Wikiversity:Artificial consciousness

"Artificial Consciousness" May Belong in Main Namespace

This sounds like it may belong better in the main namespace. The Jade Knight 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"sounds like"? Topic pages can function as content development projects for learning resources in the main namespace. --JWSchmidt 05:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've read the namespaces page several times, and, if you're suggesting that this, lacking anything but a single link to Wikipedia, belongs in the Topic: namespace, then I'll have to admit that I'm still confused about what belongs in the main namespace and what doesn't. To me, this topic looks like it's going to be a learning project. Of course, seeing as it contains no useful content, it's awfully hard to tell. The Jade Knight 06:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, I think it's too early to tell what this page is going to be for/like.. :-) Cormaggio ^talk 12:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to champion a policy allowing empty and virtually empty pages to be speedy deleted… The Jade Knight 12:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This New Page is part of a larger Project on Cognition which also reaches into the Areas of Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Cognition. Speedy deletion might tend to hamper this work. The initiator of the Page requests that instead of the Page being speedily deleted, the good faith of those working on the Project be assumed so that instead of a speedy deletion, if some cause is being found not to go ahead with this work on Artificial Consciousness, a Requests for Deletion be made so that the work could be stopped through a Consensus Process.

(s) Dionysios ^(talk), a Participant in the Wikiversity School of Advanced General Studies, Date: 2007-07-10 (July 10, 2007) Time: 1426 UTC

Request Dionysios Not Create Empty Pages until He Has Content To Add To Them

I'm aware that your intent is for it to eventually be functional content belonging to a larger project. However, I would like to request that you not create empty pages until you have content to add to them—focus on creating content, rather than creating pages. You can actually link directly to Wikipedia from any page on Wikiversity. There is no need to create a page in the middle of that step. It is, at the moment (as it were) a waste of bandwidth. The Jade Knight 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Message received. Your Servant hears and obeys, for now, your request that he not create Empty Pages. He is still relatively new to Wikiendeavor; and probably, in spite of his sincere efforts to understand and conform to the folkways of Wikiversity, he is very much unaware of the wider implications of much that he has been doing. You have raised many Questions regarding many Areas of his work for which Your Servant thanks you; and as he grapples with them, he will come to be more effective in his efforts. Again, thank you for your thoughtful Questions; Answers will come forth. -- Dionysios ^(talk), Date: 2007-07-12 (July 12, 2007) Time: 1543 UTC

Deletionism

"a policy allowing empty and virtually empty pages to be speedy deleted" <-- You are free to try to establish such a policy. In my view, that would be a mindless and destructive policy. Each page should be judged on its own merits. Rather than delete potentially useful pages, we should find ways to help develop them. Speedy deletion is for pages that cause obvious harm to the project, not for pages that are under development. --JWSchmidt 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As this work progresses, some of us are going in so many directions at the same time that progress on a particular page may not occur for a while; but those of us who are working on a topic will get to it, eventually. Patience is a virtue. We will get to it, eventually; really, we will.

Dionysios ^(talk), Date: 2007-07-10 (July 10, 2007) Time: 1612 UTC

I'm not a very big fan of empty pages. I do not see how removing empty pages would harm anything—it's just a little bit of cleaning to keep things nice and tidy. In my mind, this would encourage people to add content rather than simply adding pages. I also think that sometimes people, when they see that a page has been created, feel like it "belongs" to someone else on Wikiversity, and so feel inhibited from making their own version because the page is there. The Jade Knight 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John that we should be encouraging content development rather than delete something which is not yet sufficiently developed. But Michael's point is interesting: why does "page ownership" arise, and could it perhaps be more of an issue on Wikiversity than other wikis? (I have seen people refer to their nervousness about editing "other people's materials" many times.) Even though this is not the way it should be, it could be a real issue. If so, we need to address this issue, in order to encourage people (or, at least, the people who feel this way) to develop pages that have been begun by other people. Cormaggio ^talk 09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more of an issue here. Partly because people create content that other people do not understand. Partly because people actually do claim ownership of content here—I once placed a merge tag on a page, and the "owner" of that page said he didn't want to be bothered with a merge, and JWSchmidt then removed the merge tag (which I felt had great reason to be there), stating simply that "the creator of this page rejects the merge". This seems to generally be the attitude that is taken here, and to some extent it is understandable, but given this context, empty pages seem to stifle growth more than encourage it. (Another example: when Juan came in, rather than cleaning up the pre-existing introductory Spanish course, decided to create his own—leaving the other page, defunct, but with a separate "owner", to rot.) The Jade Knight 09:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia has one article for each topic, an article that is supposed to cover all points of view. I agree with the formulation suggested by Jimbo at Wikimania last year, that Wikiversity should, "host learning communities, so people who are actually trying to learn, actually have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things." Wikipedia has a formula for making encyclopedia articles in wiki format, a formula that has been defined and refined for years. In contrast, I think we can view Wikiversity as a place for exploring how to use wiki technology to facilitate learning. Different people have different learning styles and so people should be free to explore multiple approaches to a single topic. There are going to be many situations at Wikiversity where people will create new pages without realizing that the new page they have made is similar to an existing page. When they are informed that they have duplicated an existing page they will often agree that the duplicate pages should be merged. In other cases, they might want to keep both pages separate because while the two pages might be similar, they are using different approaches to the same subject. If you do not understand something, I'm not sure that the best solution is to slap a delete template or a merge template on it. It is particular rude to use such templates without taking time explain your reasons for the proposed page merge or page deletion. "Ownership of articles" means trying to prevent other people from collaboratively editing an article. I do not think it is constructive to say that people claim ownership of an article when they are editing it and you are not editing it. If you propose to merge a page and the person editing that page explains how the two pages are going in different directions you should be willing to listen to them, not try to force them to stop their work and adopt an approach to the material that they do not like. In the particular proposed merge case mentioned above, "the creator of this page rejects the merge" was the summary of a discussion process that established the fact that the author of a page understood what was going on (two similar pages existed) and wanted to develop an alternative approach to the material. --JWSchmidt 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how encouraging every user who comes along and can't be bothered working with others to create their own version of a topic or page already in existance helps people to "interact and help each other figure out how to learn things". It seems like this actually does the very opposite—divides people into "my project" and "their projects". JWSchmidt, while your assessment of the situation over at the Spanish project clearly makes yourself look to be in the right, I disagree entirely with your interpretation. What Juan said was that "I have sturted the new one, cus the old one looks death." That was his reasoning for rejecting the merge. In other words: Someone had started a project page, and Juan didn't like the way the new one looked, so he started his own. If you bother reading the discussion we had, he was largely turned off by the use of code in the other Spanish page. Should we encourage people to interact and help each other, JWSchmidt, or should we encourage people to create their own versions of projects when they can't be bothered to work with what's already there? The Jade Knight 02:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone truly has an alternative approach to something, I see nothing wrong with them including it in a project already in existence (as a sub-page, if need be). But I think that too many people are going to simply want to do things their own way without working with others. And that, to me, seems like exactly the sort of thing we want to avoid. The Jade Knight 03:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"encouraging every user who comes along and can't be bothered working with others to create their own version of a topic" <-- This seems like a straw man argument. I've never seen anyone advocate that approach. Each situation should be judged on its own merits. As I understand the situation, Juan was interested in being available to other Wikiversity participants via Skype. He set up a new Wikiversity page in order to develop that plan, as well as have a place for new lessons suited to that approach. I read the on-wiki discussions and participated in discussions with Juan on IRC. When I removed the merge template, it was my judgment that Juan was feeling harassed and was in search of protection from that harassment. Spanish/Spanish One was created by a single editor and uses an approach that is very non-standard...a wiki page with seven links on it, links to pages such as Spanish/Spanish One/Calendar that have no obvious purpose. It is entirely understandable to me why Juan would turn his back on Spanish/Spanish One, go to Spanish and add a new link to another page with another approach for "Spanish 1 - beginners". Why shouldn't there be multiple approaches for introductory Spanish? It is easy to link Spanish/Spanish One to/from Spanish: An Introduction and let others decide which approach to utilize. I think it is unfair to Juan to suggest that he simply wanted to do things his own way. User:J.Steinbock made Spanish/Spanish One and then stopped editing at Wikiversity. If User:J.Steinbock had been active, things might have been different and collaboration might have been possible. As it was, it was easier for Juan to start an alternative approach rather than try to figure out the non-standard construct left behind by User:J.Steinbock. --JWSchmidt 06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it wasn't possible for the two to be merged anyway, and people to work together. There are currently 6 different pages for interested students in the Spanish programs to "sign up". More than one newcomer to Wikiversity has complained about not understanding where to register interest in the Spanish program. This wouldn't be a problem if similar material (in this case, Spanish program participant lists) were kept to one page, rather than having everyone creating new duplicate pages. Empty pages cause similar problems—what if someone out there in the Computer Science department creates a page on Artificial Consciousness but doesn't make it a Topic? What if he knows that this project exists here, but doesn't want to infringe on "someone else's territory". I really think we should give strong encouragement for people to work together, and to focus on developing content, not simply creating a mass of empty or redundant pages. The Jade Knight 07:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Spanish does seem like a mess - perhaps it might be worthwhile to work on these set of pages to identify how best/easiest people can indicate their interest/expertise in Spanish, and where they can go to pursue those interests? Overall, I agree with Michael that we should be encouraging collaboration where possible, bearing in mind people's freedom to choose different pedagogical frameworks where they feel appropriate. These questions are some of the most central to Wikiversity's usefulness, I feel. Cormaggio ^talk 10:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Jade Knight says he is "not a very big fan of empty pages." and that he "does not see how removing empty pages would harm anything—it's just a little bit of cleaning to keep things nice and tidy." He says, in his mind, "[T]his would encourage people to add content rather than simply adding pages." He also thinks that sometimes people, when they see that a page has been created, feel like it "belongs" to someone else on Wikiversity, and so feel inhibited from making their own version because the page is there.

This Participant must be a Fan of Empty Pages, because he was creating them left and right until asked by The Jade Knight to stop doing so, a request with which he will cheerfully comply, for now.

In his fevered imagination, this Participant thought he was doing something useful; and he does not know how much of his content he will ever bring to Wikiversity.

If this Participant should never add Pages or Content, the Scope of his work at Wikiversity will be severely constrained.

If Empty Pages which this Participant Created are to be Deleted, the Scope of his work at Wikiversity will be even more severely constrained.

Still, within those Severe Constraints, this Participant might even find some useful work.

He does not, however, see much point in "Keeping Things Nice and Tidy." or "Encouraging People to Add Content Rather than Simply Adding Pages."

This Participant does not think that a Page which he has Created "belongs" to him. If others should feel called to work on something he has initiated, he only feels cause to be gratified. If what he Does is Undone, he will work on what is left. Although he will defend, if possible, his work, he does not claim ownership of Wikiendeavors; they are Wikiversity Property.

This Participant cannot help, however, but look back to the Resource Discussion in the Approved Wikiversity Project Proposal Archives and wonder if Lazy Quasar did not have it right when he said, "What is the point in restricting participants regarding the materials or forms of materials they will create for their own and others benefit? Just as Wikiversity can link to other resources..."[?] "The point of free materials is too make it easy for free individuals and teams and nations to self and mutually educate and empower themselves. It seems a bit contradictory to be attempting to empower free volunteers by artifically constraining how they can participate in creating the educational experience." "A global wikiversity has the potential to be much larger than any existing university system. This is obvious because any serious student who in previous decades invested in purchasing extra reference books is likely to come to wikiversity and use the reference materials. If the Wikiversity evolves properly they will inevitably get drawn into participating at some level sometime somewhere. Integrate that across the entire species and globe and you will grasp why computer scientists worldwide are working on grid engineering and management issues to enable allocation on demand of previously deployed resources to users getting ever more accustomed to freely frequenting valuable high quality free services. Attempting to predefine Wikiversity policy for thousands or millions of courses delivered on demand to billions of participants over various emerging grids and technologies such that it will never compete or overlap with Wikibooks is a bit like demanding the Library of Congress use only the bookshelves currently available in Coquille, Oregon. Shall we also attempt to tell the School of Engineering that simulations or grid components can only be hosted and propagated through sourceforge? Perhaps only Python or Java can be used in engineering homework? At any rate, it will be interesting the first time a prestigious Nobel prize winner finds that his work has been deleted by a newbie following the official Wikiversity policy that we only host temporary stuff ... stuff worth throwing away in a few weeks or months. The need for a temporary buffer on the internet escapes me. Why not simply work out of the permanent location?" The Context is different; but might not The Contribution relate to the Current Discussion when transposed into the terms of the Current Discussion? Can not this Participant's Good Faith be assumed? He believes he was Creating those Empty Pages for a Reason. Wikiversity is going to become very large. May its Participants have room to work? Could this Request Not To Create Empty Pages until Content Is Available Be Withdrawn? If We Build it, They Will Come.

(s) Dionysios ^(talk), Date: 2007-07-12 (July 12, 2007) Time: 1546 UTC

Thanks Dionysios, and thanks for your wide-ranging work to date. I would simply say that I think you should not feel constrained except by practical considerations. I think we should all ask ourselves, when we set up a page: What is someone else going to understand about this page? Will someone else understand how to use or modify this page? (And most importantly): Are there clear means for this page to form part of an educational process? If the answer to any of these questions is "No", then I think we should think how to make it more useful to the person who stumbles across the page for the first time, and add the appropriate content to make it so. Cormaggio ^talk 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Cormaggio has it right. You're welcome to make many pages—but consider refraining from making new pages until you have some sort of substantial ("substantial" need not be a matter of volume. A basic proposal for where you imagine the project going could be sufficient) content to add to it. Your endeavors would likely be more helpful if you would add more content to fewer projects, rather than creating more pages with less content. The Jade Knight 01:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

10-4; 10-4. Messages received. Thank you my friends. -- Dionysios ^(talk), Date: 2007-07-14 (July 14, 2007) Time: 1551 UTC

"We Need a Large Overarching Perspective". -- Jonas E. Salk

You are most welcome, Cormaggio, as is Wikiversity, to and for Your Servant's wide-ranging work to date. Your Servant must feel constrained, however, by considerations of Reasonability.

When he sets up a Page, Your Servant is primarily concerned with what is others will Understand about this Page, how they will Use and Modify the Page, and most importantly, are there Means for this Page to form part of Educational Processes. As for "Clear Means", he has not been so concerned with clarity.

He always has to think on how to make his Pages more useful to those who access them, particularly to those who might stumble across them; but Content may or may not accomplish that.

But, Your Servant has taken the Proclamation of his late friend Jonas E. Salk to heart: Dr. Salk said, "We need a large overarching perspective." This must be the Primary Driver in Your Servant's considerations.

The word "Eventually" enters quite frequently into the conversation of what Clarity this rapidly developing work might achieve. "Eventually" these Pages will become Understandable, Usable, Modified, and Parts of Educational Processes.

"Eventually" he who stumbles across "Artificial Consciousness" will find it useful.

For now, Your Servant, having acceded to the request of his friend The Jade Knight that he stop Creating Empty Pages, moves on to other things.

Your Servant started out with a (Green Light) and was bold; but now he has come to a Red Light with reference to Creating Empty Pages and obeys.

When The Jade Knight requests of Your Servant that he create another Empty Page, he will see another (Green Light) and obey. If let loose, (Your Servant could probably productively Create One Thousand (1000) Empty Pages right now without too much difficulty.

This thing called Wikiversity promises to become very large. Your Servant fails to understand how having Empty Pages waiting for people who need them could be counterproductive in any way.

But, for now, he will leave it to others to Create Pages and work on Existing Pages. To Your Servant, that seems reasonable and fair enough. Your Servant also has many Questions in the Discussion on many of the Pages he created to Answer. Onward and Upward.

But, again: "We need a large overarching perspective."

(s) Dionysios ^(talk), Date: 2007-07-12 (July 12, 2007) Time: 2007 UTC

Dionysios, you are noone's "servant" (except in a prosaic sense) and you are not obliged to obey what others ask of you, or to take a comment as a "red light". You are welcome to voice your opinion about what you think of as good practice. I tried to outline what I think is a good working minimum for a page to have - however, this is not a policy anywhere on Wikiversity. I'd like to have a discussion about what would constitute a useful start for a resource/school/portal in order to invite participation - and I'd also like to know more about what you think of as "a large overarching perspective". Thanks. Cormaggio ^talk 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to, once again, mirror Cormaggio's comments. Please read my comment posted up above the new header you have placed here, Dionysios, for what I'm asking. Perhaps you should consider it this way: I'm encouraging you see yourself as having a "green light" for adding content, but a "yellow light" for creating pages. You certainly don't need my permission to create them, but I'm requesting that you wait to create them until you have significant content to add to them. At the moment, I expect you'll be able to keep quite busy adding content to the many pages you have already created. The Jade Knight 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

10-4; 10-4. Messages received. Thank you my friends. -- Dionysios ^(talk), Date: 2007-07-14 (July 14, 2007) Time: 1448 UTC

An offer to help with content

I have recently written a book on Artificial Consciousness but am not familiar with the Wiki interface and how to best format a presentation on it. If you are interested in content for this page, perhaps my research would come in handy? Currently there are two schools of thought that dominate consciousness research, the Phenomenal school led by Dr. Edelman, and the Functional school which I was introduced to by Bernard J. Baars. My work does not hew to either of these schools but instead is based on a hybrid model that shows why we need both approaches for the best model. Jerry Fodor who introduced the idea of Modules, wrote a book called The Mind Doesn't Work Like That! In which he points out that the Functional school is based on Turings Computational Theory of mind, which demands "Truth preserving" functions for computation, and Phenomenal school has not got around the need for a place-code to define discrete memories. In my book which I have not yet published, I show how these limitations influence the architecture of the brain, and as a result, almost demand a Hybrid theory. While this book does not attempt to design an artificial consciousness architecture, I am currently working on other books that will. 161.184.13.184 03:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, try to register yourself firstly (the bottom is on the right top). And, than we will place you some invitation help to the userpage. And about your help? Yes, I think we would appreciate it. But note, that Wikiversity is under GFDL v 2.0 licence, so your contributions must be under this one too. You can also add content under other free licences such as CC-BY-SA 3.0 and so on.--Juandev 06:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back, I started editing the topic page11:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on the page, and I can access it from my contributions list, but not from the main page.23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets try this again for some reason my signature wasn't coming through Graeme E. Smith 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)