User talk:Jiohdi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Jiohdi

hi, my home page is www.jiohdi.org email - jiohdi@gmail.com feel free to drop me a line.

[edit] Hello, new user

Welcome!

Hello, Jiohdi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  P.S.: You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Colon health, as your article has generated some strong reactions. -- Infrogmation 05:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your article RAJAGAHA is an exact copy of another web page. If you believe you have permission to copy that material please indicate why on the talk page for the article. Thank you. DJ Clayworth 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The three-revert rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Tom Harrison Talk 17:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not say it was vandalism. But regardless of the content, if you persistently revert the article you are breaking the rules. Tom Harrison Talk 17:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The rules are for everyone. Make sure you understand the three-revert rule; That's why I included a link to it. It is not self-evident from its name exactly how it works. I don't think you have violated it yet, and I don't want you to. If you think I have violated it, be sure to report it. Tom Harrison Talk 21:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You can easily sign and date your talk-page comments with four tildes - ~~~~. In my case, this produces Tom Harrison Talk 21:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solipsism

Actually, my reality, that of a solipsist, is not meaningless, as I find meaning arises from my concern over my next move... I care about pain and pleasure and understand both of them arise from my own very being. I also experience my true nature as uncreated, unpuprosed and possibily random beyond simply unpredictable...and so every move I feel I am actually able to make is a gamble to some degree and behind all goals I find a single goal... peace of mind. understanding that I am all that is, the whole of reality helps me to see the interconnections between my point of view and that of those who inhabit my mind... my inability to find total peace of mind without attempting to bring peace to those parts of me who currently suffer... like the many cells of the one body

While this outlook could be challenged as a solipsistic view (more dualistic?), I will not challenge your interpretation of your worldview. But you are not entirely free to change the meaning of commonly agreed terms, such as "reality," without somehow warning the reader that he is not to assume he knows what you mean by a particular term. Hence the single quotes around 'reality;' I am not saying you are not free to redefine the term, or use it in strange ways, only that you should warn the reader in some way that that is intentional and not to take things at face value. A common procedure is to use an "overloaded" term (i.e., the term reality as it might encompass a set of particular solipsistic impressions, rather than its usual meaning: things of a separate existence— just as you did), but indicate somehow that this is not the conventional reality you are talking about. (And, if it is not clear from the context what you are talking about, then you must provide a special definition for the reader.)

Even solipsists need to follow conventions somewhat in order to be understood by the "other" phantoms in their universe. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

⇒⇒Let me propose a simple test. Do you believe there existed a world before your first conscious thoughts, that the thing we call the 'past' (before you were conscious of it) existed? Do you believe the world will continue on if/when you die? If you answer yes to either of these questions, you are no solipsist, but probably some kind of dualist. Your distinction between the computer and the programs running in it seems to imply that the existence of 'others' and the physical world is/may be at least as 'real' as you, yourself (pluralism).

But, if we assume you are drawing your references from Buddhism, then by the statement you quoted previously,

Buddhism recognizes the notion of self and soul as a chicken and egg problem without answer... if the self is all there is, how is it possible to perceive or dream something other than what the dreamer is? if the dream is not the dreamer, than what is the dreamer? if the dream is an exact match to reality itself, then the dreamer can never be certain of that as a fact since he only ever knows his dreams or perceptions... so the Buddha placed this in the category of questions that must be refused as they only cause sufferings to those who ponder them too seriously... he said that there is no permanent self and the opposite view was equally flawed. (many western buddhists ignore the last part and cling to the first and in doing so make the absurd statements that self is just an illusion)

Then you reject all monisms (including solipsism), dualisms, and pluralisms... ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you reject all monisms (including solipsism), dualisms, and pluralisms...

I am not sure how you jump to this conclusion nor even what you actually mean by it.Jiohdi 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am only echoing Buddha, from your quote:

Buddhism recognizes the notion of self and soul as a chicken and egg problem without answer... if the self is all there is, how is it possible to perceive or dream something other than what the dreamer is? if the dream is not the dreamer, than what is the dreamer? if the dream is an exact match to reality itself, then the dreamer can never be certain of that as a fact since he only ever knows his dreams or perceptions... so the Buddha placed this in the category of questions that must be refused as they only cause sufferings to those who ponder them too seriously... he said that there is no permanent self and the opposite view was equally flawed.

In other words, this is an antinomy beyond human understanding!

⇒⇒ No, no! (This is getting confusing!) I understood your quote from Buddha was not (necessarily) your position, but your solipsism is non-standard (it seems to be something between the 'traditional' solipsism and 'solipsism of this instance.' And the latter is an Eastern variation which, I believe owes its origins to some Buddhist offshoots, so I thought that (since no rational solipsist can use a rational argument— you cannot profitably compare and contrast something to itself as a standard, and a solipsist admits of no other), you were perhaps falling back on the antinomy argument to end argument.

⇒⇒It is why, although I am a solipsist by firm belief, I then (arbitrarily) postulate a material world ("as if there were a real world..."— I unblushingly accept the congruence between all monisms, including so-called naive materialism and solipsism) and behave accordingly. Otherwise, further argument would be pointless. ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

my understanding is that a solipsist, such as I am, believes that I alone exist in reality. that everything and everyone I know is part of my wholeness, yes? my beliefs as to why I am unable to control all aspects of my being may be different, certainly not unique, but the core belief remains unchanged

I have no quarrel with that; it is possible better grounded than the more 'traditional' view, which also holds that nothing existed before the solipsist was conscious, and all will cease to exist when (or, if?) he dies. If you believe that there is an author or independence to the appearance of reality in the world that is not you or of you (consciously or unconsciously), then that is not properly solipsism. If (as myself) you are merely postulating some other e.g., for convenience, but do not actually believe it, that does not detract from your solipsism.

[edit] Time

I have made the changes to Time that I proposed on its talk page. Perhaps we can incorporate some of your additions too. I found the existing intro very convoluted, did not attempt to reference any disagreement over its meaning, and did not identify any elements of itself with the literature on the subject. Sorry to do that to you on your first contribution to the article, but I put my intention on the talk page & had already waited about a week for comments. I think you might agree that the Kantian view is more similar to what you presented than the previous text was. ----JimWae 01:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)JimWae 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mostly Harmless

Your edit to Earth has been reverted, in a sadly humorless fashion, in accordance with the discussion page: Talk:Earth#A Very Special Note from the Management. Moonraker88 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sic

In the arrow of time article the "sic" was intended to make a parallel in that the moving finger has written and Omar Khayyam has written, an neither can be undone (with current technology :-) ) Do you really insist it is bad Wiki style or why did you change it? Carrionluggage 05:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Meantime somebody removed the line breaks. But Merriam-Webster says: "Main Entry: 3sic Pronunciation: 'sik, 'sEk Function: adverb Etymology: Latin, so, thus -- more at SO

intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original <said he seed [sic] it all>"

I think it was OK, because I intentionally wrote the words "it is written", which echo the meaning of the verse from Omar K - he wrote that what is written cannot be undone; neither can his writing be undone. The emphasis here is on "intentionally so written." Now it has lost its appearance as poetry, and my other point is gone too, but that's Wiki for you. I see the handwriting on the wall (Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin).Carrionluggage 03:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Hi- Sorry if I am grumpy, but I found this unparseable text in the latest version: "Another would be the realm of volition and action. where the anticipating the unknown forms", which makes no sense to me, so I restored what I had put, although I put the "sic" after the words to be regarded as literal. I mean, one could use "n.b." but it is so businessy and so nonpoetical. I found out how to fix the poetry so the lines would show without making it inset text. Hope this is OK now. Thanks for your patience.Carrionluggage 04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jiohdi

A tag has been placed on Jiohdi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why Jiohdi is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Jiohdi. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable.Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Robert Anton Wilson

Hi. It's not really appropriate to add unsourced material to a Wikipedia article and add your own "citation needed" tag to it; if you don't have a citation to a reliable source handy, just don't add the material. See WP:RS. Geoffrey Spear 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not really appropriate to remove an added material because of a need for citation when the article is filled with many similar requests and they are allowed to stand unchallenged.Jiohdi 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, unsourced material may be removed at any time. If you feel that there is other material in the article which is not sufficiently well-sources, I encourage you to Be Bold and remove it or tag it as unsourced. Geoffrey Spear 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why time causes paradoxes in physics

Math is a highly compressed language that seeks to symbolize experiences in a very precise way. In many calculations time is treated as an abstract term, just a number, and detatched from the experience that is beyond the symbol, namely a cycling countable event. because of this detatchment, silly notions like backwards in time and time travel can arise. It is not so easy to make time into a negative if you see it for what it is, namely some perceived stable event that one can use as a gauge for other less orderly events. Speed is Distance/time, but this gets all hairy in relativity where its not so nice and neat as the mass of the object and its speed begins to effect the time factor, which mathematically seems to go negative beyond light speed...but of course that is only because the numbers have lost their connection to the events they are symbolizing.Jiohdi 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catagory Error

The notion that charting time in a graphic way makes it the same as spacial dimesions is not unlike charting tone and pitch graphically and claiming they are spacial dimensions of music. Time, unlike space, seems qualitativily different than space in that it is unidirectional. Part of this is because the quantification of time hides the fact that time really just is a comparison of one system to an apparently stable and countable cycling system, rather than to some static property of reality.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/i/o/User_talk%7EJiohdi_c8e1.html"