User talk:Kripkenstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 A welcome from Lacatosias 1.1 Additional tips 1.2 Happy Wiki-ing. 2 Krip... 3 Response 4 red links or not linking 5 Reponse... 6 Well, 7 Krip 8 photo 9 Phot.png 10 GA Self-nomination 11 Here's some fun for you 12 POM 13 What's happening with AM? 14 Anomalous (M/m)onism 15 Assault of the hacks 16 Any comments.. 17 Apostasy in Islam 18 Meister Eckhart 19 Still around?... 20 Re: Congratulations 21 Wiki:pt 22 Hello Kripkenstein!! 23 Jerry Fodor 24 Hi! 25 Your sig 26 Douglas J. Futuyma 27 WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

[edit] A welcome from Lacatosias

- Lacatosias

[edit] Krip...

I noticed you hadnìt even recieved a welcome message yet. What the heck is that all about? I don't know. In any case, I copied this old welcome template from User:Sputnikcccp (I hope he doesn't mind), but everything here is GFDL anyway. I've noted your work on the image copy and translation from the German. Excellent idea!! Let's get as many images as we can and, if possible, even in other areas of philosophy. I will add them to the images category and that way everyone can have access to them in one place. I was just noting on another talk page that the images, for whatver reason, seem to make a substantial difference. Anyway, Iìve noted your work in helping with pages needing attentions and so on. I didnìt even know there was a "philosophers of mind" caetgeory. Keep up the good work.--Lacatosias 17:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

In case you didn't see my response on my talk page, I've copied it here:

It looked fine and was already a vast improvement on what was there. The main thing I have done is add to the "arguments for" section sicnce I thought it was a bit scarse. Now I think it's pretty close to comprehensive. I was thinking about going on to functionalism, but dualism probably needs more help. I haven't wanted to touch it becasue it looks like the main problem with it is "controversy" and "neutrality". In this case, I suspect there are religious and other sensibilities involved. So it might not be a simple matter of filling in and improving the article, but also of conflict resolution or something. ?: --Lacatosias 13:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We have to be bold! Thanks a lot for your adjustments on the article! --Kripkenstein 16:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I added one sentence which I'm far from sure about. It basically asserts that the Churchland's do not believe in the existence of all mental pheneomena, including consciousnes, qualia, etc.. This is the something that I thought just followed logically from their being the eliminativists par excellence. What do you think about their stance on qualia? How the devil could they be eliminativists with regard to the majporty of menatl states, but not with regeard to subjctive expericnces of mental states?--Lacatosias 13:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the remark about the Churchland's is right, they are eliminativists par excellence and actually think that qualia and consciousness are folk-psychological (i.e. reducible) concepts. The existence of conscious mental states such as pains and visual perceptions has also occasionally been challenged (P. S. Churchland 1983; Dennett 1988; Rey 1983) --Kripkenstein 16:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

folk psychological and hence eliminable, you probably meant. In that case, I'll just leave it the way it is.--Lacatosias 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] red links or not linking

Hi, thanks for taking a look at the Heilbronn article. I wanted to let you know the why on all the red links. The thing is, those pages all will be added over time (i.e., the red links will turn blue) and the consensus seems to be to link where pages are likely to be created as it's easier to link now than to have to go back later and link when those pages are done. So my rule has been to link if there is a German article that will likely be translated (i.e., that I would be willing to translate). I did remove the link to the Genossenschaftskellerei as that page likely won't be done with that name. Thanks again. --Mmounties 16:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reponse...

In case you didn't see this on my talk page:

I've backed you up on the other sites, but I would just like to point out that actually improving the articles you are talking about is my priority (espcially as one of them, at least, deals with my area of philosphy of science). A quick answre to your suggestions on semantic holism and eliminative materialism is that, since you didnìt particplate in writing semantic holism and you wrote, IMO, the bulk of eleiminative materialism, you can go ahead and put the GA status on SH it if you like it, while I can add GA status to EM as soon as I finish writing up thr refernces. Since we were both heavily involved in AM, it's a good idea to get input from others.--Lacatosias 08:58, 16 February 2006

So what's wrong with semantic holism??--Lacatosias 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well,

"Dualism (philosophy of mind) has been listed as a good article; it adheres to certain quality standards, and may become a featured article. Please continue improving this article!"

So let's make one of these boys a featured artcile now. That's the really challenging part.--Lacatosias 18:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krip

Could you possibly do something, or do you know anyone who could do something, to make somehting decent out of this disaster that I crated in Paint in order to illutrate a point in the Bohr Einstein debate.--Lacatosias 16:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I took your advice: I modified the scanned diagram of the double slit experiment using Paint. As, you can see, it now looks completely unprofessional (0.) and is hardly distinguishable from a decent straight-up copy of the same diagram done from scratch. I donìt think there should be problems with this. In ancy case, the double slit experiment is everywhere on the net. The problem is the same though: I don't know the copyright status of the specific versions. There is one extremely professional quality one already on Wiki in fact, but it doesn't convey what Iìm trying get across in the article at that point and it's too cumbersome.

BTW, when are you coming out of wikihibernation? Haven't heard from you in a while. School??--Lacatosias 11:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo

Well, I took your advice: I modified the scanned diagram of the double slit experiment using Paint. As, you can see, it now looks completely unprofessional (0.) and is hardly distinguishable from a decent straight-up copy of the same diagram done from scratch. I donìt think there should be problems with this. In ancy case, the double slit experiment is everywhere on the net. The problem is the same though: I don't know the copyright status of the specific versions. There is one extremely professional quality one already on Wiki in fact, but it doesn't convey what Iìm trying get across in the article at that point and it's too cumbersome.

BTW, when are you coming out of wikihibernation? Haven't heard from you in a while. School??--Lacatosias 11:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phot.png

OK, it's extremely simple actually. You probably got thrown off by the fact, which I just noticed, that I mixed up the names of the two photons in the diagrams (photon 1 is supposed to be photon 2 and vice-versa). In any case, what happens is that you have a source (S)in the center of the diagrams that emits two photons, one to the right and one to the left. Hence, two arrows pointing out from it in opposite directions (this is accidentally omitted in the bottom diagram). On both sides there are two screens or mirrors (tradionally represented by large round colored circles for some reason). These are the polarization testing apparatuses. There are supposed to be extremely tiny white lines (I could not do this, so I just erased two or three sections) running throughout the screens to indicate direction of the test. In the first case, the lines are horizontal on the left (i.e. left to right), indicating that the test is for horizontal polarization, and vertical (up-down) on the right to test for vertical polarization. The tiny little round things before and aftre the screen represent the photons with tiny arrows pointing out of them to indicate direction.

Case 1 (top): photon 1 (on the right) has arrows pointing up and down, the screen has lines which go up and down, so the photon passed through (indicated by the apperace of another photon on the right with arrows pointing up and down and the text "passed"). Photon 2 (on the left) has arrows pointing left to right, the screen has lines from left to right, and the photon passes the test (indicated by the photon on the other side of the screen with the arrows pointing in the same direction and the text "passed").

Case 2 (middle): photon 1 (alwsys on right) is the same as above, but the screen now has lines through it which go from left to right (test for horizonatal P), so it does not pass (indicated by no photon on the right and the text "not pass". Photon 2 and the screen on the left are exactly the same as in the first case.

Case three (bottom): photon 1 is, same as always, pointing up and down before the test. The screen is now polarized at 45%, so there are tiny little white lines running in a direction in between the horizontal (90°) and the vertical (O°). The photon passed thorough in about 50% of the cases, so this is incidated by a photon appearing after the screen which has arrows pointing to the north-east on the top and south-west on the bottom. There is supposed to be text which says "passes in 50% of cases and ends up polarized at 45°". The other photon has arrows pointing left-to-right and there is no screen; it is not tested.

I hope that helps to clear it up. --Lacatosias 08:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Self-nomination

Hi there! I noticed you self-nominated the article Ran (film) for GA status. First of all, very nice article! Especially about a single film. I love the film by the way, and was thrilled to see such an article here. I only have to say that a "stubbed" section is the only thing keeping me from nominating it. Could something be done about that? -- Kripkenstein _{τ κ}

Thank you! Ran is a personal favorite of mine as well, and I eventually plan on making it a Featured Article. I temporarily removed the "Themes" section, since I've got a scrap page for Ran (User:Palm dogg/Ran (film)) and will just keep it there until I've had the time to write it. Palm_Dogg 23:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's some fun for you

Here is a very nice diagram of the panorama of positions on the mind-body problem. It's from the German wiki. If you can handle the translation and remake this into an English version the way you did with the others that would be nice. I'm going to go ahead and rewrite the main article on POM based on the structure of the German version. I will merge the mind/body page to into it obviously, just as is done in the German version. I'll set a subpage of it in the next few hours and then start working. No poijnt witing for a full tranlsation which deos not seem to be coming. And all that's really needed is some good section summaries, so it's not really very much work to get it done in a few days of good, solid work.--Lacatosias 17:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POM

I've set up the outline and added some text to the new version at User:Lacatosias\Philosophy of Mind. You have full permission to have a go at it, if you wish. I could only start up a few sections today because it's getting late over here and I have to get off-line. You can even post it on the Wikiproject page and see of DavidL or anyone else fairly reliable wants to get involved. Just make sure not to inform everyone about it!! Thanks..--Lacatosias 19:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, I will be checking it out and hopefully adding some material. -- Kripkenstein _{τ κ}

[edit] What's happening with AM?

There are some links going to both of these, so do not delete this thing at least until I can update the links!!--Lacatosias 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anomalous (M/m)onism

Hi, I removed your speedy request from the redirect Anomalous monism because there has not yet been discussion at Talk:Anomalous Monism as to whether the lower-case title is preferred. Please first determine whether there is consensus to re-name the page. Thanks! Angr/talk 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me. I just moved it. I moved Biological naturalism too. Angr/talk 15:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assault of the hacks

It looks like I'll be needing your backup on this philosophy of mind thing. If this note is any indication, there are actually some people who seriously think there was some sort of value in the pervious version and in mind-body problem (now redirected obviously):

Hi ,I noticed you erased the article and substitued it as a link ,while MERGING the two. This is a big step in wiki. Could you please give a short summary of the merging prosees( hopefulyl nothing was left behind) ,the new article shoudl contain all of the information in both previous ones. thanks.--Procrastinating@talk2me 17:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How did you handle this with dualism (philosophy of mind)??. What's wrong with this person?? --Lacatosias 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any comments..

you might have on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy of mind would be appreciated folks.--Lacatosias 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. But I would actually appreciate it more if you went ahead and added some of the material you referred to on Eastern phil. if you can find the time.--Lacatosias 14:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apostasy in Islam

Until de:Benutzer:Orientalist responds, I'll try to help fast, since this is rather wicked. (Sorry for this fast translation.)

The document says:

al-Azhar. Fatwa-committee. In the name of the forgiving and gracious god.

Question of Mr. Ahmad Derwish; he has submitted this question by Mr. (name not visible), german nationality:

A man of muslim belief, egyptian nationality married a women of christian belief, german nationality. In aggreement of the couple, the mentioned muslim converted to the christian religion and joined the christian creed.

1 - What is the islamic judgement about the person's status according to the islamic punishment?

2 - Are his childen understood as muslims or christians? What is the judgement?

The Answer:

God, Lord of the worlds is praised. God bless the man of the envoys, our Lord Muhammed, his family and all his fellows and give them salvation.

Herewith we grant information: since he is dropped from the islam, he will be invited for regretfulness. Does he not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the islamic law.

Referring to his children, so they are minor muslims. When they reach full age, and if they remain within the islam, they are muslims. If they leave the islam, they will be invited to regret. If they do not regret, they will be killed. God the almighty knows best.

Seal of the commitee. The Chairman of the fatwa-commitee in Azhar (university?).

(signed: unreadable sign) Date: 9/23/1978

Seal with emblem of the state: The arabic republic of egypt. Al-Azhar. The fatwa-commitee in Azhar.

84.61.11.105 03:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meister Eckhart

I removed the text which is now at Doctrines of Meister Eckhart because it was very long for a sub-section, and fairly technical for someone just looking to get an overview of his life and thought. I think the main article is now much more easy to "digest". You seem to have removed your comment on the talk page, but I wanted to respond, so here I am. Please feel free to ask me any further questions you have! Cantara 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still around?...

What's going on with the Philosophy of Mind project? Shall I put the inactive tag on it?--Lacatosias 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Congratulations

Thanks for your compliments regarding the Turkish literature article. I very much appreciate your taking the time to read the article and comment, and am happy that you enjoyed it. —Saposcat 04:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki:pt

--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Kripkenstein!!

Hey Krip, if you're still logging on here from time to time, could you do me a small favor and see if there is a better version (or if you can upload the same version with better resolution) of the grainy photo in Jerry Fodor. I've put it up for FA candidacy just to see what happens. I doubt it will be accepted. Anyway, one of the complaints I got regards the photo. Thanks as always old boy (;. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Fodor

The article I wrote on Fodor is a candidate for FA. Can you add your support for this article or revise it if you think it needs work?? Thanks --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hi Kripkenstein!

I've just added my name to the list at the Buddhism Portal. I'd like to get involved, creating, editing, whatever needs doing! If there's anything you think I could help with, please let me know, either on my talk page or by email (user dot rentwa at googlemail dot com). Rentwa 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig

Hi Kripkenstein, just a reminder to always subs: your signature template per WP:SIG, and if you want to use {{time}}, make sure you subst: that too, or the time will continually update and the time that you signed the page is unknown. —Mets501 (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas J. Futuyma

I did not know the other page existed. I merged the information into the other page and changed Douglas Futuyma into a redirect page. Good?--Filll 04:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)