text:
Ethics/Nonkilling/Philosophy

Introduction

 * This Course is based mainly on "Nonkilling Philosophy", chapter prepared by Professor Irene Comins Mingol and Professor Sonia Paris Albert (UNESCO Chair of Philosophy for Peace, Department of Philosophy and Sociology, University Jaume I Castellón) for Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm (Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling, 2009). The Course is part of the Interdisciplinary Program on Nonkilling Studies at the School of Nonkilling Studies.

Philosophic reflection can and should help us to transform the suffering of both humans and nature. Philosophy, with its etymological significance of love for wisdom, or rather, the love of knowing how to live, constitutes a practical knowledge, committed to praxis. In this chapter we will outline the contribution of Philosophy in the construction of a Nonkilling Paradigm. In order to achieve this we have organized our analysis into four sections. Firstly we introduce the discipline and concept of Philosophy. Following this introduction we will consider the two fields of work, in this case Peace Studies and Gender Studies, with which philosophy has, since the middle of the 20th Century, established a reciprocal relationship of an interdisciplinary nature in order to begin its conversion into a Nonkilling Philosophy. Finally we will conclude with some epistemological and paradigm change reflections.

A new paradigm for human sustainability
At the present time, it would appear that Philosophy is losing all of its value. If we listen to certain conversations that are taking place around us (are being held around us), we will hear such things said as “it is useless to study and learn Philosophy or to reflect philosophically, because nowadays, society is going in a different direction”. It has reached the point where the very role of Philosophy is being questioned, even in the field of education, and this fact has led to very few people deciding to study Philosophy as an academic career.

Why does Philosophy seem to be losing its value? Certainly one of the causes is related to current scientific views, (which have endured since the time of Modernity with Galileo and, later, with Positivism) whose most relevant features are objectivity and neutrality. In other words, priority is given to the opinion that, scientific disciplines must be value free and they have to be developed, if possible, in a laboratory under some sort of experimental conditions. In this sense, it is evident that Philosophy loses its scientific character, as do the disciplines of the humanities and the social sciences, as values form an important part of Philosophies dealings with human and social issues.

However, if Philosophy discusses human beings and all that surrounds them; is it not necessary in our society? Are philosophical reflections about human-beings, about the situations that threaten us and about the circumstances in which we live, not fundamental to the sustainability of life? We live in times marked by violence of all types. The media inform us daily about cases of gender violence, of classroom violence, bellic conflicts, terrorism, etc. Therefore, we believe that it is ever more necessary to recuperate philosophic reflection as a means of understanding the cause of these events, and find viable alternatives that help to transform them peacefully. Evidently, these reflections would make us consider the life situations that are conflicts; they would make us open debates about them; they would allow us to stop being so technical; and they would humanize us so as to enable us to listen and be listened to.

The etymological meaning of the word Philosophy as “love for wisdom” and its sense of thaumatzein (amazement) can help us to understand to what, we were referring to when we mentioned the importance of philosophical reflection to the sustainability of life. That is to say, one significance for the term Philosophy that come from the two senses already mentioned above could be the following: Philosophy takes place when we feel amazed by things and situations that seem strange to us, when instead of distancing ourselves from them we question them, we decide to find out more about them. With this attitude we could help to manage many of the previously mentioned violences, thereby favouring the sustainability of life. For example, one case might be when we are amazed by a culture that appears strange to us and we decide to get to know it better rather than excluding the people that form a part of it and starting an intercultural conflict.

So, could we consider Philosophy as a science if we take into account the notion cited in the previous paragraphs? Only if we question the vision of science already mentioned, and we learn to perceive it from another perspective. We have said that Philosophy is a basic element for the sustainability of life because it helps to reflect on the situations experienced by human beings, and on the human being itself. In this context, from the UNESCO Chair of Philosophy for Peace of the University Jaume I we work with the purpose of finding alternatives for the transformation of the suffering of both humans and nature by peaceful means, and thereby achieve greater and better sustainability of life (Martínez Guzmán, 2001; 2005). This Philosophy for Peace allows us to question the notion of science (both modern and positivist) based on objectivity and neutrality, thanks to the formulation of an Epistemological Turn which at the same time enables us to recognise as sciences those disciplines that traditionally have been denied such recognition.

The Epistemological Turn (Martínez Guzmán, 2001; 2005) becomes a new paradigm, subverting the notion of traditional science when it is affirmed that this science is not even acceptable for the natural sciences, because even the more technical disciplines are neither, objective or neutral. Or rather, objectivity and neutrality cannot exist because we value everything, from our training as mathematicians, physicists, historians or philosophers. In this regard, it promotes a new image of science which places the human being in society at its foundation. We will continue by resuming the fifteen points that make up the Epistemological Turn (Martínez Guzmán, 2001: 64; Martínez Guzmán, 2005: 114-116):

 * Instead of objectivity we should highlight the intersubjective character of science and show the mutual demands made by those implicated on each other.
 * Instead of the perspective of the observer, we should highlight the participative perspective.
 * Rather than focus on the relationship between subject and object, we should highlight the relations between people.
 * Rather than the dichotomies between facts and values, we should highlight the role of values and the inexistence of “pure facts”.
 * Instead of neutrality we should highlight the commitment with its values.
 * Rather than the paradigm of conscience, we should highlight the communication paradigm.
 * Rather than questioning the idealism of Peace Studies, we should highlight its realist character because it is from it that we understand the different ways we have for doing things, whether they violent or pacific.
 * Rather than unilateral reasoning, we should highlight the relation between reason, sentiments, emotions, care/tenderness and affection.
 * Instead of neutral justice, we should highlight the existence of justice based on solidarity and “care”.
 * Rather than seeing the world as an abstract space, we should highlight its existence as a world made up of a diverse number of places.
 * Instead of considering nature as objective and distant, we should highlight the union between nature and the human beings that form part of it.
 * Rather than the dichotomy between nature and culture, we should highlight the links between the two and allow for the social construction of nature.
 * Rather than emphasizing the masculine, we should highlight the category of gender to understand how excluded have women been in the name of neutrality.
 * Instead of only seeing human vulnerability in the development of mechanisms of aggression, we should highlight its value in generating care and affection.
 * Rather than understanding peace as a thing of heroes and saints, we should highlight that peace is for people like us.

The Epistemological Turn is then converted into a fundamental tool for sustaining life, if we take into account that working from it we can formulate a new vision of science. This turn is complemented by parallel proposals formulated by other fields of understanding, such as the notion of imperfect peace Francisco Muñoz is elaborating, with his academic training as a historian. The defining characteristics of the notion of imperfect peace basically revolve around two ideas. Firstly, there is the recognition of the experiences of peace that can be found in every social reality that may serve as guidelines and as inspirations for peace building. Secondly and directly related with the first, peace understood as an unfinished process, in constant development.

Apart from these proposals to construct a new Non Killing Paradigms, more inclusive and committed to praxis, we will consider in depth two fields of understanding that, as we have already said, nourish themselves in a reciprocal manner with philosophy in the construction of a new paradigm, that are peace studies and gender studies. In the next section we concentrate on the image of conflicts that appears in the Epistemological Turn of this Philosophy for Peace. We will carry out this analysis by means of a philosophical reflection that will allow us to once again perceive the value of Philosophy to the sustainability life.

Peace studies and the peaceful transformation of conflicts: challenges for a Nonkilling Philosophy
Nowadays, people experience many different types of conflict such as gender violence, classroom violence, environmental violence, armed conflict or different forms of terrorism. Violence can be found everywhere or, at least it seems that this form of human interaction is the only one to be emphasised. We say this «form of human interaction» because it is true that we can do things in other much more peaceful ways and are characterized by their capacities for recognition, empathy, linguistic understanding and cooperation. It has already been pointed out that this is the understanding that Martínez Guzmán (2001; 2005) provides for one of the theses that make up the Epistemological Turn of his Philosophy for Peace when he indicates that we the pacifists are the realists because we do not deny the presence of violence, instead we make the affirmation that it exists together with peace. Evidently, all of our effort as people working for peace is focused towards learning peaceful means that will aid us to achieve peace. The constant presence of violence has been favoured by the media. So much so that, we continually, read of, listen to and see news charged with violence, and that are read, listened to and observed by a public that seems to demand it, and that is being ever more absorbed by the spectacular form of reporting that is promoted by these media (Riviére, 2003; Sánchez Noriega, 1997; Sartori, 2002). This fact and the way in which we have traditionally learned to regulate our conflicts has led to violence being converted into a habit difficult to overcome, which in turn has led to a negative image of conflict being increasingly predominant due to the destructive effects at that are produced on a material and personal level by the use of violence. Identical ideas can be found in the work of Cascón Soriano (2001) where the lack of energy and time are identified as two other causes of this negative interpretation of the predominant conflicts in our society.

In the previous lines we have talked about violence as a habit. On the contrary, the aim of this text is to propose the need to disaccustom ourselves to violence and learn these other forms of peaceful interaction that has been previously sited. It is true that many of the conflicts that we experience are regulated with violence. Then again, it is equally true that many others are treated peacefully. As has been affirmed by Muñoz (2004a; 2004b) in some of his work when, he states that the majority of our interpersonal conflicts are managed peacefully even though we do not stop to think about it. It is possible, that the very fact that we do not pay, as much attention to these conflicts that are managed by peaceful means, as we do to those managed violently, results from the emphasis that is placed on violence as was indicated previously.

In order to disaccustom ourselves to violence, a new, different and more positive image of conflictive situations needs to be learnt so a to favour the sustainability of life. That is to say, that being capable of transforming conflicts by peaceful means would allow us to view them in a more positive light, because their consequences stop being destructive once they do not cause material or personal harm to the same levels as is the case with the use of violence. Therefore, the working hypothesis that we deal with in these pages will be that conflict can be positive or negative depending on the means that are used to regulate it (Muñoz, 2001). Thus, the principle question is not that which searches for solutions that will put an end to the conflict, but rather that, which searches for peaceful alternatives that avoid the use of violence in the transformation of conflicts. It is this positive vision of conflict that we want to make people aware of with this work, because it helps us to understand another image (as a new paradigm) of conflicts that has not been taken into account up until now, and it is now that it is being highlighted by those of us who dedicate ourselves to working on these themes. This new interpretation emphasises a series of characteristics that can be summarized in the following manner (Fisas, 1998; Lederach, 1995):

 * Conflict is an interactive process: the experience of a conflictive situation brings different people together who interact in order to regulate it.
 * Conflict is inherent to human relations: It is recognized that people cannot live without conflict if they want their relations to evolve. Therefore, if they are inherent to their relations, it is wise to seek peaceful means to transform them favourably for all the parties involved. Much in the same way, the fact that transforming conflicts by peaceful means helps us to understand the presence of conflict and thereby overcome the need to seek solutions at any cost.
 * Conflict favours change: it is accepted that the existence of conflicts favours the development of relationships and social changes. If there are no conflicts, it will be because we are happy with what we have. However, conflict represents a disagreement that, if managed peacefully, may be overcome, thereby providing for an improvement in relations.
 * Conflict has multiple responses: Each conflict can be dealt with in many ways depending on the context in which it is taking place and the people implicated.

Understanding this interpretation of conflicts and its positive vision will be made possible if, we learn to transform conflicts by alternative means. Hence we propose the use of the methodology for the peaceful transformation of conflicts in an effort to disaccustom ourselves to violence and take up peace as a habit. Consequentially, this reflection from the Philosophy for Peace perspective has allowed us to once again see the value of Philosophy to the sustainability of life, given that, as we said earlier, philosophy and peace studies relate with one another in a reciprocal fashion. Within the framework of peace studies, the peaceful transformation of conflicts is the third term to be used to denominate conflict studies. Conflict resolution and conflict management were the two denominations used previously. Each one of these terms propose a methodology for dealing with conflictive situations and at the same time they have different implications (Lederach, 1995).

Conflict resolution was the first academic denomination which appeared in the 1950’s and has been strongly criticised since the 1960’s. It has a negative vision of conflicts, as it emphasises destructive consequences of conflicts and, thereby, signals that they need to be resolved. This interpretation gave rise to a whole series of criticisms, during the decade of the 60’s, from those who believed that forced resolutions were not always just, and from those who questioned whether it was really necessary to finish with conflicts.

Conflict management, the second academic denomination started to be used in the 70’s and it was strongly criticised from the 80’s onwards. With conflict management a more positive vision of conflict is introduced, although its destructive consequences continued to be emphasised. According to conflict management, conflicts are the same as all the other natural elements that can be regulated by laws, models and norms. This conception gave birth to criticisms in the 80’s from those who were of the opinion that conflicts are unlike any of the other natural elements, because they form a part of human affairs, and as such, they cannot be managed by laws. Furthermore, they believe management to be, too greatly influenced by business interests.

Conflict transformation, is the third academic denomination that arose in the 90’s and continues to be used nowadays. However, although this methodology currently takes precedence, the terminology of resolution is still the most used.

Concentrating on the peaceful transformation of conflictive situations, a notion that we want to highlight with this text, it can be said that its main interest is in highlighting a positive image of conflict, in such a way that these situations of conflict may be understood as situations that have to be confronted by peaceful means with the intent of overcoming them and creating new objectives, which will make it possible to maintain relations into the future. Conflict therefore favours, the strengthening of relations and there continuity due to an end of tensions, and from the experience of transforming a conflict positively. This context is achieved by the use of peaceful communication as a method characterised by the principles of Discourse Ethics. In this sense, it presupposes the conditions for the liberty and equality of all speakers during the speech act, together with the three validity claims of speech that focus on the truth in what is being said, the veracity of intentions and the corrections used in the grammatical process (Cortina, 1994; Habermas, 1993; 1989; 1979).

The importance granted to communication by transformation is such that, what is said ends up being what is done due to the influence of Austin’s Speech Act Theory (1976). Therefore, any transmitted message is converted into an act with consequences and, for this reason, it is necessary to be careful with how we say things and be aware of the consequences that they might have, if we are to successfully achieve the positive transformation of a conflict. This idea identifies the sense of responsibility that each person should have with every physical or verbal act carried out, as is illustrated by the cited theory of Austin, if we remember the three parts that this philosopher of language has pointed out for all speech acts: 1) Illocutionary force refers to the force with which we say something. In other words, what force is used if what is said is a promise, a threat, etc.. Therefore it is the responsibility of the emitter to measure the force and forma with which a message is transmitted to ensure that it is apprehended by the receiver. 2) Illocutionary effects, such as comprehension and apprehension take place when the receiver understands what has been said. In this case the responsibility belongs to the receiver. 3) The perlocutionary act represents the consequences derived from what we say. Here once again we find that it is the responsibility of the emitter to be conscious of the effects of his or her words and listen to the petitions of the receiver.

To take this responsibility into account during the communication helps to create a link of solidarity between those who interact favourably in respect to the peaceful transformation of conflicts. In itself, it favours the recognition between the parties that goes beyond mere linguistic recognition, as it is perceived as a necessary aspect of what constitutes human integrity. This understanding has been patented by Honneth (1992; 1997) who positively values recognition in the following three ways: 1) In our physical integrity, with the concrete particularities of our bodies (stature, weight, skin colour, etc.) 2) As members of a juridical community that have rights and obligations. 3) In our lifestyle with our tastes, our way of dressing ourselves, our way of being, etc. (from a perspective based on the principles of interculturality).

In summary, the peaceful transformation of conflicts is converted into a methodology (as a new paradigm) to be followed because it highlights the value of peace by putting into practice a peaceful and facilitating form for the communication of experiences based on responsibility and recognition. In the same way as these principles make it possible to witness cooperation between the parties implicated in the conflict and allows them to experience its empowering faculties in the aim of finding suitable agreements for the reconciliation and rebuilding of relations. This rebuilding process may be favoured by the experience of women as will be seen in the following section. We shall now go on to analyze the reciprocal exchanges that take place between philosophy and gender studies in the construction of a new paradigm.

A Nonkilling Philosophy: The Care Ethics Perspective
The practice and theory of the feminist movement has had a revolutionary or innovative effect on philosophy (Amorós, 2006: 217), especially in reference to the construction of a Nonkilling Philosophy and a new paradigm. We could say that there appears to be a mutual interaction between the new epistemological models and the newly emerging actors. These newly emerging actors, until recently kept in silence, are characterized by two principal features: culture and gender. Women and the non-occidental countries have had their voices excluded from epistemological paradigms. Occidental science has in this sense operated a form of triple exclusion: ontological, epistemological and sociological, by determining what merits being the object of investigation, by determining what types of research methods or knowledge are valid and which are not; and by indicating who are the experts and who are not. Thus the need to elaborate epistemologies that are capable of making visible, those who before were submerged actors, invisible to other epistemological positions (Amorós, 2006: 259). This notion frames the Epistemological Turn that we have been working on and is what we consider to be one of the shifts axis is the incorporation of the gender perspective.

Nonviolence has not only been a method of struggle to transform conflicts, to condemn the existing levels of violence or to deal with the representative changes in the different societies. Furthermore, nonviolence tries to renovate other knowledge disciplines, such as: history, political theory, sociology, anthropology, religion, ethical philosophy (with the denominated care ethics), economy, feminism and also the so called experimental sciences (López Martínez, 2001: 232). This incorporation of non-violence into the epistemological paradigms has come about as a direct result of different legacies, among which it is worth highlighting the experience of women.

Even though not all women are pacifists nor are all men violent, it is not less true to say that there exist relevant gender differences regarding the use of violence. More concretely it can be proved that the majority of violent acts, those acts of direct violence, are committed by males or that males are more sensitive than women to those environmental factors that have an important influence on antisocial behaviour. There have been a variety of reasons given to explain the difference in attitudes towards violence between women and men, from which we can discern two principal differences (Magallón Portolés, 2006: 208): 1) The fact, that, women have in their majority been excluded from having access to power, the army, and the political decisions of government related to wars and military doctrine. 2) The historical socialisation of women in the tasks of caring and sustaining life has meant that women value life greatly, and that they are more inclined than men to protect and maintain life. Even though, both aspects contribute to this difference in social construction between men and women, the second one, the socialization of women in the tasks of caring, is the one that provides a more solid foundation and greater support regarding women legacy to the construction of a nonviolent thinking (Ruddick, 1989). The practice of caring implies, in itself, the development of a determined set of capacities and abilities such as empathy, responsibility, patience, tenderness or commitment, all of which are elements that constitute a Nonkilling Paradigm. That works on the premise that what we do is who we are, and that historically the role of caring has been attributed to women, as much in the private sphere (caring for the children, the elderly, the sick, the home…) as in the public sphere (women in nursing, teaching…), certain peace competencies have developed in women that could be shared with all of humanity if the tasks of caring were to be shared with men.

Carol Gilligan expressed for the first time, in her work In a Different Voice (1982), the different moral capacities that women have developed as a result of the socialisation in and practice of care. Up until then the Theory of Moral Development followed without exception the theories of her professor and mentor Lawrence Kohlberg. Gilligan amplified the moral theory of Kohlberg including an analysis of the moral experiences of women, given that Kohlberg’s theory was based on the study of eighty-four male children during a period of more than twenty years (Gilligan, 1996: 18). Through her work Gilligan discovered that, women persistently scored poorly when compared with their male equivalents on Kohlberg’s scale of moral development. This discrepancy in the scoring was due to the fact that the Moral Development Theory was built on the study of male experiences but was applied under the pretence of universality among women and men. However, Kohlberg is not alone in this, Rousseau, Hegel, Freud or Piaget, have also considered women to be of a lower moral capacity.

Gilligan detected in her study that women have a more relation based moral voice that, gives preference to the preservation of relations, in opposition to justice ethics, where preference is given to the abidance of universal moral norms. This different moral perspective of women results from the division of work based on gender and the acute division between public and private spheres. Men and women therefore develop two distinct moral perspectives in function with the unequal attribution of responsibilities: “Care Ethics” versus “Justice Ethics”. While the ethics of justice is based on the premise of equality -that everybody should be treated the same-, the ethics of care is based on the premise of nonviolence: that no one should be hurt (Gilligan, 1996: 174). Here it is necessary to point out that women are not more apt for the task of caring due to any biological explanation, but rather because of their learning process, it is the result of a social construction, more specifically a gender construction, and not features of sex. If women have different ethics, as Carol Gilligan suggests, if they have different priorities or a different attitude towards the world, then this is clearly a result of the sex based division of labour and the acute division between the public and the private that exists in the social world in which we live (Perrigo, 1991: 321-322).

The theory and practice of care implies the development of moral values, abilities and competences such as empathy, patience, perseverance, responsibility, commitment, accompaniment, the ability to listen or tenderness. All of which, are important values for building a Culture of Peace. To illustrate this, Betty Reardon suggests that “above all a culture of peace would be a culture of caring” (Reardon, 2001: 85). Furthermore, with these moral values the practice of care contributes to the development of fundamental abilities for the construction of Peace, and it is not restricted exclusively to the private domain, but rather it extends into the public sphere: abilities to peacefully transform conflicts and abilities for civil and social commitment.

Sara Ruddick in her work Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace identifies the way in which the practice of caring for children develops techniques in women for the peaceful transformation of conflicts. In the home and outside it, women normally feel themselves as being weak or powerless. Normally they are socially poor, the objects of rather than the agents of wars, economic plans and political regime. As it is with other powerless combatants, mothers often resort to strategies of nonviolence and peace (Ruddick, 1989). Beyond caring for children, or maternal thinking, socialization in care values generally develops techniques for the peaceful transformation of conflicts. In this case there are three contributions worth highlighting (Comins Mingol, 2007: 93-105). From the care ethic understanding of conflict it is considered important that nobody comes out loosing, that all come out satisfied with the outcome of least some issue, in so that they do not break interpersonal relations. It is also important to listen to all the possible voices. Sensitivity towards the needs of others and the assuming of the responsibility to care for them leads women to listen to voices different to their own and to include different points of view in their judgments. In this way the apparent diffusion and confusion of women’s judgment is discovered, thanks to the work of Carol Gilligan, to be an example of the moral strength and responsibility of women. Finally, from a care perspective, when confronting a conflict, priority is given to satisfying needs rather than handing out punishment. Against this, with the ethics of justice, even though the theorists take into account the important role of satisfying needs, they focus their attention on the penalization and regulation of aggressiveness.

The socialization and the practice of care develops’ in women a commitment to the welfare of society in general and not only the family in particular. In this way we get to see how women are the majority presence in social movements, as volunteers and in different forms of participation in informal politics, or as they have been denominated civil society. More concretely, it has been in the decade of the 90’s in the last century and the first years of this century that we have seen the proliferation of women’s peace movements and initiatives. This has come about as a reaction to the ravaging wars that have been taking place, the peace processes and the programs of postconflict reconstruction, to the same extent in both countries immersed in armed conflicts and those countries that in recent decades have not suffered from war directly. Here we can draw attention to the efforts of movements like the Mujeres de Negro (Women in Black) and the Madres and Abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo (Mothers and Grandmother of the Plaza de Mayo), among others.

The historical analysis of women’s behavior leads us to consider that the key to peace building and the new paradigm is not to give life, in itself key to the perpetuation of the species, but rather is to care for it. Care for life in its broadest sense, from the micro to the macro, can and should be the responsibility of both men and women (Magallón Portolés, 2006). To think ethically is to think of others. If we want this understanding to be a practice, it needs to be translated into legal measures and care attitudes. Both of which are essential. The only thing that care ethics does is draw our attention to how care has been forgotten as a basic ethical prescription (Camps, 1998: 75).

Final Remarks
On the basis of our analysis, a Nonkilling Philosophy is necessarily a Philosophy committed to the recuperation of and the recognition of human potential for peace. From this point of view we challenge the old assumption that human beings are naturally violent by arguing that in parallel to the capacity to be aggressive, human beings also possess many abilities that favor a harmonious coexistence, for reciprocal care and the peaceful transformation of conflicts.

The paradigm of traditional science, which we commented upon at the beginning of the chapter, and is pulled down in part by its own features of quantification, experimentation and objectivity, has been seduced to a certain extent by the analysis of violence and war as human phenomena, leaving to one side the analysis from the perspective of peace and nonviolence. This seduction, characterizes the Natural Sciences to the same extent as it does the Humanities and the Social Sciences. There is one systematic deviation that converts violence and war in objects or materials worthy of investigation, but does not do the same for peace. Francisco Muñoz refers to this phenomenon as the cognitive dissonance according to which, they search for and value peace more, but they continue to think in terms of violence (Muñoz, 2001: 24). According to the peace researcher Francisco Muñoz, we often fall into the a cognitive dissonance similar to schizophrenia where we find that peace is strongly desired and felt whereas violence has been well thought out and studied (Muñoz, 2005: 283). This is what he also denominates as the violentology perspective (Muñoz, 2001; 2005: 284). This violentology perspective has the perverse effect of –with its emphasis on violence through research, analysis, and description- making it seem as though violence is more present, even, as was previously mentioned, in the media. According to authors such as Douglas Fry this emphasis on violence and war does not correspond with the empirical evidence, on the contrary it is due to a collection of cultural beliefs on the inevitability of violence and war that slants our interpretations and affects the way we see ourselves and others (Fry,2006). There are two premises that justify and award working Towards a Nonkilling Paradigm: 1) Violence and war are not inevitable; on the contrary, human beings have a great capacity for peaceful coexistence and for dealing with conflicts nonviolently. 2) Cultural beliefs regarding the inevitability of violence and war skew our interpretations and affect our vision of human nature, to such an extent that they blind us to the possibilities of developing alternatives to war and violence.

The belief that aggression and violence are inevitable in human beings, according to the empirical evidence, is erroneous. The anthropological data shows that there is a real human potential for peace, it is not just a utopian dream. Furthermore these beliefs are not only false, but they present a grave threat and obstacle to peace building, as they obsess us and hence dissuade us from searching for alternatives. We are dealing with beliefs based in a cultural tradition that has been emphasized from the book of Genesis to the writings of Hobbes or Darwin, with its conflictive, egotistical and competitive vision of humanity without ever taking other dimensions into account. These cultural beliefs have not only been seen to be empirically unilateral and biased, but are further considered to be in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we were therefore to believe that war is inevitable and the societies prepare themselves to fight against each other –building an army or procuring weapons that will threaten their neighbors- war could easily be the result. Apart from becoming a philosophy that fulfills these cultural beliefs it can also end up creating a bias in research by focusing it in such a way that it reinforces the previously existing belief. Hence it is a prophecy that fulfills itself and justifies itself. These beliefs affect us as they do the sciences that, while interpreting, history, psychology or philosophy through these lenses, see only violence and war wherever they look.

Fortunately, and thanks to the previously mentioned epistemological turn, there is a change taking place in the way that we approach and perceive reality. Fundamental to this change have been the contributions that philosophy has received from two more recent fields of work or disciplines: Peace Studies which stresses our capacities for the peaceful transformation of conflicts and Gender Studies which stresses our common capacity to care for life. With these tools philosophy can sensibly carry out its traditional functions related to: public commitment, criticism, and the preoccupation for transforming human suffering.

The definition of philosophy as love for wisdom, and as the illustrated search for the knowledge to live, also includes within the framework of its own epistemology the search for the knowledge to live in peace. It is a condition of the possibility to live well, to live a good life, to be able to live a life of peace. Hence philosophy as love for wisdom, love, and the search for the knowledge to live, in itself includes the love and quest for the knowledge of how to coexist peacefully. Our work as philosophers publicly commits us to the transform the suffering of both humans and nature by peaceful means (Martínez Guzmán, 2005: 28).

On the other hand the critical function of philosophy means that it must also critique the suppositions on which our society is based, it questions them, questions their appearances that we commonly accept as being natural members of a given culture. This questioning is not frivolous, rather it aims to test the validity of these phenomena, in search of the knowledge best shows us how to live and coexist. Philosophy in this context is, according to Celia Amorós, a critical discourse, that speaks out against indiscriminately set opinions and prejudices, so as to show the hidden interests and the blind spots (2006: 222). In order to definitively reveal the cultural violence that by means of different discourses can legitimize the structural and direct violence that exists in the world (Galtung, 1996). Cultural violence, as a principal characteristic, dulls our moral responsibility, so that we live with it without questioning it. A Nonkilling Philosophy should be sensitive to this phenomenon and work in two directions: 1) On the one hand, visibilizing and removing the veil of cultural violence, with its discourses that marginalize, exclude and ultimately serve to legitimize structural and cultural violence. 2) On the other hand, working to construct and reconstruct discourses that legitimize and promote Peace, inclusive rather than exclusive, a philosophy committed with the recognition of human diversity, intercultural solidarity and peace.

References and Further Reading
AMORÓS, CELIA (2006): «Filosofía y Feminismo en la Era de la Globalización» en Guerra, María José y Ana Hardisson (eds.) 20 Pensadoras del siglo XX, Oviedo, Nobel.

AUSTIN, JOHN LANGSHAW (1976): How to do things with words, Oxford, Oxford University Press. BONTA, BRUCE D. (1996) «Conflict Resolution among Peaceful Societies: The Culture of Peacefulness» en Journal of Peace Research, vol. 33, nº4, pp. 403-420.

CAMPS, VICTORIA (1998): El siglo de las mujeres, Madrid, Ediciones Cátedra.

CASCÓN SORIANO, PACO (2001): Educar en y para el conflicto, Barcelona, Cátedra UNESCO sobre paz y derechos humanos, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.

COMINS MINGOL, IRENE (2007): “La ética del cuidado: contribuciones a una transformación pacífica de los conflictos”, Feminismo/s, 9, pp. 93-106.

CORTINA, ADELA (ed.) (1994): 10 palabras claves en ética, Navarra, Verbo Divino.

FISAS, VICENÇ (1998): Cultura de paz y gestión de conflictos, Barcelona, Icaria.

FRY, DOUGLAS (2006): The Human Potential for Peace. An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GALTUNG, JOHAN (1996): Peace by Peaceful Means. Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, London, Sage.

GILLIGAN, CAROL (1996): In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

GREGOR, THOMAS (1996): A Natural History of Peace, Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press.

HABERMAS, JÜRGEN (1979): Communication and the Evolution of Society, Boston, Beacon.

——— (1989): The Theory of Communicative Action, Cambridge, Polity Press.

——— (1993): Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge, MIT Press.

HONNETH, AXEL (1992): «Integrity and Disrespect: Principles of a Conception of Morality Based on the Theory of Recognition», Political Theory, 20(2), 187-201.

——— (1997): La Lucha por el reconocimiento, Barcelona, Crítica.

HOWARD ROSS, MARC (1995): La cultura del conflicto. Las diferencias interculturles en la práctica de la violencia, Barcelona, Paidós.

LEDERACH, JOHN PAUL (1995): Preparing for Peace. Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, New York, Syracuse University Press.

LÓPEZ MARTÍNEZ, MARIO (2001): «La noviolencia como alternativa política», en MUÑOZ, FRANCISCO A. (ed.) (2001): La Paz imperfecta, Granada, Ediciones Universidad de Granada.

MAGALLÓN PORTOLÉS, CARMEN (2006): Mujeres en pie de paz, pensamiento y prácticas, Madrid, Siglo XXI.

MARTÍNEZ GUZMÁN, VICENT (2001): Filosofía para hacer las paces, Barcelona, Icaria. ——— (2005): Podemos hacer las paces. Reflexiones éticas tras el 11-S y el 11-M, Bilbao, Desclée de Brouwer.

MUÑOZ, FRANCISCO (2001): La Paz Imperfecta, Granada, Universidad de Granada.

——— (2004a): «Qué son los conflictos», en MUÑOZ, FRANCISCO y BEATRIZ MOLINA RUEDA (eds.) (2004a): Manual de Paz y Conflictos, Granada, Editorial Universidad de Granada, 143-170.

——— (2004b): «Regulación y prevención de conflictos», en MUÑOZ, FRANCISCO y BEATRIZ MOLINA RUEDA (eds.) (2004b): Manual de Paz y Conflictos, Granada, Universidad de Granada, 171-200.

MUÑOZ, FRANCISCO A. y otros (2005): Investigación de la Paz y los Derechos Humanos desde Andalucía, Granada, Universidad de Granada.

PERRIGO, SARAH (1991): «Feminism and Peace», en WOODHOUSE, TOM Y E. BERG (eds.) (1991): Peacemaking in a Troubled World, New York: 303-322.

REARDON, BETTY (2001): Education for a culture of peace in a gender perspective, Paris, UNESCO.

RIVIÉRE, MARGARITA (2003): El malentendido, Barcelona, Icaria.

RUDDICK, SARA (1989): Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace, New York, Women's Press.

SÁNCHEZ NORIEGA, JOSÉ LUIS (1997): Crítica de la seducción mediática: comunicación y cultura de masas en la opulencia informativa, Madrid, Tecnos.

SARTORI, GIOVANNI (2002): Homo videns. La sociedad teledirigida, Madrid, Santillana Ediciones Generales.

title: Ethics/Nonkilling/Philosophy


text:
User talk:Jan Schomaker

For questions or other problems please ask here: Discussion at the german Wikipedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Jan Schomaker


text:
User:Ozgur.Ertunc

Personal
Özgür Ertunç is an aeronautical engineer. He studied in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at Middle East Technical University Ankara, Türkiye and received doctor of engineering degree at the Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen Nuremberg, Garmany. He conducted his PhD research at the Institute of Fluid Mechanics Erlangen (LSTM-Erlangen) in the field of turbulence. Currently he is leading the unsteady fluid mechanics group in the same institute.

Research Interests

 * Turbulence control
 * Unsteady (guided) fluid mechanics
 * Transition
 * Optimization
 * Drug devlivery

title: User:Ozgur.Ertunc


text:
User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 2

No Such Consensus in Wikiversity
Mike, per this diff, please be advised there is no such consensus here in Wikiversity. Several of us here are on record as vigorously objecting to your importation of a so-called "consensus" by a foreign group of Wikimedia functionaries who do not represent the parochial interests of this community of scholars. Please redact your unwelcome "consensus" and leave us in peace to our studies. Moulton 14:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If Jon is going to be active here, perhaps it would be useful to fashion those educational links into a learning resource proper. That said, no wiki is for promotional purposes, including this one. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also say that my edit summary is not meant to be "ominous" - I am simply informing the reader of the relevant and current consensus. If you think it is ominous, you have misunderstood me. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I interpret your reply as a flat statement that you do not respect the right of this community to set its own content standards. Am I wrong? --JWSchmidt 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are wildly off-base, but thank you for assuming the best. I've repeatedly tried to avoid having to blacklist these links, as you may have noticed in reading the discussion at Meta (where your input would be welcome, I might add). One solution would be to take the educational links (you seem to know which ones those are) and put them into the content of the wiki. Not only would that serve to reduce the self-promotional aspect, but it would generate new content for this wiki. If Jon is going to be active here (I'm not sure whether that's the case), then he might try writing some prose to introduce himself as you and I have both done. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 18:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I propose we do a study of Mike.lifeguard's practice of galumphing into Wikiversity like some kind of Jabberwocky whiffling through the Tulgey Wood, and burbling as he comes. —Moulton 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I would prefer that you work with me rather than study me. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 19:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't understand you, Mike. Previously, when you published false and defamatory postings on Foundation-l, I politely asked you to correct yourself. You declined.  I am still trying to understand why you would knowingly leave false and defamatory content published under your name.  Can you explain that to me?  —Moulton 19:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We've already been over this - I didn't say anything false, but if you feel it necessary to correct the record feel free to do so, of course. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A random mascot
 Hi! My name is WikiversityJack. I am a pumpkin and a Wikiversity mascot. My aunt told me that fun + learning = Wikiversity. Let me know if I can help you out.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanking
Why the blank here? Emesee 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for no edit summary. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mop
Well, you're no stranger to the tools, but welcome to (probationary) Wikiversity custodianship. :-) I think Wikiversity is different to other wikis - but you're in good hands, and I trust you to figure things out as you get more involved here. First aid course sounds very interesting, btw. :-) Cormaggio talk 16:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that was fast! Thanks; looking forward to it. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 17:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to probationary custodianship
Hi Mike, welcome aboard. I'm pretty new at this myself, so hopefully this is as much about learning from one another, as anything! But feel free to bounce anything off me. Usually I do stuff on-wiki, very occasionally I'm on IRC, and email is OK too. But I will try to be on IRC some more to keep in touch. And I will try to offer supportive and frank feedback as we go. Mostly, though, I'll probably stay out of things and let you get on with it. Down the track, one of the reasons SB Johnny suggested I mentor you is that I have some technical questions mostly arising from practical needs in using Wikiversity for teaching psychology at the University of Canberra e.g., pdf tools and wikibooks, but also graphing, rss, and a bunch of other stuff I'd love to pick your brains gradually on! So, looks like you're switched on from Oct 11, 2008 + 3 months.... that'll be January 11, 2009 for review. I'll probably be away then, so we might need to bring that forward or back a little. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC) (PS You can call me Jtneill or James or JTN or whatever really!; can I call u ML? or something short?)
 * Ha, ha, hope you don't mind while I stumble around :) Looks like the probationary period is actually four weeks not 3 months. Lucky for you! So, 8 November will be four weeks. . -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. Mike's good (that's my name!) or initials ML work too. I'm generally on IRC for monitoring, but don't feel any pressure to join me - I know not to delete Main Page :D . PDF stuff is starting to get exciting, so it's a good time to be thinking about that. I will say that I can't do css (which Johnny mentioned) but I'm happy to help with anything else you can throw at me if I can.
 * As for specific stuff regarding teaching with WV/WB, I'm definitely happy to help. It's a bit unfortunate I haven't had the chance to do so myself yet (mostly) but I'd love to hitch a ride & help figure things out with you.
 * Thanks for the welcome & see you 'round. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 04:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How to be a Wikimedia sysop
You might like to check out and join How to be a Wikimedia sysop (entirely optional). It's still a relatively new project and we'd appreciate your contributions. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks cool. Chances are I'm more likely to work on Using Wikibooks and MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook, but definitely worth sharing content across projects on that one. I think these resources will be key to recruiting contributors to WB and WV from sister projects, particularly from Wikipedia and Meta, where much documentation was originally written and currently resides. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 04:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we talk about this merge?
Hi mike, I ahvent been arround much lately. I saw this (Topic:Electronic engineering moved to School:Electronics: history merge). this morning. I think it was incorrectly done and should be reverted. Can you explain your line of thought for this merge? --Thuvack | talk 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The merge had already been done, I simply merged the page histories by request. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about checkuser nomination
I noticed it was stated "a more appropriate forum" and wonder if one can be suggested. At this time, I feel my question is fair and relates to such roles taken with bits. Dzonatas 18:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have problems with Cormaggio's use of admin tools, there is a process for that. If you have problems with Cormaggio's behaviour in general, there is a process for that. The process we are all engaging in at Nominations for checkuser/Cormaggio is considering his request for an additional tool. If you think an editorial dispute is relevant, you'll need to convince me, since it's not immediately obvious to me that it is. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey. You aren't the only one I have tried to convince. You aren't the only one I need to convince. I need to convince myself, too. There is one thing though that shouldn't be hard to convince you, and that is my oppose vote wasn't allowed to be taken just as that. I'm practically convinced, going by what you said above, that comments made against my oppose vote, on the same page, on Nominations for checkuser/Cormaggio are better put in a forum different from the one about Cormaggio's request for an additional tool. Dzonatas 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, which I'm not sure I do, then let me point out that I was responding to an apparently unrelated comment on a page for a specific purpose. Again, if you think your question regarding an editorial or content dispute is relevant to the request for tools, then you'll have to explain how. Of course, one doesn't necessarily need to convince me; you could ignore my concern. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question
Can you have a look at Managing a private wiki/LocalSettings.php/Default user options? I'm wondering if I got it right :-).

Also wondering about the DPL option: is there a way to have a DPL sript automatically appear on someone's watchlist? What I mean is: could watchlistnotice (or whatever it's called) be altered to include a page with a DPL list of all subpages of a particular base page? I was thinking it could be set using an #ifexist: tag, so that it would look for Special:Mypage/DPL watchlist, which would either follow a category or just keep track of the subpages themselves. Of course the better option would be to just set the watchlist options to allow automatic watching of all subpages of a book or resource, but I didn't see any extensions that would do that. --SB_Johnny talk 12:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the watchlist can only "see" edits to pages (and other actions). When you categorize something so it is listed in DPL, that's not something the watchlist can see. That's why we have BryanBot. There is a script which can simulate a category watchlist, but it has issues. I'll see if I can dig that up though. I forget where it is.... – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking policy
Sorry about that mistake... I was trying to be helpful! Good to see you're still keeping the spam blacklist active, I'll try and help with that when I can! AC --Sunstar NW XP 17:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for full custodianship
Hi Mike, Sorry for my tardiness, but please note that I've nominated you for full custodianship. I haven't really been much of a mentor, but please take that as "no news is good news" - had I been concerned about something, I would have raised it. Personally, I've particularly appreciated your technical help with some of my questions on the Colloquium and I look forward to continuing to working with and learning from you. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. I'm glad you feel comfortable with me keeping the tools. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

congrats!
You are now a full custodian. --mikeu talk 19:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try not to disappoint. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet, I guess. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, and welcome to full custodianship, and the diverse, thinking, experimenting, challenging world of Wikiversity. I look forward to continuing to work with and learn from you. Having been through the probationary custodian process, I'm curious to know about what you think about how it might be improved and how "mentoring" in general and/or what I offered might be improved. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you add yourself to Staff? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ and thanks for your help. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of bots...
I need another run... several updates involved, so don't start yet (describing the changes now... below is just an outline).

None of the pages are using these yet, but I'll try to make one later today (have some photologs to play with).

Top template:

 * Adding 3 lines at the bottom, and changing the version.

Bottom template:
 * Altering first line, adding a new line below that, add 4 more lines further down, and changing the version.

New template:
 * Adding the bloom clock plant hardiness template to the bottom, and changing the overall template version.

I'll fill in the details later... working today. --SB_Johnny talk 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Worksheet at User talk:Mike.lifeguard/BCP update to versions 8.11.17. --SB_Johnny talk 14:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Replacements are all there (sorry so many!)... will set the tracking categories when I hear back from you. Let me know if you can do it all in one edit (if so I can just activate a single category). --SB_Johnny talk 14:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing it now. Should be one run. Just to make sure, I'm editing these pages. If there's more/other pages to do, I can do a 2nd run. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 2


text:
User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello Mike.lifeguard, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; for it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other wikiversiters on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! --– Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Having a split personality today? ;) --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 14:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Testing Bot
Hi Mike.lifeguard. I heard on IRC that you are testing a bot here at Wikiversity today. Good luck! See you around. Mirwin 14:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Hope I didn't cause too much disruption. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Mike.lifeguard, the bureaucrat dealing with bots was informed about this request. Erkan Yilmaz ( my talk page, wiki blog ) 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a message from your bot today...
I received a message from your bot or from you today about the informational logo of Final Draft used in Wikiversity to identify a free product required by filmmaking students to complete their first assignment. The information you requested is on the image page and contact information is provided. That is a license issued from the company directly to Wikiversity for that image. If you have a problem with that license, I suggest you take it up with the management of Wikiversity.

I also received your second message about the images that I have uploaded either as part of the lessons or as homework from students. I believe that all of the 1000+ images and homework assignments that I have uploaded are completely documented per the requirements of the time. Again, if this is not satifactory to you, please take this up with the management of Wikiversity who recommened this way to handle students works and school illustrations. ~ Robert Elliott 01:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Instructor of the filmmaking courses.

 * Take Image:Face24mmtiny.jpg for example. There's no license information provided. This is clearly required, as stated on Special:Upload and Uploading files. If you don't provide such information, that's fine. But an admin will eventually delete it, in all likelihood. This applies to any untagged images, not just the ones my bot found. Please note that I'm applying current policy; if admins take into account past practices, that's their business, not mine.
 * If you've provided something like "public domain" then I'm sure anyone sorting through the images will apply the proper tag for you. However, for untagged images, when the proper license can't be determined, there's really nothing to do but add, as in the case of several of your images today. If you want to find your unlicensed and untagged images, w:de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb has created some tools to do so. You can use to find images with unknown license status, and  to find images which have yet to be tagged.
 * To avoid having your images deleted, you might consider ensuring that all your image uploads have the proper tags applied to them. If you have further concerns, please feel free to contact me again. Please note that suggesting that users contact me at en.wb is not an attempt to "hide" my activity. Quite the contrary; it's so that users can get the quickest response from me. This would be a case in point. You're welcome to continue leaving messages here; I can't promise the most prompt response if you do, however. I shouldn't have to point out that you've done the same thing. Your user and user talk pages at en.wb simply say to come see your corresponding pages here. There's nothing inappropriate about sending people to the project where you're most active. Please try to assume good faith in the future. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe if you check the history of Special:Upload and Uploading files that a short description of the source of the file was all that was required at that time. Robert Elliott 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * That's fine. Please do me a favour and add a license template. The admins may or may not take past practice into account when looking at images with . Again, that's their business, not mine. Have a good night. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Other license issue

 * Licensing are of course necessary. However, where exactly is the wikimedia foundation policy specifying that tagging the image is the only way to declare it?  Can the author not just declare on his userpage that he license all his image under GFDL?  Note that the template says so does not amount to foundation policy.
 * There is a precedence in a similar instance- I have translated the mediawiki interface "makebot" into cantonese, and I gave my permission to license it under GPL on my talk page. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, we're not talking about "Foundation policy." We're talking about Wikiversity policy (each WMF project sets their own policies locally, though they're generally similar). Uploading files is a Wikiversity policy. Take a look at the section "Checklist for media file uploading." When you click save on any edit, you release it under the GFDL; there' no need for that extra notice on your talk page. When you upload images, they may or may not be under the GFDL, but the license must be GFDL-compatible (this is why PD, CC, etc. are permitted). Each image must have an appropriate tag applied. As I mentioned above most users will add the tag corresponding to declarations on the image page. For example, if you simply put down text saying "Public domain" then I'll change it to, which will add the Public Domain tag. However, when it's impossible to determine the correct license, the image gets tagged with , and you (should) get notified so that you can take care of the situation. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * In this case the wikiversity policy is the foundation policy by default. For there has not been a seperate discussion, on wikiversity, as far as I can remember, about means with which the contributor can declare the licence.Hillgentleman|Talk 02:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * In short, Who said that there is only one way to declare GFDL/PD/CC licensing, and it must be a tag ? Hillgentleman|Talk 02:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * You're supposed to tag image uploads (or, at the very least, provide license and source information for each by some other means). I'm supposed to track down images with no license information and tag them. At this point, either the image gets tagged, or the image gets deleted by an admin. License templates are considered standard on all WMF project I've ever seen. Indeed, it seems to be standard here (policy, in fact). – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you are confusing policy with experimentation. Wikiversity has a problem with people changing things which look official but are really just someone trying out a new idea by installing new and untested features such as the TAGS and other features which are more an experiment than a policy.  Just because it is there and we don't have the time or energy to fix it, does not mean it is right.  And it certainly does not mean it is an official policy approved anyone. ~ Robert Elliott 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * By the way, your job is to track down images which have incomplete or missing copyright info and add the missing info, not delete the image. Don't simply take the easy way out!!!!  Robert Elliott 12:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * FYI, it is marked as policy. As well, I don't have the ability to delete images on this project; I'm not an admin here. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * A more noble effort is to fix the policy. And you do not have to be an admin to do this.  Robert Elliott 12:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think the policy needs fixing. The policy should be that images require a license template, and should be deleted if it's not provided. So far as I can tell, that's what we have here. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Hillgentleman|Talk 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said that there is only one way to declare GFDL/PD/CC licensing, and it must be a tag ? Hillgentleman|Talk 02:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Nobody. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Then, let us note that 1.Uploading files was taken mostly from and, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been any serious discussion on wikiversity on its status as a formal policy. 2.  The key point in Uploading files is the licence -- as required by the foundation --  and not how to declare it.  3.  There is no discussion of whether tagging is the only way to declare GFDL.   As I can see, the authors of the text presumed that tagging is the way;  that there are alternatives had not entered their minds.   If Robert Elliot declares on his userpage right now that every file that he uploaded is released under GFDL or in the public domain, then they would indeed be so.  4.  If at any moment wikiversity has the consensus that a tag is needed on top of a file being released under GFDL-compatible licences, one can use a bot to add the relevant tags.   Hillgentleman|Talk 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All true; all irrelevant. I've already said that if I'm aware of the licensing arrangements but it's not declared with a template that I add the template. If you look at my contribs, you'll find that I've done that here, as well as at Wikibooks. Please don't be sanctimonious at me. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

policy for images without good source/copyright/licensing information
Mike.lifeguard: thanks for your efforts to bring some order to the uploaded files at Wikiversity. There have been a few past attempts to encourage Wikiversity participants to supply source/copyright/licensing information for uploaded files, but there has never really been a serious attempt to create a defined Wikiversity system for dealing with this problem. We currently have a short page section at Requests for Deletion. I think we need to update Deletion policy so as to include a defined plan for dealing with uploaded files that lack adequate source/copyright/licensing information. What do you think? --JWS 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uploading files is in the category "Wikiversity policy" If it's not policy, then it shouldn't be marked as such. Absolutely, you need to add something to your deletion policy if it's not there already. I'm shocked that this wasn't one of the first policies that was enacted. It does seem to me that current practice (though apparently not policy, since there isn't one) is essentially the same as that of Wikibooks. I imagine that would be a good place to borrow from in writing a policy. I may start a proposal if there isn't on the go already. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In practical terms, Wikiversity does adopt many practices that are similar to those of other Wikimedia wiki projects. However, there was early consensus for allowing policy to grow organically here, as needed by this community. Since the Wikiversity community is relatively small, it sometimes seems like policy develops in slow motion....sometimes only after there is a "crisis". I recently added the Exemption Doctrine Policy to Template:Official policies because I think it is the intention of the Wikimedia Foundation that all the sister projects have such a policy. There may be additional parts of Uploading files that should be designated as Wikiversity policy, but much of that page seems more like helpful hints than policy. --JWSchmidt 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not active here, and have no intention to be. The only reason I even have an account here is that I was asked to run AWB by SB Johnny. If the community thinks it's helpful to have untagged images prepended with then I'm happy to do it. Whatever happens beyond that isn't my business. That said, it seems like a deletion policy for images is fairly basic - it shouldn't be too hard to write up a good one and get consensus on it. (Which is a bit rich, seeing as en.wb has so many policies pending) – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

The image is from the Honda Website. You are free to delete it if this does not satisfy the requirement. i tried deleting it. oh well, you do it. Thank you.

Judith
 * I'm not an admin. Please ask one. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

import
Template:Mbox is here. --JWSchmidt 21:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * THANKS! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My user page
Thanks a lot. I used an in-line translator (google to not say it) to translate my french text. But I know that was not perfect. Crochet.david.bot 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mike's bot account
I blocked User:Mike's bot account. I do not understand this message. I have a very strong objection to any such warning that does not explain the specific problem. The first link provided in the message for how to respond is a dead link. This is incredibly unfair and unfriendly and unwelcome. If the bot is so poorly programmed that you have to include "Please ignore it if you've already provided license information for all your uploads." then I do not want the bot at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault the toolserver is having troubles. The last line was included because there may be cases where I missed permission given in plain text. For example, here and here I made the permission machine-readable since the template was substituted or the permission was in plain text.
 * Also, I'm working from data about 15 days old. So if, in the last 15 days, information on some of these uploads changed (highly unlikely) or if I missed some plain text permissions (also highly unlikely, I was extremely thorough because I know that this wasn't a welcome task the last time I use ), then a notification would be false positive. If you can find a false positive, I'd be surprised. The only workaround for these issues would be highly server-intensive. It is not the fault of the bot, and is only my fault to the extent that I actually missed any plain text permissions (which I have yet to find). If you can point to a false positive where the bot made an error or where I was in error, please do so. Otherwise, please unblock my bot. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the MediaWiki message for blocked users doesn't show the unblock template. This should be fixed ASAP. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to mirror JWSchmidt's sentiment here. The bot left that message on my talk page as well and it took me a good five minutes just to figure out what I was supposed to do. I've seen much better done bots for this sort of task. Would it be possible for your to not run your bot on stale toolserver data and also to provide information about the actual files affected and steps necessary to fix them? sebmol ? 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with providing detailed information about what to do is that there are no guidelines and no policies on Wikiversity regarding this. All I'm doing is categorizing the images, and letting users know that there might be a problem. I really can't be specific because I don't know what will happen to them, or what needs to be done to fix it. I have my thoughts, which were poorly received the last time I tried this task, so I removed the specifics which were previously objectionable. If you want me to go back modify the message, I can. I tried to be as generic as possible, but apparently whether I'm specific or vague, it's a problem either way. If you want to change the wording, User:Mike's bot account/Modified message is the place to show me what you want it to say.
 * @Sebmol: the problem is not with using stale TS data. (Also, replag is ~20h, not 15 days; my bad there) The data is fine as long as there weren't an unacceptably high ratio of false positives, which I have yet to see. You'll also notice that I did go through by hand and fix plain text permissions in clear-cut cases (2 diffs above, but there are others). I did multiple checks of category intersections plus manual filtering, so I think false positives, if any, are within an acceptable proportion (and are likely to be zero). – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * "to Foundation policy, uploads are required to have a license template and source" <-- I'm not sure that this is the best way to describe the situation. In general, I agree that Wikiversity needs to develop a process that helps us efficiently obtain information about the source and licensing status of uploaded files. I like the idea of trying to have a licensing template on every file upload page. I would prefer a process by which uploading is impossible unless a licensing template is selected and one of the choices could be "None of the above". I think we need a Wikiversity policy that describes what the correct course of action is when there is no licensing template on a file upload page. The list of templates at License tags is not complete. I think it is the case that nobody has put the required time and effort into dealing with this problem, but that does not mean we should adopt any available "solution". I do not find it acceptable to delete or threaten to delete files that we do not have the time to look at and discuss. In other words, I do not accept the Wikipedia approach of letting people upload files without a licensing template just so that we can later delete those files without discussion. I do not want Wikiversity to adopt the approach of putting threatening warning templates on user pages as an alternative to explaining how to license files and providing users with the tools they need to make sure they provide required information about their files. In the case of files from JWSchmidt, none of the licensing template choices seemed correct but I think these files are suitable for Wikiversity. I think these provide examples that illustrate the fact that we need a process that works with people rather than a process that drops threats on people. --JWS 14:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Acutally, the Foundation policy does require that, and cannot be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." Nevertheless, this is a wiki, so be bold and fix it if you have a better way of explaining that this is required.I would have quoted local policy, but I don't think there currently is one.
 * If there are missing license templates, then they need to be created. If your upload process isn't suitable for Wikiversity then fix it. As I've said before, I don't consider myself to be a member of this community, and don't feel "qualified" to offer advice on how you should change that process.
 * I can't fix every problem on Wikiversity, and I can't even fix this images problem. All I offered to do was categorize or tag your untagged images and notify the uploaders, which I did. The rest is up to the community. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Templates are a tool that can be used to help manage uploaded files. Wikiversity is not required to use templates for this purpose and we certainly are not required by Foundation policy to use a bot to issue threats to our participants when they do not use a template. Wikiversity does not have to use the "Wikipedia approach" to dealing with file uploads. I have no objection to using a bot to flag uploaded file pages that have no template, but any message placed by such a bot on user pages needs to be helpful for Wikiversity participants, not a device for issuing threats that do not represent Wikiversity policy. In my view, User:Mike.lifeguard holds a distorted view of Foundation policy (arising from practices used at other wikis) and has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of interest in adapting his bot for use at Wikiversity. I've tried to explained what is wrong with the bot's warning message and User:Mike.lifeguard has indicated no interest in correcting the problems with the bot. Under these conditions, I think the bot needs to remain blocked. --JWS 15:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but this really irks me. I am not from Wikipedia; please stop saying that (and you might also stop using it as a four-letter word, though I generally agree with the sentiment). In fact, I dislike their methods in this area as much as you do; what I've done is nothing like what WP does. Furthermore, you most certainly did not explain any problems to me before blocking the account, which is just common decency. The task was done, so the block was clearly not preventative.
 * Contrary to posts elsewhere, I will not be reinstating this or related image tasks (even by request). I refuse to get pulled in every direction over such a straightforward maintenance task. The bot is still available by request for the tasks listed on it's page, but I will not do any other tasks, and will not run the bot of my own initiative here ever again. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot work
I'm unblocking the bot (and thanks again for all the help with the bloom clock stuff!), but as I mentioned on your WB page, I think you should try to discuss other bot runs with either the WV staff or people involved in particular projects.

For image licensing problems in particular, it's probably better to go through those without the use of an automated script... after all there aren't so many of them that it can't be done manually. While it's certainly true that some of the uploaders should very well know better than to upload without a license and source, it never hurts to be diplomatic! --SB_Johnny | talk 13:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll note, I'm sure, that I did go through them manually. I have an exam right today, but I'll do it over the weekend. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, good luck on the exam :). I'll be around tomorrow on and off, perhaps this evening as well. BTW, there's a rather larger bot job on Wikibooks as well... I'll try to come up with the instructions sometime today. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Since this is a multi-use bot, I removed the duty of placing uploaded file warning templates on user pages from the list of tasks for the bot. I propose that the community decide on a policy for how to deal with uploaded images. That policy needs to specify what automated message(s) can be left on user talk pages. Once we have such a policy then the bot can return to the task of leaving those messages on user pages. --JWS 15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think the best approach will be to simply use the nld and related templates that have been developed on commons. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to make a place for discussion of this "policy on how to deal with uploaded images" at Policy for uploaded files that lack the needed source/copyright/licensing information.

 * [double e/c]
 * @JWS: Well, there aren't currently any left, which is why I don't understand how the block is preventative. There's nothing more to do on that task.
 * I agree. I'm also very puzzled why JWS said (above) that the block should stay in force. When did blocking become preferable to discussion? --SB_Johnny | talk 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * @Johnny: I can replace the category with the template whenever WV decides that what they want. That's what I've been advocating all along. Those templates (and the process they serve) have worked well on Commons, Wikibooks, and probably just about every other active wiki. Of course, the language will need to be modified for use here, as will the policy. I suspect that a week won't be long enough here, so perhaps increase it to a month. As well, you'll want to provide WV-specific instructions, or link to them. The bot is here to serve, so just ask when/if any of those tasks need doing. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * see above – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please block the bot that is adding incorrect categories to the illustrations of my students. All images are public domain and this is not in dispute. Robert Elliott 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "When did blocking become preferable to discussion?" <-- When a bot is causing disruption and doing something that its has not been approved to do, a block is called for. When I blocked the bot I reasonably assumed that it could at any time be used to add more of the un-approved and offensive template messages to user talk pages. When the person who controls the bot displays, via discussion, no concern the problem with the bot, then the block should continue. We could also ask, since when is removing a block without discussion the preferable course of action? --JWS 14:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

bot results
Yup. There were a couple minor problems (missing breaks after headers and extra brackets on the first 2 lines), but other than that it's right on. Thanks! --SB_Johnny | talk 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout that. I though I had checked for that kind of thing thoroughly. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use the PD1 template, not PD...
Please do not use the PD template for illustrations used at the Wikiversity Film School which were submitted into the public domain by the students.

 * Not accurate :

 * More accurate :

Instead, if you must modify the existing illustration description, please use the PD1 template rather than the PD template to make it clear that illustration was placed in the public domain by its author and current copyright holder.

The PD template is less accurate than the original description that was used. Adding vagueness to a description which was already clear will eventually lead to confusion and mistakes. The PD1 template corrects this vagueness. ~ Robert Elliott 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 1


text:
User talk:Gruß Tom

 * Wikipedia-usage is common to me.
 * I am here for maintenance & survey reasons.
 * My userpage is designated to keep red
 * All messages left on this page will be removed without comment after reading.
 * If you want to leave me a message please go to my german userpage

Howdie --Gruß Tom 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gruß Tom


text:
ATP mentor training/Actively seeking out anti-patterns in the mental development of a child or adolescent

Actively seeking out anti-patterns in the mental development of a child or adolescent
To seek out anti-patterns in the mental development of a child or adolescent requires an understanding for the anti-patterns that can become problems at the current stage of development or at a later stage.

Parenting
All mentors should have read the Parent Education Course Writer's Guide or equivalent literature. Parenting anti-patterns are anti-patterns in the development of a child and require the attention of the mentor.

Socializing
Some protégés may require more socializing, others may already exaggerate socializing. An adolescent who spends most of his leisure time in a social group may not learn to be an autodidact and to learn alone and with the self-motivated aim to learn something or may even fail to learn to function without the group's decision making process. A mentor should try to help to motivate an intermediate position that accommodates the protégé and teach the protégé to find the right balance himself.

Exaggerated use of computer games
Exaggerated use of computer games is a popular anti-pattern. Mentors should inquire about use of computer games and read the section about computer games in the Mentoring Handbook.

Exaggerated TV consumption
Adolescents who watch too much TV may lack other hobbies or goals. A mentor should explain that TV is meant for time that has no better use, not for wasting time that can be used to follow other interests. A mentor should, of course, also discuss the interests of the protégé and available opportunities to follow these interests.

A mentor has to accept and understand the situation of the protégé as it is, especially because the mentor is more a partner of his protégé and less an educator who can decide on educational objectives. That means that as a mentor you may have to accept TV consumption of the protégé as a personal interest that deserves tolerance. If the protégé is particularly interested in a series that could mean you might want to inform yourself about that series; luckily there are written summaries on the internet (see List of television programs by name), so one can read up on an episode instead of watching it but watching the one or other episode may be necessary to get a general understanding. A protégé with more than marginal TV consumption but without particular interests in any series or movies should be seen as exaggerating TV consumption and should not be encouraged to watch TV. Tolerance for TV consumption can promote mutual understanding but can easily be taken too far; a mentor should not significantly encourage TV consumption in any case.

The same applies, of course, to books, if the protégé reads any books that are suitable for the purpose. A mentor should make sure that the protégé assigns similar value to reading before following a personal preference for books.

Health risks
Frequent health risks for adolescents include smoking, drinking, substance abuse and unnecessary dangers in traffic. A mentor can inform about dangers but can also try to motivate the protégé to take an interest in the health of others, which can have the psychological effect of increasing awareness for health topics.

Recommended reading is chapter 9 of the CMAD Mentor Trainer's Manual.

Extreme sports and hobbies
Skiing and driving a motorbike, for instance, are activities that may entail an inappropriate risk of getting injured, even if practiced according to common expectations. A mentor should aim to warn about the risks of dangerous sports and hobbies and to caution the protégé not to take exaggerated risks, which should include the warning that commonly expected or occasionally recommended behavior may already entail inappropriate risks. A more detailed first aid course (a two-day course) can help the protégé to better understand the actual dangers of injuries.

For adolescents between 16 and 18 it appears advisable to participate twice in first aid courses in order to refresh the previously learned knowledge. Adolescents who drive a motorbike should participate in special courses with an emphasis on motorbike accidents.

Exaggerated enjoyment of music
Music can have a positive influence on the mood and consequently on the motivation of an adolescent. A common anti-pattern is that adolescents may not find an appropriate limit for the enjoyment of music. As an adult one could consider Walkman and iPod as indicators of exaggerated enjoyment of music. Other indicators are music listening during homework or computer work that requires concentration. Even during work that requires concentration some music listening can be helpful to achieve a productive mood but a mentor should encourage the protégé to set limits and to search actively for signs of deteriorating concentration. The interesting realization adolescents may not make without help is that when an adolescent notices decreased concentration then the best point in time to turn off the music has already passed. Consequently a mentor should encourage his protégé to notice effects on concentration and to apply time management when listening to music. Adolescents who do not appear to require the additional motivation should be advised to avoid listening to music while working or to keep music listening during work that requires concentration to a minimum.

Using headphones (but without music) and even earplugs at the same time can be useful, however, because this way one may be able to enjoy a much more undisturbed environment than may otherwise be available.

Bad choice of literature
Adolescents often select literature with insufficient understanding for its quality; even if the reason for reading a book is merely entertainment the mentor should try to give recommendations that take the perspective of the protégé into account. The protégé should be able to explain criteria for the selection of literature and the mentor may be able to revise these criteria even without searching for more appropriate books himself, which may be very time-consuming if you aren't knowledgeable about the relevant genre. Even if you avoid looking for books yourself as a mentor you should verify what kind of literature your protégé read earlier and what kind of literature the revised criteria have brought about. Not taking notice of the literature list of the protégé should be considered impossible.

Lack of seclusion
Adolescents may require seclusion to do their homework, to do other work that requires concentration or just to read books. Some adolescents may lack sufficient opportunity for seclusion. As a mentor you can try to organize visits to public libraries or reading rooms, homework supervision, learning groups with other pupils or visits to other places that offer more opportunity for seclusion. Mentors can also try to organize a retreat where protégés, possibly from several mentors, can withdraw to for undisturbed learning. Ideally there should be a minimum of supervision so that learning actually takes place and the ambience should be that of a library. A group of mentors can offer or supervise available rooms as a rotating duty.


title: Help:Contents/Old/2008


text:
Artificial Consciousness/(AC)

Artificial Consciousness (AC)

Artificial Consciousness is a relatively new term, that has become popular only recently, work has been done on this topic under a number of other topic names such as machine consciousness (MC) and synthetic consciousness

In 1992 Daniel C. Dennet published the book Consciousness Explained that was among other things an apology for even thinking of researching consciousness, as a result, many people who thought they were studying Artificial Intelligence (AI) realized they needed a new term for what they were working on. Artificial Consciousness is one of the terms they came up with.

--Graeme E. Smith 02:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Artificial Consciousness/(AC)


text:
Consciousness

Consciousness is not well defined as a single, universally agreed-upon formula -- There are over 40 different definitions for this one word. However, there is considerable convergence of academic understanding of the term as it relates to the question most analysts would like to see answered: how are we to understand the brain's elctrochemical activity and self-reflective cognitive experience as being related? In other words, how does the brain turn material processes into the thoughts, feelings, and technicolor panorama that characterizes conscious experience? In this question (technically refered to as "The Hard Problem of Consciousness"), consciousness is understood (defined) as not merely a self-reflective state of cognition, but as cognitive content (perceptions, feelings, thoughts) self-reflectively experienced. One of the problems that has added to the confusion associated with this concept, is the idea that somehow there needed to be a 1 to 1 match between the electrochemical activity of the brain, and the self-reflective experiences. Recent conceptions have relaxed from this position suggesting that self-relfective experience is not a good indicator of brain function because it is prone to some illusions that make it subjective.

Up until 1990 when John Searle, an influential American philosopher, finally agreed that as long as testing was done in the 3rd person, objective science could be done on consciousness, research on consciousness was actively discouraged. Since that time, a broad spectrum of theories has been proposed to account for self-reflective cognition. Following the nineteenth century phenomenologists, some have suggested that mental representation as such is inherently self-cognizant and thereby underwrites consciousness. However, in order to account for the fact that much if not most cognition is not conscious, most theories nominate a specific process that operates upon representational cognition to render it conscious. Such theories include the linguistic coding of representational content, global broadcasting of representational content , higher order thought , planning , the recursive processing of an ongoing orientational reference frame , and the attentional highlighting of representational content.

Today the American Society for the Study of Consciousness /(ASSC)/ has 2 Journals on the topic. Consciousness and Cognition (Elsevier) and an e-journal called Psyche. The Journal of Consciousness Studies is published independently.

Consciousness can be viewed from the perspective of evolutionary biology as an adaptation, as a trait that increases fitness. Consciousness also adheres to John Alcock's theory of animal behavioral adaptations because it possesses both proximate and ultimate causes. The proximate causes for consciousness, i.e. how consciousness evolved in animals, is a subject considered by Sir John C. Eccles in his paper "Evolution of consciousness." He argues that special anatomical and physical properties of the mammalian cerebral cortex gave rise to consciousness. Budiansky, by contrast, limits consciousness to humans, proposing that human consciousness may have evolved as an adaptation to anticipate and counter social strategems of other humans, predators, and prey. Alternatively, it has been argued that the recursive circuitry underwriting consciousness is much more primitive, having evolved initially in pre-mammalian species because it improves the capacity for interaction with both social and natural environments by providing an energy saving "neutral" gear in an otherwise energy expensive motor output machine. Once in place, this recursive circuitry may well have provided a basis for the subsequent development of many of the functions which consciousness facilitates in higher organisms, as outlined by Bernard J. Baars.

While all this may be true, a case can also be made that consciousness is an architectural factor probably associated with the development of certain vertebrate phyla such as mammals and birds, and especially Simmian species, some of which have shown facility with language that while not as sophisticated as humans, still allows them some communication potential. In this theoretical framework, consciousness can be seen to be the result of a specific architecture of control mechanism perhaps based on a specific memory architecture. In any case consciousness can be separated into two types of consciousness, Primary Consciousness which most animals are thought to have, and Higher Order consciousness which it is thought only humans have. However no significant difference in brain architecture has been found to explain the difference.

title: Consciousness


text:
Phenomenal Consciousness

 Phenomenal Consciousness

When Scientists first learned that they couldn't map neurons because there was too much individuality within even a single species, it seemed unlikely that a purely Functional approach to psychology would work. The Connectionist school started studying networks of neural models for clues to how the brain might work. From this study came the concept of Neural Networks, which died two or three times but kept being resurrected by scientists because it was necessary to model neural structures, even if the study was incomplete and the model was too simplistic to do the job.

Finally Dr. Gerald M. Edelman a Nobel Laureate known for his work on non-genetic Darwinism in the immune system, suggested the Theory of Neural Group Selection(TNGS) which allowed Neural Modeling to go to a higher level to the point where he started building Brain Based Devices(BBDs) that modeled whole organs of the brain.

The Phenomenal Consciousness school came partly from Dr. Edelmans work, it is called phenomenal because it is the nature of neural networks that you cannot isolate a memory that is held within the network, because the information is distributed within the network and thus is a "Phenomena" of the network as a whole. This is why some philosophers have asserted that Phenomenal Systems are incapable of implementing a demand type memory.

There are a number of other branches in the Consciousness Studies school, that use phenomenal to mean something else. For these researchers sometimes phenomenal means epiphenomenal, the idea being that consciousness emerges from the neurons as a result of some other effect such as electrical fields that is a characteristic of the neurons. In this discussion phenomenal means the first definition rather than the second no matter what the illustration looks like.

The illustration labels phenomenal consciousness as being the "Hard Problem" of consciousness this is of course from the Functional point of view. The Phenomenal School is younger than the Functional school, and the philosophy of the Functional school tends to dominate philosophical discussion as a result. What is hard about understanding this school is not the philosophy, but the idea that Darwinism applies outside the boundaries of Genetic Biology

--Graeme E. Smith 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Phenomenal Consciousness