going to allow you to violate Wikipedia rules to take out your grudge. What I am going to do, however, is to edit the disuputed paragraph to lower the amount of misunderstanding it generates. I recommend that you leave the resulting change alone, at least until you can offer fair and knowledgable suggestions. Alienus 19:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you started the edit war. You changed the text from NPOV to POV, look at the History of the text. Dennett is describing a "Cartesian theatre" as if it were a widely held belief when it is not a recognised theory in philosophy. All that I am asking you to do is leave in the little pointer that says: 'hang on a minute, there are other philosophers who have other ideas about the issue of duration in conscious experience, think about this'. I recommend that you look through your textbooks and come up with four or five quotations on Cartesian Dualism or other philosophy of mind that say that the mind is at an instant to prove that you are not retailing a POV. (I have produced quotes to the opposite effect above and can produce many more). If you do not I will revert the paragraph. loxley 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

maybe i'm missing something here or maybe this is a POV to extreme, but the cartesian theater was never "made-up" to "attack" his "imagined detractors" . to me, he took a lot of contemporary theories (remember conciosness explained was published in 1991) to their logical conclusion and he came to the conclusion that they all seemed to rely on some form of cartesian theater, maybe he was wrong maybe not, but i don't think he did it maliciously. have you read the book; it is not a polemic.

I've been reminded that Wikipedia is not a debate forum, so I won't let this turn into a pointless debate. I've made some changes. Review them. Comment here. Alienus 07:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is essential to bring out (1) that the "Cartesian theatre" theory is, as you have pointed out in "cartesian theatre", Dennett's own creation (2) that, as Dennett himself points out, the change of interpretation of events over time is not peculiar to Dennett (3) that Dennett's views are a form of eliminativism. Otherwise the article reads like a missive from the Daniel Dennett fan club rather than a serious discussion of the model. loxley 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i think you want it be an anti-daniel dennet page the way you are going about it.

I'm fine about pointing out that the Cartesian theater is a term Dennett came up with and that not everyone he accuses of harboring such an element in their theories of consciousness would agree that it's there. Also, as I said earlier, that interpretations change over time and that perception has a duration are not controversial. The issue isn't instantaneity, it's the existence of a clear boundary between conscious and preconscious. By removing any such artificial boundary, Dennett allows consciousness to be decentralized, hence the consequence of not-quite-conscious elements acting together. I tried to make that clear in the text. I also added a few phrases showing that some things are Dennett's view. The goal is to make this sound neither like a love letter from his fan club nor a poison pen letter from his detractors. Alienus 18:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Dennett's ideas differ because they reject the idea of a view containing our experience and maintain that consciousness is to be found in the actions and flows of information from place to place."

This is flatly incorrect: Dennett does not reject the idea of a view containing our experience. He rejects the idea of a single, authoritative view. Instead, he argues for there being multiple drafts (hence the name of the theory), each constituting a view. The draft that wins out is the one that gets to claim that it's authoritative. In addition to your change being erroneous, you removed some text that was accurate, which made it a distinct step backwards. I am beginning to question the depth of your understanding of this theory. Alienus 03:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks somewhat balanced now. I am happy to leave the bit you reverted (without conceding the point(!)). You (Alienus) have improved the clarity of the explanation of the model, the article is positive about the theory but still has strong hints as to where a student should look if they are asked to criticise. loxley 10:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I think we're done here for now. Perhaps someone else would be able to further contribute to this and related articles, at which point our job would be to ensure that the quality is not degraded. Alienus 11:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had finished but you are once again stressing that Dennett's ideas about timing and the delegation of function are special or distinctive, they are not. His Orwell and Stalin are straw men, they do not represent the views of hardly any real philosophers. They are made up. Dennett has defeated imaginary opponents! This has been my whole point: other philosophers have analysed duration and timing in conscious experience (from Aristotle to Whitehead and Freud). Dennett uses straw men because he knows that real philosophers have already tackled this problem of time and come to various answers from Whitehead's time extension to Husserl's ideas (that are similar to Dennett's). Few, if any, of these real philosophers have proposed that we have an intantaneous view of the world, few would claim that the content of the duration of conscious experience is fixed. By defeating his straw men he is not giving us anything new except a false claim to priority in this field. Dennett's real contribution is his extreme eliminativism. He really is saying that you do not have phenomenal experience, you only have judgements. loxley 13:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We were finished, until you made another erroneous change, without bringing it up in advance or explaining it after the fact.

The notion that Orwell and Stalin are straw men is inherently POV, since it's taking sides on precisely the issue in question.

Please look up the meaning of straw men!! I am not saying there is anything wrong with Dennett's argument. I am saying that he cannot be given any credit for arguing against philosophical ideas that scarcely existed in the literature. Other philosophers did not propose a Cartesian theatre, it is Dennett's own boogeyman. loxley 08:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dennett is asserting that certain theories are unknowingly making one of these two equivalent errors, but the people he's accusing don't always agree. Stating that either side is right is POV. Reporting the claims of either side is not POV, and since this article is a summary of Dennett's ideas, it ought to be reporting his claims. So if you want to insert the claim that this is a straw man attack, find a reference.

Who is proposing these theories? Real philosophers and scientists have far more subtle ideas. There is no other side. This feature of Dennett's philosophical style is well-known and was pointed out in the Cartesian theatre article - before you changed it(!). It allows him to claim priority in a field when he does not deserve it. All Dennett has done is invoke the dubitability argument - if we exist for an instant we cannot be sure of anything in the next instant - and claim it as a breakthrough. loxley 08:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, onto the factual issue. Yes, a key part of Dennett's theory is that it is explicitly behaviorist; consciousness is as consciousness does. He denies qualia outright, though he dos not deny that we have cooked feels, such as phenomenal experience. I think the article now makes that quite clear, even if it's not entirely clear to you.

But that's not why the theory's called Multiple Drafts! Rather, the title refers to the notion that the conclusions of any one part of the brain at any given moment -- a draft -- is not authoritative or final. Much like Wikipedia, there are a number of drafts over time, each overwriting and/or merging in with previous ones. Not only does the overall process (rather uncontroversially) fail to be instantaneous, but no instant or brief duration is inherently special. Let me explain this last part by analogy, since it's very clearly what you misunderstand about Dennett's ideas.

My point is that this is not particularly original. It is the heterophenomenology and eliminativism that makes Dennett stand out, not multiple drafts. In fact it is just eighties European philosophy sanitised for an insular anglo-american audience:

"Imagine observing a quilt on the wall with patches of yellow, blue and white. If you notice the yellow and the non-yellow, you see a pattern of concentric boxes. If you notice the blue and the non-blue you see a checkered design..... DifferAnce, defers a pattern of differences (say the pattern of differences between the blue and the not-blue). That is, one pattern of differences pushes into the background another possible play of patterns. You cannot study the pattern of yellows and the pattern of blues at the same time because differAnce causes one or the other patterns to be "deferred". DifferAnce is the hidden way of seeing things that is deferred out of awareness by our distraction with the imagery that captures our attention. Because it contains this other way to see things "DifferAnce is the...formation of form." (Derrida 1982).

Notice that Dennett does not refer to the European strand of philosophy even though he was a student of Ryle at Oxford. Ryle also says very similar things to multiple drafts. My point is not that Dennett is wrong about Multiple Drafts, it is that there is no opposing "Cartesian theatre" theory and MD is not particularly original. I have been trying to get this through for days but without success. loxley 08:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a river that slopes very gently from the foothills of a mountain all the way to the sea. We decide that we want to distinguish between the mountain water and the marsh water, and agree that water right near the start of the river, where mountain streams combine to create it, qualifies as mountain water, while the part right near the sea counts as marsh water. This is a useful categorization because marsh water floods the surrounding land, while mountain water remains within the banks.

However, we don't know quite where to draw the line between the two. Looking at any one part of the river, it barely seems to slope at all, so there doesn't seem to be any obvious point of division. In fact, it's almost hard to imagine how miles and miles of gentle sloping can accumulate into such a large vertical drop. Some people, due to their failure of imagination, instead decide that the only way for the drop to be accounted for is for there to be a waterfall somewhere in the middle, where the overwhelming majority of the altitude loss occurs. The falls form a natural division; above them is mountain water, below is marsh water, which is qualitatively different because of its distinctly low altitude.

Who are these people who believe in Dennett's Cartesian theatre? Please quote the philosophers by name. Descartes thought there was a duration within experience that continually had things popping in and out of it. Who is it that believes that conscious experience occurs at a durationless instant? (Curiously Dennett and the eliminativists believe this but hardly anyone else does). loxley 08:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now to explicitly link the analogy to the matter at hand. The continuous stream of water from top to bottom corresponds to the processing the brain does, from receiving data to sending out commands in response. Mountain water is perception, marsh water is action. The waterfall is the Cartesian theater, where all the important work happens, while the level areas are nonconscious processing, which is interesting but not nearly as important. By analogy, Dennett is arguing that there isn't any waterfall, but that the water at any level might overflow the banks and qualify as conscious; marshiness is as marshiness does, regardless of altitude. Moreover, the water that overflows might rejoin the river, participating in another overflow later, as per multiple drafts. The invisible watefall, though, is just a cognitive illusion.

Note that the waterfall could be replaced with a series of rapids, given the drop somewhat more duration, but still amounts to postulating a before, during and after, with all the drop occurring during the during, not the flat before and after. This just makes the Cartesian theater a bit larger, without changing its special status. So the issue is not, and never has been, instantaneity. The issue is whether the process is continuous or discontinuous.

The reason this is considered so important by Dennett is that the job of the Cartesian theater is too big to swallow as one lump. In other words, it looks so hard as to be impossible, except by magical souls or something. It's only when we spread the job over the entire brain that it becomes soluble by a collection of processes, where none is individually conscious.

Now, I'm not asking you to agree with Dennnett.

I am not arguing that Dennett is wrong, just that Multiple Drafts is not novel and Dennett has not scored a victory over some established Cartesian idea. Like Don Quixote he has scored a victory over an imagined opponent. Where Dennett is quite novel is his eliminativism. No one else would have dared to go to this extreme! loxley 08:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we all had to agree with something in order to edit an article about it, we'd be doing a whole lot less editing. What I am asking is that you look at what I wrote and see if it fits what Dennett is saying, however wrong you think Dennett is for saying it. If you don't do this, then you'll be as guilty of straw manning as you accuse him of being. Alienus 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We really shouldn't claim that multiple drafts itself is distinctive. I am only making a very small change in the text; I have only been changing about one sentence in the past few edits. The claim that: "the distinction is that Dennett's theory denies any clear and unambigous boundary separating conscious experiences from all other processing ..." is wrong, Dennett's ideas are distinctive for their extreme eliminativism. Other philosophers have held similar ideas about dubitability and many philosophers have considered that experience has a duration with things popping in and out - hardly any philosophers, if any at all, have proposed Dennett's "Cartesian theatre" and the very name is an insult to Descartes. loxley 08:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken about the distinction, and your mistake is clearly the result of bias towards Chalmers' pro-zombie view. This removes your credibility on the matter, so I have to reject your suggestions. The only thing you got right is that the notion of a Cartesian theater is intended to be insulting towards Descartes. Alienus 23:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some supporting argument such as quotations by important philosophers who hold the "Cartesian theatre" view might be in order (ie: that conscious experience is a view at an instant). I am not arguing against Dennett's Multiple Drafts theory, just pointing out that it is neither novel nor a disproof of almost any real philosophical theory that supports phenomenalism. It is his eliminativism that is unique. I have supported my position by showing that Descartes did not propose an instantaneous view and Derrida (and many other European philosophers such as Husserl and Foucault) had very similar ideas. I dont think you have even bothered to read the quote from Derrida above. Please support your claim that Multiple Drafts contradicts Cartesian or property dualism and is unique. It may surprise you to know that I am not a dualist but I am against false claims and simplistic arguments. I have provided evidence that MD does not contradict Descarte's ideas and that other authors have advanced the same concept before Dennett. If you cannot provide any evidence for your claim that Multiple Drafts is novel and cannot even show that it contradicts Dualist theories I will remove the claim. Only Dennett's eliminativism, based on the standard attack on indubitability, is distinctive. loxley 00:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to be patient with you, but you're failing to read what I'm writing. I've explained over and over and over again that instananeity is not the issue. You've ignored this. I don't know how to account for this continued error, but I don't see any reason to repeat myself further. I can only conclude that you do not understand what Dennett is claiming and, for whatever reason, are not interested in understanding. Please do not vandalize the page by spreading your confusion. I'm done now. Alienus 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Note that the waterfall could be replaced with a series of rapids, given the drop somewhat more duration, but still amounts to postulating a before, during and after, with all the drop occurring during the during, not the flat before and after. This just makes the Cartesian theater a bit larger, without changing its special status. So the issue is not, and never has been, instantaneity. The issue is whether the process is continuous or discontinuous." This is your argument, not Dennett's! Dennett does not admit that time could be extended in this fashion! If he did he would have to abandon his arguments against incorrigibility that are the foundation of Multiple Drafts. Furthermore, few philosophies of consciousness, if any, maintain that all processing flows through a single channel - where did you get that idea? Please read some other authors other than Dennett. I have summarised objections to Multiple Drafts in a separate "criticisms" section. loxley 13:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you summarized your own objections, which are based on your lack of understanding of Dennett's stance.

Well, the argument was indeed your argument, not Dennett's. It is also the case that most philosophies of mind allow automatic responses that are consistent with multiple simultaneous channels. loxley 09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, your hostility has let to editorializing and endorsing, instead of neutrally reporting. I've tried to clean up the worst of your excesses, bringing in verifiable sources and a more balanced treatment, but it's still a mess.

There is no hostility here. I am just keen that a fairly extreme viewpoint such as Dennett's eliminativism is not reported as a simple truth. loxley 09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it's getting to the point where your constant changes, and my partially successful attempts to incorporate instead of revert them, are lowering the quality of the page. The text is losing cohesiveness and flow, jumping about from place to place and shifting radically in tone. Soon, it'll be time for a drastic rewrite, which will likely lose whatever positive aspects either of us have contributed. I hope you're proud of yourself. Alienus 06:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We could try cooperating. I created the "criticisms" so that you would not need to change the bit you had rewritten (most of the text was there already). We should both be glad that there are enough people editing Wikipedia to ensure that excesses are ironed out. It is customary in Wikipedia to leave the criticisms as criticisms. This will avoid me providing the answers in the literature to Dennett & other's answers to the criticisms and you then providing the answers to the anserws to the answers. loxley 09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary in Wikipedia to report criticisms accurately but neutrally, without giving them undue weight or excluding the standard responses. For examples, check out the way this is handled on some of the more controversial pages, including those on evolution, atheism and abortion. I'm tempted to just revert your last round of changes, for the reasons above, but I'm not going to. Instead, I will once again try to fix them so that whatever positive contribution they contain is preserved. Alienus 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the last time you poisoned the well, you didn't even bother making excuses in Talk, so I'm going to consider any futher changes to be simple vandalism. If you have something to contribute, talk about it first. Alienus 11:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quote that I removed seems like a testimonial from a dustcover. Saying that Dennett has a broad scope and is better than everyone else is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Hankins web-page is not really an acceptable source but I left the other quote in place because it could be substantiated elsewhere - perhaps you would care to look up the original reference? loxley 14:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war between Loxley and Alienus

Recently, Loxley made some massive and generally harmful changes to the article. While there is good reason to include relevant criticisms, there is no excuse for injecting POV under the guise of balance. What I'd like to do is carefully evaluate each portion of the attempted change and see if it can be incorporated in a balanced and honest way. However, Loxley is too busy edit-warring to allow this at the moment. So what I'm going to do is wait until Loxley goes away and finds someone else to harass, then revisit this issue. In short, I fully support the addition of further criticism, but I reject the way Loxley is trying to do it. Loxley is on record as being overwhelmingly hostile towards and clueless about Dennett, and has a long history of using everything from edit wars to admin manipulation in an attempt to get his way. I'm simply not going to allow this. Alienus 18:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did this ever go to ArbCom? — goethean ॐ 18:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have both exceeded Wikipedia:3RR. Take a rest; raise it with Wikipedia:RfC; come back tomorrow. Please. User:Noisy | Talk 18:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to report me, he can't do it with clean hands. If he does and we both get blocked from editing this article, so be it.

The fact is that he's entirely unwilling to compromise, and his changes are biased, incompetent and just plain bad. What I won't do is sit back and let him poison these articles. Doing the right thing is more important than legalities. Alienus 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lockley has cried to every admin he could find, but was refused. His attempt at an RFA was declined. Anyhow, please don't jump in here and side with the vandal. Once he ends his edit war, I will work to integrate his changes in an NPOV way, as I've done before. But I won't let the POV ruin the article in the meantime. Alienus 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice; I'll do as I see fit. — goethean ॐ 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As will I. But while I'm in the free and unwanted advice business, let me offer one more piece. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alienus and you'll see that, aside from the noise caused by keeping Loxley from ruining these articles, I am very active on a variety of articles. I make positive and substantive contributions, clean up typos and errors and remove obvious vandalism and POV. My talk page shows that people have gone out of their way to compliment me for my efforts. Contrast this with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Loxley, where you'll see that he does little more than edit war. Moreover, if you dig back in a little deeper, you'll see that he continually makes strongly negative statements about Dennett and has made a habit of undermining Dennett every chance he gets. You'll also see that he keeps trying to recruit people to his cause, but nobody ever sticks around.

I've found that, before I pick sides, it's always good to know who I'm siding with. 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think both you guys should calm down. Other edits made by both of you to other articles are irrelevant to this article. I really don't see why so many reverts are happening over something so technical. I'll bet many potential editors who are interested just switch off and ignore both your viewpoints because of your constant arguments on this, and related, articles. This just decreases the number of people who could work together on making the best article. The purpose of any encyclopedia is to explain the theories and if you cannot convince other editors on the talk page, then yours proposed edits probably aren't going to be of high enough quality (even if they are correct). Because of all this nonsense, I've given up on Wikipedia for things related to philosophy of mind. I have some damn strong opinions on philosophy of mind, but I don't have any problem with theories that I disagree with given a fair, and even a positive, description. You both hijack every relevant article, sometimes to insert incorrect text, sometimes simply to give particular ideas undue prominence, but I don't care about deciding 'who started it' or 'who made the worst edits'. It's time to let others work on the articles. There may be (other) experts lurking who could improve all the articles if they felt confident that you guys wouldn't be involved in an edit war. Let me take the chance to premptively welcome you both back when your blocks end. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 18:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset)

My goal here is really simple: I want the articles to be accurate. Loxley's goal is even simpler: he wants Dennett to look bad. Our goals conflict. If you look purely at the level of who's changing text, you can't see the difference in our goals. You have to look at the text being changed and the stated reasons for these changes. Otherwise, you wind up accusing both of us when I'm just acting in defense of the truth.

In any case, I'm more disgusted by this than you are, but my disgust is focused on the person responsible for turning these Dennett-related articles into a battleground. Alienus 15:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been erasing your edits, I have been adding content. The real problem here can be found in the mediation cabal. All through this cabal and all through the Talk you have not responded specifically, only in general terms. If we could address specific issues and resolve them we could make progress. Perhaps we could start with whether the "blind spot" is in fact "filled in" or whether Chalmers, Block, Velmans etc. have opposed Multiple Drafts? loxley 16:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to act like an animal, I will treat you like one. In fact, I will train you like a dog.

When we make changes to an article, we explain them in the Edit Summary comment. If you do not do so, I will not treat your changes as legitimate. If you change the text of an article, I will revert. If you speak in Talk, I will ignore.

You will follow the rules or I will not deal with you. There is no reason for me to make special allowances for someone who refuses to learn how to do things right. Alienus 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

Loxley, your text starts with the 'In other words' , which is a clear cut way of saying the text is redundant or unnecessary. If you do think it's a necessary criticism after all, then there is already a criticism section in the article. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 16:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, there's a more serious problem than redundancy. When he added these changes in again, he tipped his hand. His comment actually read "Include explanation of why Multiple Drafts is not taught except as a curiosity". In other words, he's admitting that the sole purpose of the changes is to denigrate Dennett by inserting strong POV against multiple drafts. This is contrary to the goal of sympathetically explaining the topic of an article.

And if you look at the actual changes, while some of them might be only mildly bad when taken on their own, together they fit with the stated goal of inserting anti-Dennett POV. As a result, I think the whole set of changes has to be backed out, since it's tainted by POV.

I won't edit war over it, but I will apply my post-Loxley policy of working around it. In other words, all changes afterwards will be to the untainted version. Alienus 16:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent)

Reply to Aaron: The text: In other words the Multiple Drafts model holds that stimuli are analysed after the event and that no modelling of the stimuli, such as filling in colours and shapes, occurs. Is a clarification, it can be removed if required but this idea of no "filling in" is central to Multiple drafts. I am sure Alienus will agree.

The big problem is the text in "criticisms" that Alienus removes over and over again. This lists the philosophical and scientific opposition to Multiple Drafts. It answers the question posed by User:Noisy:

"In the little wandering around that I've done on the internet today, Dennett and the Multiple Drafts model get little or no attention in the various internet dictionaries or encyclopaedias of philosophy"

This is why I entitled my change "Include explanation of why Multiple Drafts is not taught except as a curiosity", so that User:Noisy could see it was there.

I am not in the business of "making Dennett look bad", this is a philosophy article. I am in the business of presenting the various points of view on an issue. Now, Alienus did not answer my specific questions, he just called me a dog. I will repeat the questions, again requesting a specific answer. If we could address specific issues and resolve them we could make progress. Perhaps we could start with whether the "blind spot" is in fact "filled in" or whether Chalmers, Block, Velmans etc. have opposed Multiple Drafts? Did Alienus remove my comments on these issues because he disagreed with them? Alienus, please answer specifically. loxley 17:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an Edit Summary. Do things right or I won't waste my time on you. Alienus 18:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issue in hand specifically. loxley 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still no Edit Summary? When will you learn? Alienus 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of the whole article is wrong. We need a simpler short introduction at the start, and then a section explicitly called "Dennett's justification", or something like that, so it can be more clear that it's Dennett POV that there is a clear distinction between him and the Orwellians/Stalinists. There's another POV that the two debates (' why the brain sometimes makes mistakes ' and ' the hard problem of consciousness ') are entirely unrelated. Then we have a criticisms section. The intro should make it clear that there are criticisms and point the reader to the section. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I've just reverted much more than I meant to revert. Just a moment. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 19:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... I wasn't planning to delete all those references from loxley or the entire criticism stuff he added. I had planned to just revert one sentence. However, now that I've looked at it, much of the text did appear POV so I didn't decide to bring it all back. But the attributed criticisms from Chalmers et cetera seem OK. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 19:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The neuroscience bit that I inserted did, perhaps, go overboard. I wrote it in response to "Noisy's" comment - why dont we see Multiple Drafts referred to except in Consciousness Explained and a flurry of papers after its first publication? I am generally happy with your changes. loxley 10:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operationalism and Instrumentalism

I am disappointed!! Here is a rough but accurate definition of operationalism: the doctrine that the meaning of a proposition consists of the operations involved in proving or applying it

Dennett's position is called instrumentalism because it is indifferent with regard to the ontological and truth-functional status of mental phenomena. The concern is with the utility and and predictive efficay of modes of explnation and so on. This is a whopping error which I mnoticed right way and have corrected. But this article does indeed need to be examined very carefully.--Lacatosias 10:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:POM

I've added this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy of Mind in the section on articles needing attention. The structure of the article is odd and there needs to be some discussion of the significane of the Mutiple Drafts Model in modern philosophy of mind. Other than that, I think there is some good work in there.--Lacatosias 12:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been watching the work you've put in on this article and it's been an improvement; good catch on the instrumentalism issue. As you might have noticed, forward progress on the article had stalled somewhat due to disputes between Loxley and I, so it's always good to have disinterested but knowledgeable third parties getting involved.

I do want to mention that there are some similar issues in Cartesian materialism, which is currently Protected due to an edit war. If you have the time and interest, perhaps you could join us in Talk to help us decide where to go with that article. Alienus 20:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the citation. I wasn't putting out challenge, BTW, I just hadnì't heard the expression before and it's always helpful to cite as musch as possible. I think I'll reorganize the references into a more professional and consistent standard. Othewr than that, the main peoblem I see here is the question of balance of views (common to all artciles on philosophy) and the personal nature that the disucssion has taken on. Somtimes this can, in fact, be productive. But in this case it seems like it is blocking collaboration. --Lacatosias 16:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't taking it as a challenge, just an opportunity to solidify part of the article by finding a clear citation for it. It still needs a little more work, because it says Dennett was accused of greedy reductionism. In fact, he was accused of reductionism, and it was his respond (in DDI) that clarified a distinction he makes between good vs. greedy reductionism. I think that detail is fairly minor, though, and is explained in the greedy reductionism article, so it's probably not going to be improved much by any attempt to fix it.

It looks like Loxley's stepped away for the moment, though I expect he'll return. In the meantime, the metaphorical temperature has dropped and I think forward progress will be possible. Alienus 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

There are refernces (references=sources for the artcile)for which I can find no mention or correspondence in the article. I shall move these to a section on ==addition reading== --Lacatosias 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case I haven't made this clear already, I'm very happy that you're cleaning up the references. I've been watching and seeing if there's any place I can help out, but have only found one case so far: the link to operationalism was red, so I added a proper redirect. As it happens, some of the contents in that article seemed a bit questionable, but I suppose that's something to tackle later. Alienus 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The philosophy section on operationalism, at any rate, is not nearly adequate. But I can make the necessary changes fairly easily since I've been focusing a good deal of attention on history and philosophy of science lately.--Lacatosias 09:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Alienus 16:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the repeated citations throught the article to Korb (1993), yet no inclusion in the References?

What's "(Korb 1993)"

What does the reference "(Korb 1993)" refers to? --damiens.rf 14:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Drafts Model → Multiple drafts model –

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization"), and the guidance to downcase the names of models; and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. $Tony (talk)$ 10:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The style choice is different in the locus classicus (Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained; at Googlebooks, but no preview there). But that is not our concern. We apply WP style guidelines in um, ... matters of style on Wikipedia. WP:MOSCAPS (I have corrected the citation in Tony's text above) does indeed say "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization", and more specific principles there also support lower case for this article. Noetica^Tea? 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Multiple drafts model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051121095257/http://ase.tufts.edu:80/cogstud/papers/multdrft.htm to http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/multdrft.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Multiple drafts model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed citations?

"philosophical zombies"

background to Multiple Drafts

Another draft

Edit war between Loxley and Alienus

Other questions

Operationalism and Instrumentalism

Wikiproject:POM

References

What's "(Korb 1993)"

Requested move

External links modified

External links modified