Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Back and forth re Graziano

Yesterday Ignatios2000 (talk · contribs) added a brief section about Michael Graziano's proposals. This was reverted by Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) on the grounds of primary sourcing; Ignatios2000 then reverted back without comment. The proper approach was for Ignatios2000 to open a discussion here instead (as I am doing). Normally I would again remove the material to enforce proper procedure, but in this case I am going to leave it alone for the moment, because there is a good argument that it belongs in the article: Graziano's ideas have received pretty broad attention recently. In any case let's please settle the question here rather than by edit warring. Looie496 (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I was breaking ettiquette. I saw the revert of my contribution and couldn't make much sense of it. It was well referenced to a peer reviewed journal, an Oxford University Press book, both widely discussed in scientific and popular media and both with extensive references, as well as later discussion pieces. I thought the sensible thing to do was to correct the revert. Apparently the policy favours the revert regardless of merit. I did not appreciate that.

Anyway, I would be happy to discuss reasons why it is believed this work does not merit inclusion in the article. If it needs to be reverted to do so, so be it, though to my mind the merits of inclusion put the burden of proof on ommission. But I am the neophyte here. Ignatios2000 (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The approach that generally produces the best results is summarized at WP:BRD -- be bold in editing, but be prepared for your edits to be reverted, and if they are, start a discussion of their merits. In any case, thanks for contributing. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and explanation. I can see the benefit of that approach. Ignatios2000 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the edits by Ignatios2000 on the basis of WP:PRIMARY, that all sources are not peer-reviewed, and all quotations are not referenced. For example this one: "Analogous to the well studied body schema that tracks the spatial place of a person’s body", there is no reference to the source of that statement, or to anything that confirms that this schema is well studied. I proposed to solve these problems here. I personally think that this is the worst strawman theory in the whole article, after reading both the primary article and some twitter tweets that were also referenced as a source, but was not peer-reviewed.Tkorrovi (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The topic is titled "Graziano’s attention schema theory", and named in the text "Attention Schema Theory of Consciousness", also it is said "Michael Graziano and Sabine Kastler published a paper setting forth a theory of consciousness as an attention schema." While in the primary article it is named "Human consciousness and its relationship to social neuroscience: A novel hypothesis", by Michael S. A. Graziano and Sabine Kastner, so by that it is also not only Graziano’s hypothesis. There is no reference to any source where it is named an "Attention Schema Theory of Consciousness", the link to the book didn't provide information about the book, also the reference should be to a peer-reviewed article, that can be checked.Tkorrovi (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is known the attention schema is Graziano's theory [1] . But this article is about ArtifCons, not about Cons. Therefore any addition of any idea in this article must come from sources which relate this idea with ArtifCons. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

re: " Graziano's ideas have received pretty broad attention recently."

If you say so, then this fact must be referred in the article from some survey paper which says so, i.e., Graziano's work has impact on the subject of our article, which is artificial consciousness; and only then we may proceed and include Graziano. There are millions of various publications in peer-reviewed journals, and thousands new ideas, especially in highly speculative areas like this; we cannot indiscriminately add them to wikipedia. In particular, Michael Graziano bio does not describe his relation to problems of artificial consciousness. If this of recognized importance, this must go into his bio in the first place. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

So, as i understand, this topic is about some hypothesis which was *based* on Graziano's theory, and this connects Graziano's theory to artificial consciousness. And it was named Graziano's theory, though it thus was not the Graziano's original theory. There seems to be too much wrong with this. When reading the article, i found that it mostly consisted of many strawman arguments, it didn't look like at all as a theory made by any notable scientist, but this is only my personal opinion of course.Tkorrovi (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why I would have to make a reference in the article to how broadly the theory has been discussed. I made that comment in this talk section, and saying it must be f=referenced seems inappropriate, and frankly a bit snarky. I don't see this as a routine requirement for any wiki article. As for the name of the theory, his book explicitly calls it the Attention Schema Theory, so it is not true that it is not referenced. It is also called that in later papers. I am happy to either add Sabine's name to the an attribution, or simply drop Graziano as a possessive of the title. The latter makes the most sense to me, rather than mediating attribution in an encyclopedia, but it As for the connection to AC, it makes up a chapter of the book and is a direct corollary to the theory itself, seeing as the theory is not just a vague idea or principle, but describes a rather specific mechanism of information handling. The original article was peer reviewed. The book was published by Oxford University Press, which conducts outside peer reviews on its work as well. Two magazine article were not, as far as I know, peer reviewed, but since when do all references in Wikipedia have to be peer reviewed? The book does reference the "body schema". It seems to me that a lot of the objections to this piece come without actually reading the referenced sources and making a considered judgement. If folks don't actually read the material, I am not sure what the point of the the talk section is supposed to be. There seem to be many more problems with the objections than are even claimed to be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatios2000 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

We cannot talk here about what exactly is in that book and what is not, because i think no one here can get that book anyhow. It is OK to add this book as a source, but the problem is that it appears that the only source of the main argument, that the Graziano's theory is about artificial consciousness, is said to be in that book. I don't know who here agrees with everything, without being able to check. That sources have to be peer-reviewed, this has been the requirement in this article as long as i remember, and at that even not all peer-reviewed sources have been accepted.Tkorrovi (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what is so particularly inaccessible about the book. It is in print, by a world known academic press, in libraries, and available in electronic format. I am here, and I had no difficulty obtaining access to it. A quick look of the article and its references doesn't suggest to me that the rules of inclusion of material are as stringent as is being portrayed, and I was not aware that the alleged rules for this page were district from that of the wider encyclopedia. In any case, I was attempting to perform a service for Wikipedia. I have no connection to the author, no business or financial interest in the topic. I simply have an interest in making a positive contribution to spread scientific knowledge in a responsible way. I am willing to do the work to write and reedit the material I provided, and I am happy to have a serious discussion regarding its merits. I am not willing to fight to join a clique that wants to exclude material simply because they don't know it and can't be bothered to read it. So, include the material, or be lazy and exclude it. I have not heard any good reason here to support exclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatios2000 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, do at least something to fix the problems pointed out here by several people. I have not been allowed to just make changes here, ignoring what the rules are and what anyone else says, i always tried to find an agreement, and this is also true about others. And i have edited this article for more than ten years. Now there appears a user with a special privilege to just make any edits one likes. I don't think this privilege should be allowed, if one decides that it should be, then give all Wikipedia under the rule of Ignatios2000.

Please, please do some work instead of just insisting that everything you wrote or said was completely right. I also don't think that science should be done that way, or it is not science any more.Tkorrovi (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific and say what chapter in the Graziono's book "Consciousness and the Social Brain" is about applying the Graziano's attention schema to artificial consciousness. Chapter 12, "Neural correlates of consciousness"? The concept of neural correlates of consciousness is important for AC, and it is mentioned in this article, but this doesn't mean that Graziano anyhow studied artificial consciousness or proposed any theory on artificial consciousness.Tkorrovi (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think i now added everything which has been tried to be said in the original edit, or there is something which i missed.Tkorrovi (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I did work and submitted it. This, that is Wikipedia and this talk forum, are not "doing science". This is an encyclopedia entry. Considering so much of the criticism of my submission was unfounded, and done without even bothering to read the references, I think the real issue is that would be editors need to do some work. I personally think that if some one is ignorant of a work, then the appropriate response is to actually learn about it before making wild accusations and deleting the content. I went into this happy to try and reach agreement with people, but I assumed that implied that people would actually support their criticism with facts. The attitude here seems to be more "well, I haven't heard of it, then it must not be right and it is not worth the bother to read". So now the article has received arbitrary edits, the most ridiculous of which is the omission of any description of the actual theory. If I had submitted such a vague uninformative paragraph, I would hope that it would be reverted. I take great exception to the claim that I did no work or refused to take the discussion here into account. Both are untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatios2000 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ignatios2000 "edited" my edits, making the topic exactly as it was as he first entered it, completely ignoring my edits. I have never seen so stubborn edit. This user insists on right to write in the article exactly what he wants and doesn't allow anyone to edit what he writes. I don't think this is how Wikipedia editing should happen, as much as i know there are no privileged users in Wikipedia.Tkorrovi (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

History of discussion:

1 Paragraph submitted. Followed all standards for Wikipedia entry.

2 Entry claimed to be “primary source”.

claim of “primary sourcing” challenged by myself. I did not find this to accurately describe the material. No further defense of the judgment offered. Relevant standard, Wikipedia “no original research” paragraph. The cited references do not represent primary sources by this standard, but clearly fall into the area of synthesis.

3 Claim that the sources were not peer reviewed.

Responded that this was factually in error. The two references that were not peer reviewed. were in support of a simply statement of fact (that Graziano proposed actually constructing a machine on his model) that did not effect the substance of the entry, but did provide relevant information and context. They were well within Wikipedia standards for citation.

4. The argument was again made that the theory was not referenced. This was based on reading only one of two peer reviewed sources. The documentation of the Body Schema is ample, it is well referenced in the main source cited.

5. There was objection to the name of the article. the (false) claim was made that the theory is never named. Again, a problem with not actually examining the references. There was also concern about attribution. I did, and do, accept that this is a valid consideration, though I made what I think was the best accommodation in the original entry. From subsequent discussion, there seems to be agreement on this point.

6. There was a concern about how this entry related to artificial consciousness. Again, this is discussed in the main source, which is still not receiving any consideration.

In a nutshell, the theory is one of a specific model of information handling.  Although it derives from studying biology, which of course is the only known consciousness model we have, for the purpose of explaining biological consciousness, it is fundamentally a simply information handling concept that could be performed by an artificial information handling device properly configured.  For further details, please read the cited reference.

7. It was asserted that I needed to cite references in the article for talk section discussion. No justification for such a statement was made for this assertion, which is nonsensical on the face of it. I challenged this assertion, and no further defense or explanation was offered.

8. It was again asserted that there was no citation to support the relation to ArtiCon. The main reference was again ignored.

9. It was claimed that the article didn’t “look like” and article from a prominent scientist. No basis for such a judgment was made, or the relevance of such a subjective statement.

This is, on its face, an invalid criticism.

10. I listed my objections to the objections made, particularly that false and unsubstantiated claims that I had not made a proper citation.

This was answered by the claim that the main reference was inaccessible. No explanation for this rather surprising assertion was offered. I

It was also asserted that, as some of the critics had not read the reference, and, as far as I can tell, made no effort to read the reference, that it we could not discuss it.

11. I restored my original paragraph. This was reverted and a remarkably bad and uninformative replacement was made. A complaint was made that I did not try and incorporate what had been said. To this I counter that I have tried repeatedly to engage in a erasable discussion, but have been met mostly by unreasonable statements, and little attempt to consider my concerns or objections. Once again I say that failure to actually examine the reference is no excuse for making wild and ignorant claims about what their value. I stand by that. If that makes me “stubborn” I accept the the name with pride. I reject the claim that I am not doing work or trying to engage in the talk section. I have put a large amount of work not only in preparing the entry submission, but in engaging on this talk section with people who feel they should edit and evaluate material of which they are ignorant and make no effort to examine.

I will be happy to discuss the matter further with anyone who make reasonable and informed statements.

The current entry is an improvement on the remarkably poor rewrite that was originally placed, though I do not see how it improves at all on the original entry submitted. The edits that have been stubbornly insisted upon by some in this forum have not been supported by evidence, clear argument, or any published Wikipedia rules. I absolutely agree that I do not think this is how Wikipedia edits should occur. Perhaps others involved in this non productive discussion will take some responsibility for the failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatios2000 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There are two sides of editing Wikipedia, you do edits and you accept the edits of the others, not only the first side.

The current version is better for several ways:

1. It is written as an explanation why the Graziano's theory is relevant to AC, and how that is explained in the sources. This is the only reason why this topic is written in this article, and this is what it should explain. This article cannot be a description of all theories in consciousness studies or neuroscience, there are other articles for this;

2. It connects the topic to the main article, which is a section in the article about Graziano. The theory has to be fully described there, not in this article. And it includes a short description taken from the main article, thus making it consistent with the main article;

3. It does not include two sources to the web sites which are not peer-reviewed. Wikipedia prefers peer-reviewed articles, but no matter what Wikipedia rules may allow, there are thousands of web sites about the relevant topics, it is not possible and reasonable to add them all here. Inevitably a choice has to be made, choosing higher quality sources. I have deleted here several most ridiculous and primitive web sites, added as sources. Without a clear criterion, no selection can be made, and the article will sink into spam, this article already has a lot of sources;

4. It describes the theory more completely, including what Graziano said about artificially implementing what he sees as awareness;

5. It is written the way that it blends into the article, describing the aspects specific to that theory. While one who deals with one or another theory likes to think about it as the only theory, the article describes several theories which all are about simulating different aspects of consciousness in a different way. So what is important is to show what distinguishes that particular theory. Because the purpose of this article is to give the reader overview of the field, and different approaches in the field. And not to give overview of the theories in consciousness studies or neuroscience.

I would say it would be better if the topic were even shorter as it is. The shorter the descriptions of the theories are, the better overview the reader gets of the different approaches. Longer is not better, i would say a shorter description would draw the reader's attention rather more, not less, as it is usually thought. I have therefore tried a lot to shorten the descriptions of the theories here, which i think has improved the article a lot.

Please consider all that, and please don't restore your original text verbatim again, it was not the best it can be. It is one thing to describe the Graziano's theory, and a different thing to write about it in this article. If you want to describe the Graziano's theory more thoroughly, then it's better to do that in the main article. Thank you.Tkorrovi (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your last edit because you *again* restored everything verbatim from your original edit, and at that added nothing relevant to the topic.Tkorrovi (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please understand that it cannot we solved by conflict, it can only be solved by agreement. I myself made efforts to reach an agreement, adding a lot from your original edit, that was relevant. What have you done from your side to reach an agreement? And what are you going to do? Restoring *again* verbatim all your original edit, is that the only effort from you?Tkorrovi (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

My proposal is, let's us both step aside, and let others to decide how that topic about the Graziano's theory should be written, do you agree?Tkorrovi (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Graziano has proposed that building such a machine would demonstrate and test the theory." -- I have not seen Graziano saying that anywhere in the sources, can you write a quotation of Graziano saying that, and what did he exactly say.Tkorrovi (talk)

I suspect that you are Graziano, just my personal opinion.Tkorrovi (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The concept of building a machine based on the theory was the subject of the last citation with the subtitl, "We could build an artificial brain that believes itself to be conscious. Does that mean we have solved the hard problem?"

I stated before that I have no connection with Graziano. I have never met the man. Your opinion does not change that.

1 Retained the statement stating relevance to AC. 2 Retained link to other Wiki page 3 Peer review is not a citation requirement. The citations are perfectly legitimate and serve a purpose in the entry. However, I have now omitted them as they seem to offend you and are not strictly necessary. Hopefully that will appease the sense that something needs to be changed. 4 I retained the expansion of the theory description. 5 I think the entry blends fine. The prattle about thinking this is the only theory is just a tangent.

I have been working for agreement all along. I have mainly received a bunch of ill justified criticism based on ignorance, not examination of the citations. I am glad to finally receive some specific criticisms germane to the issue. I will be happy to continue to work with anyone on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatios2000 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not the same as "Building such a machine would demonstrate and test the theory", and doesn't mean the same.Tkorrovi (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you say so. Ignatios2000 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't depend on what i say. But it assumes some basic knowledge of AI. "We could build an artificial brain that believes itself to be conscious. Does that mean we have solved the hard problem?" Believing means just assuming something to be true, so it would just be a system which assumes that it is conscious. That is, when asked whether it is conscious, it answers that it is conscious. This certainly doesn't solve the hard problem, and it doesn't solve any problem. And it in no way tests whether the theory is true. That web site may be about something else, but this is what you said is how Graziano said that "Building such a machine would demonstrate and test the theory". This doesn't mean the same, doesn't mean that at all. Why a question with so obvious answer was written as a sort of title of that web page, i don't know, it confuses the readers. This web site is not peer-reviewed and doesn't need to be high quality.Tkorrovi (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A judgment on quality from someone who complains that edits don't reflect the "I haven't read it, so it shouldn't be included" standard, the non existent "only peer reviewed articles allowed" standard, the "It doesn't sound like a prominent scientist" standard", the, "you didn't do what I think you should have done, there fore you are not doing any work" standard, writes new entries about a topic of which he is not familiar, and concludes that, as someone actually stands up to this sort of pompous BS that they must be a self aggrandizing sock puppet. Ah yes, I think I will take your judgment with a more than a few grains of salt. Ignatios2000 (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You may misinterpret what i said any way you like. If you either don't understand what i actually said, or don't want to understand. It is true that i don't like the Graziano's theory, i'm also sure that i'm not the only one. But as i said, this is only my personal opinion, and i don't proceed from that anyhow in editing the article. But you should accept that there are people with different opinions, not assume that everyone should like what you do, this also does not provide a neutral point of view at all, quite the opposite. And you should not ignore the fact that i have edited this article for more than ten years, yes i can judge the quality. I think you may like to turn me into nothing, but evidently this is what i'm not, there is something you misunderstood.Tkorrovi (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that all Wikipedia sources have to be peer-reviewed. Wikipedia sources have to be reliable, and peer-reviewed is one type of reliable source, but not the only one. The sources in the topic are peer-reviewed, but the problem is that both are primary. This also does not provide the perspective how the theory is viewed by the scientific community. The web sites are generally considered self-published, WP:USERGENERATED, and Wikipedia rules not to use them as sources, unless they are mainstream, or created by mainstream institutions, such as universities, or when such writing is itself a subject of an article. These two web sites don't correspond to that criteria, neither of these is published by mainstream institutions. The Psych Report web site is not mainstream, and not published by a university or other mainstream institution, its owner, named CultureTrust Greater Philadelphia, offers on its web site commercial services, such as "jumpstart organizational growth". The other web site is also owned by a private company, they may be guided by interests other than science, and there is no guarantee that they are reliable anyhow. But not that is the most important, adding self-published sources to the topic that already is only based on primary sources, doesn't make it better but rather worse.Tkorrovi (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak to what you meant to say, but I was pretty accurate about what you actually said. As to you being around for a while, why do you think that is relevant? That means you get to place arbitrary standards, or insist that books you haven't read are not acceptable? Or that you can make claims that I am dishonest? Myself, I am fine with people with different opinions than mine. Heck, I even deleted perfectly good material to accommodate your different opinion. But You repeatedly removed my material because you believed I wasn't making changes to accommodate the discussion, even though, as I have demonstrated, must of those changes were simply untrue and irrelevant. You keep bringing up this editing for ten years thing. It sounds like you're trying to make it into a turf war, rather than a responsible editing project. So, when those "different opinions" are things like arbitrary rules you make up, or wanting to exclude material you are too lazy to read, and you actually keep trying to act on those garbage opinions of self entitlement, yeah, I have a problem with it. If you ever get off your butt and actually read the material, and make a serious effort to understand its content, and you disagree with the conclusions, I will probably respect that. THAT is how serious editing of an encyclopedia should work. But that is just my opinion. I know you have different ideas. Your ideas don't provide for neutral point of view, they provide for ignorance.

Oh, as for your claim that you didn’t insist on peer reviewed articles, perhaps you forgot this statement: “That sources have to be peer-reviewed, this has been the requirement in this article as long as i remember, and at that even not all peer-reviewed sources have been accepted.' True, you try and slither out of that by throwing in the “all Wikipedia” thing, as though your precious article of ten years lives by different rules of your making. Not a particularly honest approach, I think. I think the words you are looking for are more like “well, yes, I didn’t put that well, and peer review really isn’t a requirement.” Ignatios2000 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You may misinterpret what i said any way you like. If you either don't understand what i actually said, or don't want to understand. Yes i understand the content, yes i have read the article and the book, the parts of it i could access in Amazon and other places, and yes i understand them. I'm too poor to buy that book, sorry.Tkorrovi (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So i'm not allowed to say that i have edited this article for more than ten years? In what mortal crimes am i accused for the sole reason of saying this?Tkorrovi (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that you made the effort to read a portion of the book. That is a responsible thing to do. Yes, the whole text may not be available to you. I do not hold that against you, it just means that you are limited on what input you may be competent to contribute. No one, least of all me, has said you can't mention your long service editing this article. Kudos to you. I mean that without gall or irony. I honestly think that service deserves recognition and respect. I just don't think that it justifies some of the things you have said to me, or gives you the privilege of creating new rules or arbitrating disputes. You think that I have misunderstood you. Perhaps, though if so I think you share a lot of that responsibility. enlighten me. You want respect for your service? You have mine, but I also suggest that you show respect for mine. I have engaged in honest dialogue here. I have listened to criticism, and responded, even if you didn't like the responses. When illegitimate criteria have been raised, I have called them out, and no defense was raised against this. When you took the time to offer specific criticism, I responded, line for line, and mostly in a positive manner. I am not unreasonable, when reasonable discussion is presented to me.

I suggest that we are at a point now that no one is offering further edits to the material, so there appears to be a de facto agreement on the entry. Not to anyone's complete liking, if that is important to you. there doesn't appear to be further items to discuss at this time. If that changes, we can revisit. I hold no grudges to you. I will be happy to engage in further civil discussion if warranted. I have declared a few principled stands that I am probably unwilling to relent on, but I suspect that if you consider them in a less heated light, you will agree with many of them yourself. Thank you for your service. I offer my own, with or without thanks. Ignatios2000 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"There appears to be a de facto agreement on the entry", Ok then we can end it now, Happy Holidays!Tkorrovi (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The existence of qualia

I tried to enter the following, but it has been mindlessly deleted: "The existence of qualia as apparently meaningful brings to the fore a critical question - why are qualia apparently ordered/meaningful rather than simply noise? The essence of Darwinism is that physical processes that improve survivability are selected into an organisms' physical structure and accumulate over generations, while processes that do not improve survivability do not accumulate. Qualia, as perceived, appear to be both complex and internally structured (or "meaningful" in a phenomenological sense), suggesting that their physical correlates have been structured over generations to generate meaningful qualia. If we thus accept that meaningful qualia are not randomly associated with brain structure but have accumulated via natural selection, then we must accept that qualia influence physics in the brain in order that they are physically selected. Thus, qualia are in principle measurable."

Please, just consider it upon its own merit - requiring a layer of reference will just kill this beautiful idea. Let Wikipedia be an original source for this!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.184.87 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be wp:reliably sourced and not wp:original research. Do the work, get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then if it is wp:notable and encyclopedic, it might be published here. Jim1138 (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting idea. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which reflects already established ideas. It is not the place to launch and try to establish your own new ideas. Perhaps the core principle on Wikipedia is wp:verifiability. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia has to be reliably sourced, and thus your text cannot be accepted in Wikipedia. About what you said, however, i don't want questions to remain unanswered. Because being reliably sourced, Wikipedia is also for explaining things, the sources should be described so that it provides understanding.

Qualia is qualia only as much as we cannot see the processes that happen, that we cannot see from the communication that we have. When we saw everything that happens inside a system, there would be no qualia. We can say something about the internal processes based on what we know, qualia is that which we cannot know.

Yet why is that which happens in a system meaningful? I think this is another question, and i don't know why you had to talk about qualia because of that. You referred to Darwinism, this is self-development which Darwinism may not be the best to explain. You may look into the multiple drafts principle by Daniel Dennett, especially considering that these drafts are not randomly generated, but appear as the result of self-development, that can provide a development toward increasingly more order. Provided that the necessary drafts can always be generated.Tkorrovi (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)