Initial request

Request made by (please sign below):

Alienus 13:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Where is the issue taking place?

On a number of pages concerning philosophy of the mind, particularly those involving Daniel Dennett and ideas related to his theories. Specific hot-spots include Consciousness, Cartesian materialism, Cartesian theater, and Multiple Drafts Model.

Who's involved?

I and loxley.

What's going on?

I found a number of gaps, as well as factual and bias errors on these pages, so I've worked to fix them, contributing substantial new material and providing references. Loxley disagrees with my changes and keeps reverting or damaging them in various ways. We're at the point where he just reverted a few pages of my work without comment.

It appears that Loxley strongly supports one warring camp of philosophers who disagree with Dennett, so his changes are largely focused on defining Dennett as negatively as possible. Besides the excess POV, he does not possess a clear understanding of Dennett's work, so he's also making numerous factual errors. I've done my best to merge in whatever good parts he's added, clarify things that could be misunderstood and generally put together better pages. His counter-changes started off as reasonable if flawed, but have progressed to simple vandalism.

I've tried to discuss this with him, but it has not been productive. From my point of view, he's been argumentative, unresponsive and very deeply biased. I've lost respect for him, and now just consider him a heckler who doesn't even understand what he's heckling at. I suspect that he found me impatient and, from where he stands, partisan. I freely admit that I am entirely out of patience with him, and he could probably point out responses where I failed to control my anger, especially after he started erasing key parts of pages just because he disagrees with them.

What would you like to change about that?

I want this this edit war to stop before it even gets into its full swing and triggers automatic protections against reverts. I'm quite willing to accept unbiased and supported changes by him., but I'm not willing to stand by while he ignorantly pisses on Dennett. I'm angry and disgusted.

Ideally, I would like to come to some mutual agreement so we can both positively participate in making these pages better. Precisely because he is so fond of people like Chalmers and Block, he could add balance by reporting on their views. However, as things stand, his contributons are of negative net value.

It may well be that our personalities class and he's more reasonable when dealing with other people. It may well be that I'm particularly impatient with him because I perceive him as intentionally damaging my work. If so, then a third party might be able to resolve this.

If not, then it's going to come down to blocking one or both of us from changing these and related pages, at least until this calms down.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I'm not particularly concerned about discretion. I can be reached most conveniently by email, but you could also write to my talk page. If it helps, I ask me by email for my AIM account name. I'm located in the Eastern Standard Time zone.

Comments by others

Hi there! Before coming to any conclusions on this case I would urge the arbitrators to consider that the changes in dispute are quite small. Furthermore I would ask them to consider that the changes that I made are supported by quotations from the literature and they are not my own ideas.

The argument between Alienus and myself has revolved around only a couple of points. In Consciousness Explained Dennett has a curious style, rather than arguing against established philosophers and ideas he invents the "Cartesian Theatre" argument, the "Orwellian" theory and the "Stalinesque" theory and argues against these. I have tried to make this plain in the text and Alienus has reverted my changes. The first point, Alienus' text:

"Dennett contrasts this with a Cartesian Theater model of consciousness, in which events suddenly appear on some sort of mental screen and then disappear as quickly. He provides numerous examples to show that events are necessarily analysed over a period of time rather than instantaneously."

was changed by myself on 28th November to:

"Dennett contrasts this with the straw man of a Cartesian Theater model of consciousness in which events suddenly appear on some sort of mental screen and then disappear instantaneously. Like Cartesius, Kant and many other philosophers Dennett concludes that conscious events require a duration in which they are analysed."

The reason that I introduced "straw man" is that this is the standard argument raised by philosophers against his ideas. It is important for students to understand that Dennett made up the term "Cartesian Theatre" himself and then proceeds to attack it. Alienus immediately reverted this change. I argued my case in Talk and re-inserted the points about straw men. Eventually I inserted a separate section, "Critical Responses to Multiple Drafts" to allow Alienus to write the description of the model in his own way. In this section I included one of many possible quotes to show that philosophers regard Dennett's arguments as arguments against theories of Dennett's own invention.

On 28th November I told Alienus about the Cartesian theatre article. This article was written by independent contributors and supported the contention that Dennett was indulging in straw man arguments. (see cartesian theatre changes Alienus immediately changed the article to support his own viewpoint!

I noticed that Alienus had created and redirected Cartesian materialism as if it were identical to "Cartesian theatre". I went to the article and put in place a correct definition of Cartesian Materialism. Alienus then changed it to Dennett's disparaging and incorrect definition: change to cartesian materialism

It is clear that we are discussing quite minor changes here. I have introduced points that are supported in the literature and have reproduced quotes and references to support these points. I would recommend any arbitrator to read the talk for multiple drafts where Alienus uses condescending and insulting language yet refuses to consider the source literature at all.

Now, you could ask me to cease contributing but should we allow information from published sources, such as the definition of Cartesian materialism and the "straw man" answer to Dennett, to be suppressed simply because one contributor feels these are POV? loxley 10:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

My interest is solely in creating encyclopedic entries that are correct. The points at issue are:

• Are the Orwellian and Stalinesque theories Dennett's creation?
• Is the Cartesian theatre Dennett's idea?
• Do other philosophers such as Block, Tye, Shoemaker etc. consider that Dennett is attacking a straw man?
• Is Cartesian materialism a pre-existing philosophical concept (ie: before Dennett)?
• Should Cartesian materialism be defined according to Dennett's disparaging definition or the definition of its supporters such as O'Brien and Opie?
• In terms of prominence in the consciousness article, is Dennett representative of mainstream philosophical thought or, as an extreme eliminativist, is he someone who deserves a peripheral mention?

These points summarise our disagreement. If Alienus agrees these points then my edits should remain in place, even though they undermine Dennett by portraying him in a less than flattering fashion. loxley 17:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't think you're accurately explaining the issue in the first place. Of course, that's the problem in a nutshell: we don't even agree on what we disagree on.

The article on the multiple drafts model is supposed to give a sympathetic but balanced description of Dennett's theory. Dennett's starting point is his argument that all theories with a Cartesian theater necessarily boil down to Orwellian or Stalinesque interpretations, and yet there cannot be a principled basis for choosing one for the other. Of course, opponents are going to argue that this is not the case and will instead assert that Dennett is attacking a straw man. The article should certainly report this as relevant criticism. However, it must not state that his critics are right, as that would be unsympathetic and downright POV.

Please look at the change logs. Our disagreements have been about the points raised above. I have made no statement that his opponents were right although I did change "Stalinesque" interpretation etc. to "Dennett's Stalinesque" or "his Stalinesque interpretation" etc.. But this was factual and correct. loxley 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Uhm, the whole point is that Dennett endorses neither Stalinesque nor Orwellian descriptions, hence it's not "Dennett's Stalinesque". Rather, Dennett is arguing that various Cartesian materialists are inadvertantly falling into the trap of using Stalinesque or Orwellian descriptions. I realize that you disagree with this contention, but that doesn't mean you get to muddy the waters. You are obligated to sympathetically report Dennett's stance, while likewise reporting relevant responses. Unfortunately, you have allowed your POV to get in the way of doing this. Alienus 17:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

So you agree that Stalinesque and Orwellian are Dennett's own terms addressing his own construction of the Cartesian materialist position. It cannot be POV to draw this fact to the reader's attention, especially when this method of argument is the chief gripe that philosophers in general have expressed about "Consciousness Explained". A fact cannot be POV. Notice that I have not criticised Dennett's argument per se, I have reported the argument factually - these are his interpretations (ie: not widely held opinions that he has defeated). Surely it is POV to report Dennett's work in the way you have done which suggests that the Orwellian and Stalinesque interpretations are widely held opinions rather than drawing the reader's attention to these as Dennett's interpretations. loxley 00:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I believe I already addressed this. Read it again until you understand it, then tell me what part you disagree with. Alienus 03:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Merry Xmas Alienus. I couldn't resist returning to this whilst reading my emails. Where we are disagreeing is in the idea of a "straw man" argument. A straw man argument occurs when someone tries to prove a point by redefining an opponent's position in terms that can be defeated easily. The opponent will not usually agree with the redefinition. Dennett uses straw man arguments throughout "Consciousness Explained". As you point out yourself, instead of discussing the actual ideas of Cartesian Materialists he offers his own definition of the term then offers his own analysis of how a "cartesian materialist" would analyse an effect such as the phi phenomenon. Now, Dennett may be correct or incorrect in his analysis but we should point out that his argument is a straw man argument using HIS idiosyncratic analysis of phi and HIS idiosyncratic definition of cartesian materialism. I am not the first to spot Dennett's straw man approach - it is the standard criticism of Dennett's multiple drafts model (as I have shown in the references and quotes that I introduced).

I am not criticising Dennett when I edit the article to say HIS Stalinesque argument, I am being factual and drawing the reader's attention to the standard analysis of Dennett's work. You yourself have admitted that the Stalinesque and Orwellian analyses are due to Dennett. Notice that Dennett imputes these to others but offers no justification that other people have approved of these analyses. Do you really think that changing Stalinist to "his Stalinist" is factually incorrect, a POV or vandalism? If so, can you say why without digressing into how you believe Dennett's analysis is correct, the correctness of Dennett's analysis having nothing to do with this point because we are drawing attention to the type of argument being used, not its correctness in its own terms.

On the subject of Cartesian materialism I am not criticising Dennett when I replace his definition of Cartesian materialism with the standard definition - Dennett, with his straw man approach, cannot be used as a reliable source for a definition of a philosophical concept (that the mind is in the brain) which predates Dennett by millenia. Do you think Dennett, the arch enemy of Cartesian materialism, should be used as the source of its definition in Wikipedia when neutral definitions are available?

In my edit of the Cartesian theatre I point out that Dennett was not attacking Cartesian materialism with the regress argument (which applies to any closed or self referencing system) but defined an entirely new term, the "Cartesian theatre" which he then attacks. Do you think that my edit which points out that, in the cartesian theatre, he is not attacking the regress argument is factually incorrect, a POV or vandalism? It should be noticed that you have introduced Cartesian dualism into the Cartesian theatre article - surely this is a mistake - Dennett was attacking Cartesian materialism, the idea that the mind is the product of the brain.

Lastly, there are very few philosophers who do not adhere to some version of Cartesian materialism and nearly all neurophysiologists and biological scientists believe the mind is in the brain. Dennett is an eliminivatist, he does not believe in Cartesian materialism, this is an extreme position and as a result does not deserve prominence in the consciousness article. Or do you think that positions such as Dennett's that are held by a handful of philosophers world wide deserve equal mention with Block or Chalmers whose support can be measured in large percentage terms? loxley 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

And a joyous Saturnalia to you. Thank you so much for making my point for me. You are longwinded, contentious and obtuse. I'm brief but rude. So, briefly if rudely:

1) To call something a straw man is to make a judgement about whether the description fits. It's not your job to judge against Dennett.

It is not my judgement, it is a judgement of many philosophers and was placed in a criticisms section. Please withdraw your accusation that I created this judgement.

2) Yes, it's quite POV to judge against Dennett by saying that Stalinesque theories are Dennett's straw man.

But you admitted yourself that Dennett created the Stalinesque interpretation then imputed it to other people's theories. Please withdraw your accusation of POV when both you and I agree on this point.

3) Dennett, as a critic of Cartesian materialism, should have his criticism included. Censorign criticism is, yes, you guessed it, POV.

Notice that his criticism is already included, but not as the definition of Cartesian materialism. Please withdraw this groundless accusation of censorship.

4) Arguing that Dennett's position is wrong or (without citation) unpopular is purely POV.

I did not argue that Dennett's position was wrong, please withdraw that accusation. The argument that Dennett's position, that the mind either does not exist or exists outside the brain, is in any way popular seems strange. Please defend your contention that many philosophers agree with Dennett's ideas. Marginal ideas do not deserve prominence in an encyclopedia article although they may be mentioned. Surely you agree?

In conclusion, you're so POV, it hurts. End the pain. Alienus 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Please withdraw your accusations, I am not editing in a POV fashion, I am trying to ameliorate POV input. loxley 11:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Please also see the point about Cartesian marterialism below. This point is highly relevant because it again shows that you have treated Dennett's constructions as valid descriptions of opinions held by other philosophers. loxley 00:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Returning to the issue in hand, which particular edits made by myself do you feel are POV? loxley 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

This is just one example of where I take issue with your changes. You systematically bias articles against Dennett's stance, which you neither agree with nor properly understand. Alienus 16:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Please be specific. What you have been doing is reverting my contributions with 'reasons' such as POV or 'vandalism' without addressing the fact that these contributions are attributed and sourced. Please be specific, perhaps we can start with Cartesian materialism - why do you believe that my replacement of Dennett's description of Cartesian materialism with a correct description was POV or vandalism? loxley 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Mediator response

• Talk page messages left today at User_talk:Alienus and User_talk:Loxley; waiting on Loxley's response on this matter. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Right, well, thank you Alienus and Loxley for enumerating the issues at play in this case; I have a clearer understanding of what is happening in this matter now after having viewed this discourse.

No personal attacks

First off, let me ask both Alienus and Loxley to avoid making personal attacks to each other, both here on the Mediation Cabal pages and anywhere else on Wikipedia. I would like to ask, most humbly, that both parties remove any personal attacks that they have made either here or anywhere else on Wikipedia against each other. From WP:NPA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.

I think that, if this barrier was overcome and the issue of civility removed, more amicable discourse could take place on the substantative issues at play regarding this article - which are highly contentious, and thus require good communication in order to solve adequately.

Reconciling disparate points of view

What this basically appears to me to revolve around is, first and foremost, differing points of view causing conflict over article content. Secondly, it appears to also have a lot to do with interpretation and opinion based on the writer in question, Dennett, and his work. Alienus, in his dialogue here, has shown a considerable interest in defending Dennett's work, and likewise Loxley appears to have more of an interest in disparaging it. Both viewpoints are rather wide of the mark in this case, since of course Wikipedia:Cite sources states that all claims inserted into articles have to be sourced; likewise WP:NPOV states:

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

It strikes me that one issue here which has possibly caused the greatest contention is that each party clearly considers the other's actions on Wikipedia to be "wrong" since they do not agree with the other's viewpoint. It must be taken into consideration that all Wikipedia editors may have their own viewpoint, but as per WP:NPOV that shouldn't have anything to do with what goes into the article. I invite the participants in the dispute to cease making judgements on each other's beliefs, and concentrate solely on the editing in question.

Content and original research

Basically, if arguments both for and against Dennett's work exist, the argument as to which is "correct" or "valid" is entirely superfluous; since it seems clear a genuine debate exists outside of the Wikipedia article, the answer is that arguments from all sides should be included as quoted references from legitimate sources. Therefore, one solution to this issue would be that both Alienus and Loxley refrain from inserting any unsourced material into the articles in question, and the only items added are reported or direct quotes of these sources (referenced properly, of course). Then, the dispute would to a certain degree become entirely moot. It does appear to me that a lot of editing on both sides of this dispute are original research - interpretations of Dennett's work, e.g. the Cartesian theatre argument - and thus can be quite easily brought to a close.

If the material added through editing is not sourced, then it shouldn't be there. If it is sourced, and is a proper quote, then it should. Ultimately the whole content dispute vanishes under this premise. I invite the parties in this dispute to read Wikipedia:Cite sources.

Interpretation and philosophy

Disputes of this character occur quite frequently on Wikipedia, especially on subjects of philosophy and epistemiology. The reason for this is that these subjects have a tendency to be rather subjective, since scientific "test and control" is difficult, if not impossible, to apply to solely ideological concepts. Because of this subjectivity, it is vital that all contributors avoid getting so emotionally involved and remember that Wikipedia is just a whole load of bytes that make up a document, just as Dennett's books are only paper with marks on them. I know this may sound juvenile and silly, but basically the world is not going to collapse based on arguments over philosophy, and I'd like to ask the participants to reflect as to exactly how important this dispute is in the grand scheme of life. There's little or no point in getting cut up and argumentative over all this.

Suggestion of a neutral party to review the page

I think probably a good way to bring this matter further to a close would be to appoint a neutral individual who doesn't have a particular side in the dispute to review the article and remove anything that appears to be original research (not adding or writing any new content, sourced or not). I won't appoint myself, since I need to remain impartial in my capacity as the mediator of this case; however, if the parties here are interested in this proposition, then I will arrange for this to occur.

Request for input on the above

I'd be grateful if the parties in this dispute, or even other people who aren't involved in the argument, would comment on the above in the "Response to mediator evaluation" section below, and we'll proceed from there. My apologies, incidentally, for the delay it has taken to analyse this case; it has taken me some time and effort to pick over the carcass of this argument.

-- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Alienus' response

I'll address each of your sections in turn:

1) Ad hom: I agree regarding personal attacks. The reason I brought this up for mediation is that I felt our discussions had gotten past the point where they were productive, and had simply become hostile. As for removing existing conversations, I'm not sure I want to do this yet, if only because I don't see any easy way to disentangle the facts from the insults. Maybe a better time to do such a cleanup is after these pages stabilize a bit. Then we can just archive the old poison pen letters away.

2) NPOV: As much as you suggest later that philosophy just isn't that important, this is a topic that does have some bearing on the real world, and that may be why people like Loxely and I get so worked up about it. I will say that, on the matter of Dennett's theories, there is little middle ground. People who've been exposed to them either agree strongly or disagree just as strongly. In other words, an NPOV article would have to come from the cooperation of POV editors, not from the intervention of a truly neutral but deeply interested third party.

3) Sourced: Early in our exchanges, I switched to letting quotes by Dennett and his various supporters and detractors speak for me. This worked well, until Loxely started removing quotes he disliked. He removed one for being too positive! Around this point, communication broke down. If it happens again, I will seek arbitration and have him removed from these pages for as long as it takes. Now, as for everything being sourced, of course, but we can't reproduce entire books here, so there's a need for neutral and accurate summaries. These summaries cannot praise with faint damns, twist the meaning or otherwise poison the well.

4) Interpretation: It sometimes surprises me, but people actually expect Wikipedia to have accurate information. They come here looking for the facts, and I want them to find only the facts when it comes to these issues. I am unhappy with the idea that innocent people are being biased against Dennett due to Loxley's hatred of the man.

5) Third Party: Sure, bring it on. With two people, it's too easy for it to simply become a reversion war.

5) Input: Though I don't necessarily agree with all your suggestions, I do want to thank you for taking the time to try to resolve this.

Alienus 03:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Follow-up: Just want to point out that Loxely's own responses have confirmed my accusations regarding his bias. Alienus 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Loxley's response

Overall my changes have been fairly limited and specific. I am rather surprised that they have stirred up such animosity.

On the question of sources, I hope I have sourced all my contributions. Please could you point out where this is not the case and I will remove the offending parts. It should be noted that I contributed most of the quotations and references in the Multiple Drafts article.

Contrary to the accusations in this Cabal, I am not anti-Dennett and enjoy the interplay of ideas in philosophy as a pursuit that is independent of their veracity. I have wanted to include some insight into the standard critique of Multiple Drafts (in a separate section), have tried to keep the Cartesian materialism article neutral and sourced from authors other than Dennett and have corrected the Cartesian theatre article to show that Dennett has provided an attack on Cartesian materialism that is not the standard regress approach.

Surprisingly, the articles look fairly well-balanced as they stand although the regress based introduction to the cartesian theatre article is probably superfluous.

I am still rather unhappy about comparing Cartesian materialist descriptions to Joseph Stalin's show trials. It would be more encyclopedic to say that "Dennett invented the Stalinesque interpretation/Orwellian interpretation to explain his analysis of Cartesian materialism", this is factual and does not involve Wikipedia in the passive support of Dennett's pejorative method of argument.

I also find the "criticisms" section of Multiple Drafts does not benefit from the quote by Korb or the rather saccharin and unsupported testimonial for Dennett's ideas.

The consciousness article is more problematical. Which philosophers should be prominent in this article? Philosophers such as Berkeley, Locke, Descartes, Kant and Reid are obviously famous and have stood the test of time. Chalmers and Block are fairly main-stream. Block is a superb collater and summariser so is scarcely contentious and can be used as an entry point to the work of others. Had it not been for the "hard problem" Chalmers might not have been so widely known or well respected but "the hard problem" crystalises an important issue. Dennett is much nearer the edge however. Notice that the article does not dwell on Whitehead, Russell, Husserl, Broad, Wittgenstein etc., all of whom have stood the test of time - if it does not mention Whitehead should it really pay much attention to Dennett or Spencer-Brown or Ken Wilber?

I am happy for a third party to review the articles. loxley 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

A third party view

I am not a philosopher, nor an expert on consciousness, but rather an "interested layman". I am putting some comments on the talk pages for some of the disputed articles (including Talk:Cartesian theater and Talk:Cartesian materialism) that I hope might be helpful to improving the articles in ways that all parties might appreciate. Gwimpey 06:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

How can Wikipedia deal with extremism?

Look, I am inclined to give up, I have been insulted, patronised, taken to this cabal for no reason other than trying to defend the impartiality of Wikipedia. Here we have someone who seems to have only read one book by Dennett and for some strange reason is insisting that Dennett's views are of paramount importance and must be given pride of place in all related articles. In the Cartesian materialism article Dennett is now portrayed as the gold standard for defining this term when he is its chief detractor. In the consciousness article Dennett is being included on the same level as Descartes or Kant. I know I should be bothered, and I have been bothered but in the absence of any support should I continue to be bothered? loxley 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe that, after an honest and in-depth evaluation of what you've done, people will find that you don't deserve any support. Take the CM article, where Dennett is now included as one of the people who has a worthwhile opinion on the meaning of the term. Note that the two people who support CM wrote their paper in response to Dennett and that the other person who offers a definition is, like Dennett, a critic of CM. In short, for all the insults you spew at me, you don't even show enough grasp of the material to recognize how much your bias against Dennett has distorted your understanding of what's going on. My version of the article is quite NPOV, while yours relegates Dennett to the ranks of minor critic. You do know that Dennett shows up prominently in the curriculum of Cog Sci and Philosophy of the Mind classes at leading universitities, yet you want to pretend that he's a flash in the pan just because you disagree with him. This partisanship disgusts me. Alienus 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Cartesian materialism is not about Dennett. Why do you need to rewrite articles as if he is the principle player? loxley 10:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

That question presumes a falsehood. Alienus 18:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

When people look up Cartesian materialism in Wikipedia they want a concise definition, they do not want to arrive in the middle of an argument due to Dennett. The article on Cartesian materialism, where Dennett's contribution is in a "criticisms" section, allows readers to read three impartial definitions followed by Dennett's own, unique, critical definition. Why do you want Dennett's critique as a definition of this idea? Who does it benefit? Is it helping Wikipedia?

The clear definition of cartesian materialism followed by Dennett's critique helps readers to understand the eliminativist position which "is largely concerned with moving from a brain-centered view of the mind to a view of the mind as occuring in the brain/body/environment nexus..." ( http://thm.askee.net/articles/cartesian-cogn.pdf) loxley 19:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The article consists of clear definitions from a number of viewpoints without favoring any particular one. You would relegate one opinion to the criticism ghetto, which would be POV. You are once again wrong on all charges. Alienus 19:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

But your editing not only fails to allow the naive reader to get a clear definition of Cartesian materialism, it also prevents them from seeing clearly that Dennett, Rockwell, Churchland and other eliminativists see "mind as occuring in the brain/body/environment nexus.." rather than the brain. It is almost as if you want to hide this interesting idea. Should Dennett be thanking you for this? loxley 20:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

That seems accurate with regard to Rockwell, but not Dennett. Dennett's refutation of the Chinese room invokes the system, not the robot. You really should stop trying to shove everyone into the same box. As for hiding anything, if you have any sort of citations for Dennett supporting this idea, feel free to add them. It would be news to me, but unlike you, I wouldn't revert it blindly. I've actually done my best to work your input into the articles, as opposed to having an immune reaction against anything different from my own view. You could learn a lot from this. Alienus 22:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Dennett, Dennett, Dennett - why Dennett? We have an established idea, Cartesian materialism, it has existed for two centuries before Dennett. This should be defined clearly. We have some recent attacks on this idea, these should be described clearly. To present the idea from the outset through the distorting lens of your favourite philosopher is not of any use to our readers. Why do you insist on doing this? Our role is to cover Cartesian materialism using source data, not to decry it from the outset because it does not suit our viewpoint. Surely I am not the only one who believes this? loxley 23:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

As is traditional in the field of philosophy, I will answer this question with a question. To wit: Why O'Brien and Opie? These two wrote their little essay in direct response to Dennett, yet you're fine with them because they disagree with Dennett. Wow, it's almost as if you're biased. Alienus 05:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You accuse me of retailing a POV but I introduced all the reference material and source data into both the Multiple Drafts and Cartesian Materialism articles. You accuse me of vandalism but I created both of these articles and have, by and large, been happy for them to be changed. You accuse me of not understanding Dennett or the field but you have introduced no knowledge of any text except "Consciousness explained".

You will not deal with anything specifically but respond to any points with name calling, text reversions and further questions. You engage in edit wars with the announcement that it is the other people who are engaging in an edit war. You strike first by taking those who are opposing your campaigns to Cabals etc. In fact you represent a fascinating example of a real problem for an open publication like Wikipedia. I think we should try to push this through to other discussion forums. loxley 10:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it's pretty clear to anyone who does even a little bit of research that what you've said is demonstrably false, not to mention that it constitutes a personal attack.

Again you are using generalised modes of argument. Please be specific. Which novel sources did you introduce? You began this Cabal with the claim that I was proprietorial about articles that I had created, so who did create the principle content of these articles? loxley 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I also think time has shown that arguing with you is pointless. Instead, I'll let my record speak for me. Worse, I'll let yours speak for you. I think I come out far better in this exchange. Alienus 11:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You have not actually confronted any specific point which is why the argument has been pointless. Please refer to the specific points below. loxley 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Request for arbitration

We are not going anywhere so I have requested arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cartesian_materialism

Alienus, I introduced all of the references into the talk and articles for both the Multiple Drafts and Cartesian materialism. I also started both the Multiple Drafts and Cartesian materialism articles (changing cartesian materialism from a redirect to Dennett's Cartesian theater) Please refrain from claiming that you introduced these sources. loxley 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Changes to the Cartesian materialism article

I will try to be specific. The Cartesian materialism article is being edited by Alienus so that it is being introduced according to the viewpoint of a particular philosopher: Daniel Dennett. In particular the introductory paragraph has been changed to make Cartesian materialism sound like cartesian dualism and the following two paragraphs have been added:

"A characteristic feature of Cartesian dualism is that, although processing occurs in various parts of the brain, conciousness is isolated in a specific spot. Descartes wrote that the "[pineal] gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed". Cartesian materalists reject these details but generally maintain the existence of a central location.

In this tradition, Dennett defines Cartesian materialism as "the view that there is a crucial finish line or boundary somewhere in the brain, marking a place where the order of arrival equals the order of "presentation" in experience because what happens there is what you are conscious of. (p.107) Dennett considers Cartesian materialism obsolete but endemic, saying it is "the view that nobody espouses but almost everybody tends to think in terms of", such as when they speak of "entering consciousness" or "the moment of awareness"."

The first paragraph is an original contribution by Alienus: he does not produce any source to show that Cartesian materialists maintain the existence of a central location. The only references I can find show that Cartesian materialists hold the general view that the mind is in the brain.

The second paragraph uses a definition given by Daniel Dennett, the principle opponent of Cartesian materialism. This definition is peculiar to Dennett and has been developed specifically to support his Multiple drafts theory of consciousness. It is like introducing an article on Jesus Christ with a view such as "Christ was a mythical figure developed by the Roman Empire in an attempt to regulate the psychology and religious practice of the population" - these points might all be defended individually but it makes a nonsense of an impartial article. Specifically, Dennett introduces a "crucial finish line" so implies presentism and the text says that cartesian materialism is "obsolete but endemic". Cartesian materialists are not necessarily presentists and "obsolete but endemic" is entirely pejorative.

I would like to see the first paragraph removed entirely because it is original work. I would like to see the second paragraph placed later in the article and labelled with a warning that this is a definition supplied by the principle opponent of Cartesian materialism. A fair presentation can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cartesian_materialism&oldid=33761410 . loxley 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This was settled in the appropriate Talk page, so I see no reason to repeat everything here. Go look and see for yourself. Alienus 04:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This was not settled in the Talk Page. You have indeed amended your claim that all Cartesian materialism is based on a central location but the inclusion of a negative definition as the principle definition of Cartesian materialism in the introduction is still wrong. Worse, you are insisting upon the inclusion of a factual inaccuracy (that Dennett believes CM is localised). You are using a quote by Damasio cut from a paper by Dennett. You have not read the original Damasio article which is a commentary on Dennett in the same magazine and hence not independent. I have resisted adding negative comments on Dennett's ideas because this article is not about Dennett.

We should develop the article from the viewpoint of the reader. Introducing Dennett's criticisms as if they are the definition of Cartesian Materialism confuses the entire issue. By undermining the definition of Cartesian Materialism from the outset the article just becomes the toy of a philosophical debate rather than an encyclopedia article. When readers turn to the Cartesian materialism article they want to know about Cartesian materialism, not how wonderful Alienus thinks Dennett might be. loxley 09:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I will not repeat myself. Go to the right talk page and discuss it there. Alienus 09:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The latest changes by ALienus are again elevating Dennett and Dennett's ideas to the level of defining the concept. What do we do when a user has a particular hero like this? If we let it go in Cartesian materialism he will continue inserting Dennett as hero all over philosophy of mind (see Alienus' changes in other articles). loxley 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For a sanity test, go Google "philosophy mind syllabus dennett". You'll find that philosophy professors at a variety of schools feel that Dennett's view is worth including in a philosophy of the mind class. This means that, no matter how much you hate him (or, at least, your uninformed understanding of his views), there is good reason for his presence in these articles. If you remove or downplay his work, I will revert your vandalism. Speaking of which, I'm off to revert your latest vandalism on Cartesian materialism. Alienus 10:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not saying that Dennett is not a famous philosopher, I am saying that Cartesian materialism should not be characterised most prominently in terms of Dennett's ideas. Remember, Dennett put forward his peculiar definition of CM with the intention of destroying that idea in his Multiple Drafts model. It is a definition that he knew from the outset to be unsound. loxley 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

That's factually incorrect on multiple counts. Feel free to decide whether it's malice or incompetence on your part. Alienus 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Please present an example of Dennett referring to his definition of Cartesian materialism in any context other than an attack on the concept. You see, I am wholly in favour of including Dennett's ideas in Cartesian materialism and I have done so, but it is obviously wrong to characterise the concept from the outset in the terms devised by its principle critic. loxley 12:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Smile and wave to the cameras. It's not like you're genuinely talking about how to improve this page. You're just posing for the arbitrators. In the end, they'll have to decide who stays and who goes. Let's see if they do the right thing. Alienus 13:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Why won't you respond to any specific point such as the above (and the rest of our exchanges)? Please stop insulting me. loxley 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Just one crucial question. Is Dennett's definition of Cartesian materialism associated with the Dennett's Multiple Drafts Model, ie: did Dennett create a definition and then attack it? Surely, if this is the case it must be treated as part of a critique of Cartesian materialism rather than as a definition of CM. There is a huge danger here of enshrining a straw man argument as a real definition in an encyclopedia. loxley 16:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been made by one or more of the parties in this dispute. As a consequence, the Mediation Cabal is not capable of continuing to handle this case from now on, since mediation does not encompass the realms of disciplinary matters. As a consequence, this recommendation will be the last mediation action to take place here. Should the arbitration case be rejected, this case may be reopened on request.

Neutral party to review pages

Since a point of agreement between the two of you was to get a neutral third person to evaluate the article material based, I will arrange for this to occur even though arbitration has already been requested. I think this may go some way towards helping to at least reduce the overall content warring present on this article.

Civility

I have already made the recommendations to you both that you refrain from incivility towards one another. The discourse above continues to show signs of ad hominem insults, which are not conducive towards productive editing. I make a final request to you both that you either cease the mutual incivility, or refrain from discussing the matter with each other, since if anything the discourse appears to be making the antagonism worse.

Interpretation

As I mentioned in my initial evaluation, ultimately the content dispute appears to boil down to a matter of interpretation and viewpoint, which should not exist as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite sources. I am confident that if all claims made were directly referenced to their point of origin and no further information was to be included because of one of you deciding that an idea was misrepresented or underrepresented, the dispute would vanish. Basically, this is a case where the emotional involvement of the two participants has overruled editorial judgement and the consequent dispute has devolved into merely an attempt to score points between the two parties.

Alienus' apparent bullying of Loxley

It appears to me that Alienus is conducting actions which essentially amount to bullying towards Loxley, and is being very forceful in making his/her point both in dialogue and on the articles. Alienus is politely requested to please desist from doing this.

Apology to Loxley

I sincerely apologise for my assumption that Loxley's actions were anti-Dennett; that was merely my view based on a cursory examination of the editing in question. I did not mean to accuse you of anything, indeed, I did believe that you genuinely held this view yourself.

While I don't agree with your conclusions, particularly in reference to the so-called "bullying", I can at least see how a reasonable person might arrive there. However, there is plenty of evidence for Loxley being specifically anti-Dennett. Loxley insists that Dennett is just a "flash in the pan" [1] and has made a career here attacking [2] and censoring [3] Dennett. In short, this part of the conclusion isn't merely wrong, it's demonstrably wrong, and your apology is undeserved by Loxley. I'm adding these comments for the record. Alienus 04:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Closing mediation case

Due to the arbitration case mentioned above, and an unwillingness to maintain reasonable editorial discussion on the matter, it is clear that this matter has gone beyond the scope of mediation and the Mediation Cabal can no longer mediate this case. However, if any further assistance or intervention is required by either party they may request it here and a mediator will assist them outside of this mediation case.

I would also like to apologise to both parties for the delay experienced throughout this case; alas, the Mediation Cabal is somewhat short of mediators' time (although more recently this has improved) and as a consequence this case was rather neglected due to its complexity.

The Mediation Cabal thanks the participants for their time and effort in this matter.

-- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply