User talk:Fourdee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Bingen_above.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bingen_above.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Lindahl

I noticed this article you made has been deleted several times in the past. Sometimes as a speedy, and couple times following Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_Lindahl. Friday (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Shannernanner 10:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image purging

I've purged the image. This may not work all the time, sometimes there's just a problem with the image server or the image needs to be purged multiple times for some reason. In future, you can purge images yourself by following the instructions at WP:PURGE for the image description page, which causes all thumbnails to be regenerated. Tra (Talk) 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shauna parsons.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shauna parsons.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 07:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More replaceable fair use images

  • Image:Stephanie Kralevich.jpg

—Chowbok ☠ 07:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and if you feel free images cannot be created, then by all means dispute it. But you should explain why you feel that way (on the image talk pages). —Chowbok ☠ 07:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chowbok RfC

I have begun RfC procedures for User:Chowbok. Since you've had previous disputes with him about image uploads, maybe you'd like to add your commentary? [1] TheQuandry 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid philosophical ranting

The title of this post refers to what I'm writing, not what you have written :) I have a BS in Physics and a masters in CS, but I am no expert on this subject, and I think far more intelligent individuals have argued about what I'm about to say for centuries, so consider it a fair disclaimer.

I came to, what I feel is a very, very dissapointing realization five years ago, while studying physics. I think it might have been the reason I fell out of love with the subject (beautiful though it is). The realization was this: Science is neither looking for, nor partcularly interested in the acquisition of "truth" in the philosophical sense. If one were to look at the universe's governing principles as a black box, we are not in any way trying to discern what is actually inside the box - rather simply to measure the correleation between outputs and inputs, and to compress the results into the simplest theories possible to explain our observerations. The "truth" of a theory is merely measured by the correlation of its predictions to our observations, that says nothing about the truth of what is actually inside the box.

This is good enough for things like engineering, as a working knowlege of the system is all you need to exploit it. But the truth is that we are simply chasing after beautiful, succinct mathematical models (the assumption of Science being that somehow the universe is indeed run by mathematics, in fact our specific idea of what mathematics is, with logic and causality and all that). How little ink can we reduce the essence of our universe down into? It's really cool and amazing to contemplate, but I'm not sure how well this agrees with some of your claims on your user page.

The main issue I have is your belief that somehow everything can and should come back to the universe that we see. Our universe is only one of an infinite number of possible systems - why restrict your thinking to that? It is possible to construct abstractions about this universe and other systems - sure they are constructed, but they do serve a purpose. I would argue that, for the most part, people are concerned with "perceived" systems - parts of the universe, real or imagined, that have been isolated and abstracted down to a "useful" level. There's a paintcan next to me, and it's true that to interact with it, I could theoretically gather all readable quantum information on the particles that make it up, solve the relativistic schrödinger equations (and QCD, and String stuff if you are into that, and GR and such) for all possible interactions, and perform whatever action that maximizes the probability of my desired outcome being achieved, but instead if is computationally more expedient (read: possible to do with my limited perception and intelligence) to simply use a crude, less complete model of the "paint can" in terms of rough, intuitive classical mechanics. I would argue that the paint can itself has overlapping waveforms with so many other things in the universe, and so many connecting intermediary force particles, that it not a separate entity, however for practical human purposes, it can be treated as its own system. I do not see the fault in doing this - indeed I am a big fan of taking the mental mindets required to get things done, at the expense of accuracy (hence my intense interest in numerical computation - talk about errors!)

The concept of systems, emergence, etc, allows us to build better predictive models in our head to "understand" (I have no idea what that word actually means... does a calculator "understand" floating point arithmetic - it can do it exactly as well as someone who did, even though it cannot "talk" about it, except by enumerating examples on request) things. The idea of an "ant colony" is as constructed as the idea of an "ant" - one could say that everything in the universe is just quantum wave/whatever functions that store energy and interact with spacetime in however many dimensions is currently fashionable - but this is a tremendously useless view of the universe, when it comes to engineering or finding a spouse or being beaten by a baseball bat (hey, you try protecting yourself from a baseball bat while working out all the wavefunctions and refusing to acknowledge that the bat is an actual thing).

I'm hardly an expert, but it seems that emergence, in a strictly scientific sense, is not that the properties of a "system" do not theoretically arise from those of its consituent "parts", but rather than in a practical sense, it is not possible to meaningfully model the system that way - a new model which contains additional "emergent" properties must be created if we are to "understand" the system - indeed these properties seem to "come out of nowhere" - and indeed are often shared by many different "complex systems" - but that is only an artifact of limited computaton power. If I were to write down a GUT that required the entire universe to be transformed into a computer to work out its predictions, even if the predictions were 100% accurate, I would hardly consider this to be useful. Unfortunately, many "bottom up" descriptions just don't get the job done, for this precise reason - sometimes you just gotta give up on "truth" and go for "predictive usefulness." I don't pretend to understand consciousness (if it exists), but it is clear to me that no "system" is more than the sum of its parts - I mean, if it is, where is the rest of it? Just because a system *acts* as if there is more there, does not indicate that there is, indeed it indicates to me that your model is incomplete (as, for something like consciousness, it is bound to be, IMHO).

Anyways enough of my rambling - I don't think I really responded to anything specific you've claimed, but I thought this might be interesting. Feel free to ridicule anything I've say that's ridiculous. - JustinWick 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with systems analysis, just the belief that emerged systems have some kind of separate reality from the physical causes behind them. Specifically this idea that consciousness is somehow real and separate from the brain. Thanks for your comments, what you said makes sense. Fourdee 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting position. I'm not quite sure what "reality" is, however, and I'm pretty sure that's still being debated, so I can't really comment on that particular assertion, but I think I understand where you are coming from, and would have to agree that I, too, do not find that to be a particularly satisfying explaination of consciousness. - JustinWick 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies about me reverting myself

I'm sorry, but in archiving Talk:Emergence, I had to revert myself and redo it in two steps. In the process I clobbered your addition. I will add it to the archive with a note in the main Talk. Hu 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I trust that these two edits have corrected the situation: [2], [3]. Again, my apologies. Hu 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Psychohistorian

We've got enough for a RfC. But I suggest starting RfC IF he continues with his behaviour. Has he insulted you after your last warning? Lukas19 18:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did, he re-inserted the insults which I had deleted, after the warnings, which seems like a fresh insult to me. Another insult toward me would certainly be good for Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard where I already have an entry for him. We could also enlist the other people against whom he has made attacks. If you are willing to certify the RfC and feel that the re-insertion is sufficient evidence that he has repeatedly ignored the warnings against personal attack, I would like to go ahead and submit one now while the iron is hot. Fourdee 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok then. I'll certify it tommorrow. I gotta go now. We can also use your help in White people. Lukas19 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with some of the attacks or comments about you or whatever they are, and I think that Ph has gotten frustrated and overreacted to some of your assertions, but I think that there does need to be more balance, questioning, and good faith. I think you should really look at the isss site and try and understand more the nature of Systems Science (which seems to be a protoscience) before judging it harshy. I'm very skeptical about its claims, or its usefulness - indeed I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to merely be a collection of neat sounding ideas with only moderate usefulness, but I don't think it should be dismissed as random pseudo-science. We need to make it very clear that Systems Science is *not* part of classical science, and indeed I don't think including scientific claims from non-scientists is a good idea, but the non-classical science stuff is notable, and should be included in some fashion. I do agree very strongly with you, however, that we really need good sources, and for them to be cited well. I think that this is a very complicated subject, and that relying on the thoughts and impressions of editors (even those with reasonable credentials) is a big mistake. I'd rather let the facts/experts speak for themselves then start having all kinds of nonsense and interpretation thrown in by any of us.

Please let me know how I can help you to make this article better. I want Wikipedia to be a rewarding experience for all who edit in good faith, and I think if we don't diffuse this situation, we'll be stuck with the current article, which I think we all can agree isn't really that great. Thanks for your time! - JustinWick 05:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend Ph (he can do that himself), nor say I disagree with all of your claims about his behavior. However, I don't think that this action is really going to make things better (regardless of his reaction to it) and I believe it is a waste of time. Furthermore I believe that the attitude you have about this is tremendously unhelpful, and that many of Ph's statements were provoked by your own behavior. There is also the "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" if you're into ancient literature. I believe that your behavior is precisely as worthy of review as Ph's, and that both reviews would be a waste of time. - JustinWick 07:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] LSLM

Ok..leave him and the article alone now. I've reported him for personal attacks and will report for vandalism...We'll continue once he's dealt with...Lukas19 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ruin

Hi - left a question at Talk:The_Ruin re: Jack Watson, thanks. -- Stbalbach 16:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White People

The history section you created is really helpful. So I just wanted to share with you what I consider doing in future. I'm thinking about creating an origins section. We can write some stuff there and link it to Genetic_history_of_Europe. However, Genetic_history_of_Europe is a mess now and it should be looked over before we put it to White people. And then I'm thinking about a culture section. We can link it to Western culture...Lukas19 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of Demographics of Europe article, we should create a European Peoples article...Lukas19 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beware of LSLM

He seems to be using IP addresses to evade blocks and vandalize. Be careful for 60 something or 70 something IP addresses in White people. Check this out: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#LSLM_-_Evading_Block Lukas19 19:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Distinctiveness of Europeans

Check this out: [4] Lukas19 23:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian

There has been no input to this for a month. I propose archiving it, and if the dispute is unresolved I recommend mediation, as it appears to involve only a few users' interactions with each other. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM

Are you still around? Lukas19 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your comments. Are you bored of the Wikipedia btw? You arent around much...Lukas19 03:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't be so pessimistic. The info at white people article and elsewhere still stands. They havent been wiped out. Just try to be calm. If you fail, I understand why you want to leave Wiki. It's not worth getting angry for. But if you can remain calm, and let the discussion not affect you in any negative way, I can always use your input in White people. Lukas19 20:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Train scales vert.jpg

Hi, I wanted to recreate your Image:Train scales vert.jpg into SVG. However, I'd like to see the original governement drawing of the steam locomotive. Do you know where I can find it?

Greetings, IIVQ 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC) = nl:Gebruiker:IIVQ

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/o/u/User_talk%7EFourdee_53f0.html"