User talk:Alienus/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

Alienus 21:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi Alienus, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 01:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To do: Social contract, Secular humanism, Antihumanism, Self-evidence

Follow up on reverts to: Eliminative materialism, various Dennett-related pages

Check changes to: meme

[edit] Ayn Rand's atheism

a number of philosophers who completely agree with Rand on the topic of atheism nonetheless find her basis for it laughable and frankly embarrassing.

What do you have in mind here? Her basis was that theism is arbitrary, and occasionally she also said there are contradictions in the concept of god. Could you be specific? Michael Hardy 02:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Life is short, so I'll speak bluntly. Dismissing theism as arbitrary might apply to fideism, but it fails to address the numerous, ostensibly rational arguments in favor of other forms of theism. Granted, these arguments aren't necessarily any good, but that's all the more reason to refute them instead of just acting as if atheism were obviously true. Given the number of theists out there, atheism must not be so obvious. Furthermore, some of these arguments come with rather comprehensive, although not necessarily correct, worldviews with their own apparently consistent ontology, which quite soundly refutes the ideas that they're just arbitrary. Claiming contradictions in specific definitions of God is a fairly useless tactic because, even when successful, it just spawns new and more nebulous definitions. It also doesn't help that she was lukewarm to evolution, leaving her with a dangerously incomplete worldview. In short, she was lazy and overconfident. This attitude really pisses off philosophers, especially those who are atheists on a sounder basis. Understandably, they view Rand as an easy target, a natural straw man for apologists to trivially defeat, then claim a defeat of all atheism. In short, they see Rand as the sort of ally that they'd rather have as an enemy. Interestingly enough, this happens to be exactly how I see Michael Shermer. Does that answer your question? Alienus 06:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I haven't been back to this page for a while, but I just read your comments. I think if you're going to put something about these matters in an article, you should be specific. Your comments were terse enough to make it clear that it wouldn't take very many words: state which philosophers take those views (a few of the most prominent ones) and what their objections are. Michael Hardy 19:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Let me see what verifiable sources I can dig up on this. Alienus 20:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, do you know anything about Wallace Matson? Former head of the philosophy department at Berkeley. I first heard of him in connection with his writings on atheism (but I haven't read any). I later heard that he wrote a favorable review of Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, but I've never seen that either. Michael Hardy 00:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

With a few noted exceptions, most academic philosophers ignore Rand. However, you're right that Matson did write some stuff on Rand, such as http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/other/ptoar.html. The review on Amazon says, "But the nadir of this collection is probably Wallace Matson's "Rand on Concepts" which claims to reformulate the Objectivist theory of concept-formation in a way that "preserves what is of value in Rand's treatment" and then proceeds to get rid of concepts altogether, claiming they are a dispensable "mysterious and subjective... third entity between word and thing"!" There's more at http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/bryanregister/universalityofconcepts.html. So, what about him? Alienus 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Narnia:

[edit] Christian Parallels

I changed the end of the Christian parallels section on you. You were right, Evangelism is a common enough term (perhaps more so among people likely to visit the narnia article). Anyway, I removed the sentence explaining what it was and instead wikified it. Hope that's still okay with you. Boy, that article is attracting some interesting character. Lsommerer 22:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your change. I did tweak it slightly to lower-case evangelism and preface it with "Christian". If you think the adjective is unnecessary, feel free to drop it.
As for the current interest by characters, it shouldn't be any surprise. Lewis was, in life, an odd little person who gained a reputation that exceeded him. Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion by John Beversluis:
"Sections devoted to biography read like hagiography. We seldom encounter a mere fact about Lewis; accounts of his behavior, attitudes, and personal relationships are instead reported in the wide-eyed manner of the impressionable disciple. To describe him as a wonderful friend is a lamentable understatement; we must be assured that no one ever was a better friend. To praise him as brilliant in debate is entirely too lukewarm a compliment; we are told that C. S. Lewis could have matched wits with any man who ever lived. To endorse him as a Christian apologist of the first rank is altogether inadequate; his apocalyptic Vision of Christianity must be likened to that of St. John on the Isle of Patmos. After a while, one longs for patches of sunlight to dispel the reverential haze. One tires of enduring these excesses and of having to plow through equally ecstatic testimonials in book after book."
I found this quote at http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/apologist.htm, which is one of a group of brutally negative articles about Lewis. I also found references suggesting that he had an illicit sexual relationship with the older woman who lived with him (http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/shadow.htm and http://www.mezomorf.com/movies/news-11833.html), though nothing even hints at this on his hagiographic Wikipedia article. *sigh*
I don't want to string this guy up. I just want the articles to be somewhat in touch with reality. I hope that's not too much to attempt. Alienus 23:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Things seem to have calmed down now. I've been working on some of the sections that User:Marshill suggested. It looks like he's moved on to another victim. Lsommerer 01:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I got fed up with the ((citeneeded)) infested part of the critisism section, and replaced it with a somewhat condensed previous version. I tried to take everything out that the citations didn't support and also condensed the defense down to the most telling points. Look it over when you get a chance. Lsommerer 01:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a fairly light copyedit to smooth out some rough spots. Otherwise, you did fine. As for Marshill, I'm keeping an eye out for further damage. Alienus 04:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4.246.30.203

Hi there, I noticed you revered edits by this user on Polygamy. I ran into some questionable edits from this IP myself, but I lack the knowledge to make the correct adustments (perhaps complete reverts). Could you take a look? Thanks. -- Solitude\talk 09:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. As you've probably seen by now, I did find other edits by this person that needed reversion or heavy editing. They're very, very biased towards Mormonism, to the point of being willing to hide unpleasant but well-supported facts.Alienus 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on Blacks & Mormonism

Are you British? I am trying to understand why you copyedited some of the things you did; "Black" is considered acceptable American usage (at least by Mirriam-Webster). And I've never seen a Boy Scout troop spelled "troupe". The Jade Knight 03:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

According to my dictionary of American English, "black" in the sense of African Americans is indeed "sometimes capitalized". Unfortunately, the Mormon article couldn't decide whether or not to capitalize and it was driving me nuts. So I just chose the more common way and tried to make it consistent. As for the "e" in "troupe", that was a typo. Alienus 04:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hardly a typo; the correct (American) spelling for a BSA unit is "troop". Again, I've never seen "troupe" (or "troup") used in this context. Thus the reason I ask if you're British; "troupe" strikes me as a British form (which, of course, could equally apply to Canada, Australia, etc.) Moreover, your use of punctuation above is nonstandard for American English. The Jade Knight 03:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"Troupe" refers to a company of traveling performers. Etymologically, it's the same word as "troop", only it retains its French spelling. Since it's a homonym, it's not hard to see how self-dictation would swap one for the other. As for my punctuation, I don't see anything particularly unusual about it. Alienus 14:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you defend your usage, rather than answering my question. Etymologically, you know, "shirt" and "skirt" are the same word—it really doesn't matter, as interesting as it is. I was just curious; I've never seen an American misspell "troop" as "troupe". I can understand if you are particularly unfamiliar with the BSA, however, how this could happen. The Jade Knight 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Uhm, I didn't defend my usage, I acknowledged that it was an error and detailed the type of error it was. To be painfully clear, it was the sort of error caused by subvocalizing while typing, leading to self-dictation that is prone to substituting homonyms. As for being familiar with the Boy Scouts, I used to be one. Alienus 17:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation re. Loxley and Dennett-related issues

Dear Alienus: Hello there; my name is Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and leader at the Mediation Cabal. Firstly, I would like to apologise for the extreme delay in processing your mediation request, which has been caused by my temporary absence from the Mediation Cabal. I have commenced handling of your request today, and have left a talk page message to User:Loxley inviting him to comment at the mediation request page for this case [1] (you'll note the mediation request process has changed since you posted the request; each request is now on its own individual page). I will commence mediation as soon as Loxley has given his consent for the mediation to take place; I decided it was fairest to wait for him to comment before proceeding to make recommendations, although I already have a good idea of the best course of action to take on this matter. Probably what I'll recommend to you both, if Loxley agrees to enter mediation, is that you both take a voluntary break from philosophy and epistemiology articles until some sort of mutual discussion has taken place to define the best way to proceed. I do hope that I have not entered far too late, and that I shall be able to assist you in this matter. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do realize that there's been an unusual delay in this, so I've tried to make a virtue out of necessity by avoiding the contested articles and giving myself time to gain perspective. However, now that I look back, I can see why I got so angry.
It looks like Loxley has gained an unhealthy and unwarranted sense of personal ownership which has led him to stake out his turf and defend it against all comers. As a result, the pages he counts as his own have been distorted by his biases.
I've left them alone, but the ones on more specialized pages, such as Cartesian materialism simply haven't gotten changes by other people (with the exception of routine categorization and wikification that doesn't fix the underlying errors). In short, Loxley has succeeded in scaring away attempts at remediating his bias and adding more substance to stubs.
Please see the mediation page. As you have mentioned it, I think it would be a good idea to start with Cartesian materialism. loxley 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
If the entirety of your suggestion is that we both take a break from these areas, I'm not sure how much good it'd do. I've already take a few weeks away from the articles he's damaged most, and they're still damaged. If we both took a break, the problem would just start again once we returned. And if we didn't take a break, the problem would just start up again a bit sooner. The underlying problem is that he considers himself an expert on issues where he is neither knowledgable nor unbiased. If I'm the first to clash with him, I'd be surprised. Alienus 00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medcab request - mediator evaluation has been made

Dear Alienus: I have completed my initial evaluation of the Dennett dispute, which I hope should be of some assistance to you. I would be grateful if you would review what I have written, and to pay specific attention to the recommendations made there. Please write any comments you wish to make on my evaluation in the section provided underneath. You can find the Medcab case proceedings at:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/06 12 2005 Alienus and Loxley edit war over Dennett and Philosophy of the Mind

I look forward to your response, and I am most sorry for the time it has taken me to come up with a proper evaluation. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Talk:Abortion health effects

Since asked, I will address this in further detail: I would think that we'd want to lead with the most relevant information, and save the lists of details for later in the article, as per the inverted pyramid. A list of all risks is boring and uninformative. Worse, it's misleading if it doesn't include prominent mention of the fact that many of these risks are negligible for early abortions but quite serious for late ones. In fact, listing risks without explaining this fact would serve to make abortion look more dangerous than it really is, since the vast majority of procedures are performed early in the pregnancy. Likewise, carrying a pregnancy to term is also risky. I don't have a citation handy (so I didn't say anything to this effect), but I seem to remember reading that an early abortion is, on the whole, safer than giving birth. Failing to mention this would once again make abortion sound more dangerous than it really is. Is our goal to give an honest explanation of abortion's health risks or is this an excuse for partisan abortion-bashing? Think it through. If you want to dispute the factuality or relevancy of these additions, this is a good place to do it. Until then, I've reverted the text. Alienus 16:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you havn't known this now you do: The health effects section used to be health risks. Like all medical procedures, abortion has health risks. If an article doesn't have a list of health risks, its neccessarly dubious, because it isn't the full picture. As for that "fact", there is no surgery with 0% risk, and we would be incorrect to imply so. If you wish to improve this, don't give broad statements, give facts and figures. The second paragraph states:
It is difficult to accurately assess the risks of induced abortion due to a number of factors. These factors include wide variation in the quality of abortion services in different societies and among different socio-economic groups, a lack of uniform definitions of terms, and difficulties in patient follow-up and after-care.
In otherwords, the paragraph contends we havn't the foggiest idea! Until we see some statistics that say someone knows what they're talking about, we're likley to keep it this way. Furthermore, is the risk increase fair in situations where abortion isn't done as a proper medical procedure? I think poisoning yourself to abort is equally risky no matter how pregnant you are, but thats just my guess. The early abortion/giving birth statistic is dubious and irrelevant. Our goal is to write a proper article If you accuse someone of partisan bashing again, you take it to their talk pages, and you do it nice. Tznkai 18:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the need for hard numbers, as my recent edits have demonstrated. The early abortion statistic is exactly the one a woman would be most interested in if she had an unwanted pregnancy and was considering going to a legitimate doctor for a medical procedure, as opposed to drinking Drano or squatting on a wire coat-hanger. For this reason, I consider it highly relevant, and there seems to be a consensus forming in support of this conclusion. As for accusations of bias, I think you'd do well to avoid becoming the target for them by being more civil. If you explain things politely in Talk instead of proclaiming your conclusions as part of a revert comment, you will seem less biased. I reserve the right to call things as I see them. Alienus 18:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great job on the NPOV in Abortion

This is regarding your edits -- excellent job. I guess I am so "immune" to the various terminology used in both sides of the debate that I didn't even realize how blatantly POV it was to call a pregnant woman a "mother". You're right, by definition, if she does get the abortion then she is not a mother (barring previous or prior kids, anyway). --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is something that seems to happen to abortion-related pages over time, where "mother" and "baby" start to crawl in to the terminology. Purging it is a bit like spring cleaning; necessary, but you should expect to do it again when the season rolls around. As it happens, a good percentage of pregnant women who have abortions were mothers at the time and even more eventually become mothers, but that doesn't mean it's honest to call them mothers now just because a condom leaked. Anyhow, thanks for reverting the re-insertion of mothers so it didn't have to become an edit war. Alienus 01:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Pro-Life Article

I put citations in talk page to avoid clutter. -- Jbamb 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. As it happens, I do Watch the Talk page, so I was already replying before I got this memo. Alienus 23:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ARI link

I tried to look at your ARI link, but it is dead. Seems like a good idea, tho, to show up any inconsistency. Carrionluggage 05:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not my link, just one that gets vandalized a lot. I seem to have made a career of reversing this particular act, though. Not sure why the site is down at the moment, but it's usually up. If it goes down and stays down, then I guess we'll have to drop the link at some point. Alienus 05:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] abortion discussion

Hey Alienus - that discussion got really lengthy on the abortion page under medical definitions - I think I probably got carried away in my comments there. I just wanted to make clear (but not on the abortion page, as it is irrelevant there) - a number of the links I gave specifically mention prevention of implantation as being a form of abortion from various religious/pro-life POV's. The issue then becomes one of intent; the Catholic Church, for instance (and I pick them b/c I know the subject matter), would argue that b/c a person who takes a regular contraceptive has not only the intent of preventing pregnancy, but preventing implantation if fertilization occurs (which is the intended function of many oral contraceptives, and devices such as the copper IUD), then the intent is the same as abortion should fertilization occur. Thus from their point of view, use of a contraceptive carries the same moral consequences as abortion should the zygote be prevented from implanting and die (of course, issues of culpability arise if a person is unaware that this is a function of a contraceptive). This is all I was trying to point out, in regards to your standing question as to whether or not anyone equated regular contraceptives to abortion. As for non-Catholics, if you follow the link to the Association of Pro Life Physicians, they actually refer to any medication or device that prevents implantation as an abortifacient. Cheers - I hope that our banter on the page will not inhibit constructive co-operation! DonaNobisPacem 07:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I want to reassure you that I don't take our disagreement personally. On occasion, I have seen people who were dishonest and deeply hostile, and I've reacted with hostility of my own, but this is not the case here. At worst, we disagree about some fine points. I can live with that, without ever considering you an enemy.
Second, I'm glad you responded anywhere but on that never-ending Discussion subject, because the thread had long exceeded any reasonable size, much less its original purpose.
With that out of the way, let me address the issue. I understand that, since a woman taking certain hormonal contraceptives is accepting the possibility that a fertilized egg might be prevented from implanting, she is accepting the possibility of an abortion (at least in the clerical/ideological sense, though not the medical). In this way, contraception might be comparable to abortion.
However, even here, there is a difference. In a medical abortion, not only is there a fetus implanted in the uterine walls, but the woman knows for a fact that she is pregnant and is consciously deciding to end that pregnancy. In the case of a zygote being prevented from implantation, the woman doesn't know that this is happening, and in fact, the odds are that it isn't. Moreover, the primary goal of the contraception is indeed to stop conception, so any (clerical) abortion is a foreseeable side effect but not the intent.
For this reason, even though, to those who equate conception with pregnancy, hormonal contraception can be seen as comparable to and even sometimes leading to a (clerical) abortion, it cannot be eqivalent to one, as the moral culpability is not at all the same. In the Catholic conception of sin, intent is necessary.
I'll add one more detail, just to offer contrast. A woman on the pill most likely will not ovulate. A woman who is not on the pill (and who routinely has sex) is likely to become pregnant. However, before a noticable pregnancy occurs, she is even more likely to have a zygote that fails to implant or that implants then self-aborts. The majority of fertilized eggs die before the woman ever has a clue that a fertilization has taken place. In this way, taking the pill lowers the chance of a (clerical) abortion, while refusing to use one increases it.
Just stuff to think about. Alienus 09:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "self-promotion"

Please stop reverting. The link added by Owl is highly relevant and a useful contribution; I read it thoroughly in fact. Content should take precedence over some notion of "self-linking is bad". In any case, it cannot be called self-promotion anymore, since I am effectively adding the link myself. --C S (Talk) 10:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll let someone else revert it. Alienus 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, ok. I find your response rather bizarre. Even if self-linking were bad because it is shameless self-promotion, doesn't it defeat the purpose to revert someone else adding the link? Especially if someone else sees some value in it? Are you really that confident that people will stop someone from adding a useful link because the first person to do so was involved in supposed self-promotion? It may be someone will remove the link, but hopefully it will not be for your reason, but because they disagree that it is a good link. --C S (Talk) 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been watching this owl fellow at work for a while now. They make changes, sometimes beneficial ones though often neutral and almost always with language errors. But when they add links to their own web site, these get reverted. Alienus 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have also been keeping an eye on him. Primarily because he is a SME that Wikipedia could benefit from. I've left some comments on his talk page to help ease him into the wiki-community and help avoid problems. Recently I told him that some of his links were not appropriate, e.g. "scary Bible quotes" on Religion, and were IMHO reverted correctly; however, in my brief investigation of his self-linking activities, I ran across interpretations of quantum mechanics, and in this case, I thought it was appropriate.

He has complained about the blanket deletion of his links. I think rather than a blanket deletion, regular contributors to the page can decide whether his link is good or not, based on content. The vast reverting done by El_C, I think, did more harm than good. It convinced Owl that his good-faith additions (of course, he has a POV, but I think he honestly believes all his links were appropriate) were being reverted for no reason other than he was self-linking. I realize that we don't always extend this courtesy, but given his already valuable contributions elsewhere, e.g. in meta-ethics, and his potential future contributions, I think he warrants the courtesy of a real edit summary. How else will he learn to engage in discussion over the editing process? --C S (Talk) 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration on Cartesian materialism

I have contributed all the external source data on this article, have been happy to include a full discussion of Dennett's views but cannot bear to see the concept defined incorrectly from the outset. I am taking this to arbitration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests (unsigned by Loxley)

Turns out that the arbitration request was rejected. Alienus 06:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartesian materialism

Hi Alienus, can you say on the talk page what you feel is wrong exactly with the version currently on the page? This dispute's been going on for a while, so it would be good if you and Loxley could agree on a compromise. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consciousness and Physicalism

Hi Alienus, You and I have made edits to Consciousness over the last few hours. My reading of the original paragraph was that it only discussed religious souls and physicalism. I wanted to mention views which are not religious but are also not entirely physicalist. I must admit I'm not sure entirely how to write this section. The original paragraph might give the impression that it's simply "religion versus science". My problem was with the words "Many scientists and philosophers consider consciousness to be intimately linked to the neural functioning of the brain", which sounded like assuming that all non-religious are physicalist when read in the context of the rest of the paragraph. --Aaron McDaid 21:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the changes and I'm still trying to find a good way of handling this issue. While the soul is often defined religiously, it generally means the mind as considered to exist separately from the body (or anything else that's physical). This requires either dualism or idealist monism, neither of which are stances than many philosophers would admit to these days. That's why the New Mysterians are mysterians: they want to move consciousness out of our reach, but have no clear notion of where to hide it.
So, in reference to the specific issue, I think we have to make it clear that rejecting physicalism doesn't entail embracing any religious beliefs. Certainly, someone could believe in a soul while rejecting theism and all known religions. Having said that, the non-religious soul is defined to be compatible with the religious version.
How do we get all that in? :-) Alienus 21:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to talk about a 'non-religious soul'. A 'soul' is typically said to include some sort of decision-making and persistent memory, i.e. everything that would come under 'mind'. I believe that there is a non-physical sentience, but I wouldn't call this a soul because of all the other things that are typically associated with a soul. I believe that most other aspects of mind can be explained physically, but sentience cannot. I don't believe in any soul, religious or otherwise.
I would probably leave any mention of 'soul' or 'religion' until the end of that paragraph. There are many different philosophical positions about various aspects of consciousness. By mentioning religions and souls at the end, we can make it clear that some religious ideas may correspond (to a greater or lesser degree) with some of the philosophical positions, instead of giving the impression that religion is one of the points of view and is to be considered as 'opposed' to the philosophers and scientists.
I don't know if I'll have the time to contribute again tonight, but I won't be offended if my edits are updated or even reverted, because I'm not sure yet what I would prefer. --Aaron McDaid 22:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure what else is associated with a soul other than the mind (minus the body). Do you mean the notion of an afterlife and such? Alienus 22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. The first sentence of the article defines consciousness as "subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment." I think these concepts, and perhaps others such as creativity, intelligence and memory, are brought together in the concept 'mind'. I think that 'soul' and 'mind' are pretty much the same thing, except for the theism. You might well agree with me up to here, but the term 'soul/mind/consciousness' is made up of many different things, and it's only the basic sentience aspect that mystifies me. 'Mind' is made up of different parts, and it's quite possible to be essentially physicalist about most of 'mind', but to reject physicalism for the sentience.
I suppose I need to find out exactly what most people take 'soul' to mean. Is a non-physical sentience, stripped of things such as sapience, covered by the everyday definition of 'soul'? If I were to say I believed in a "non-religious soul", wouldn't most people think that I believed it to cover things like self-awareness and some amount of decision-making, intelligence et cetera. --Aaron McDaid 22:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so are you endorsing something along the lines of epiphenomenalism, then? Alienus 22:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that, I was just about to link to http://www.consciousentities.com/deadends.htm and say that I flirt with epiphenomenalism and panpsychism. I don't really know what I think, I don't find any complete explanation satisfactory for myself.
How about putting "Many cultures and religious traditions place the seat of consciousness in a soul that is the mind separate from the body" into a separate paragraph? There are many scientists and philosophers who are also religious and would believe in a religious soul. I think that particular sentence is pretty obviously true, but should be moved so that it's not misinterpreted as saying that it is opposed to the other views in the paragraph.
I still have no idea what to do with the rest of the paragraph though. But now I think that mentioning McGinn and Chalmers this early in the article is probably unnecessary. The physicalist idea doesn't get as much detail in this paragraph. --Aaron McDaid 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Cute site; I particularly like the little cartoons, since they do a great job highlighting the differences. However, I should tell you that I agree with the article, and with Dennett, that both panpsychism and epiphenomenalism are mistakes. I am sympathetic to people who fall for one of these dead ends, but I think they're letting their intuitions overwhelm them.
In any case, a fair description of what people believe would make it clear that dualism, because it's so intuitive, is found in many traditions, especially religious ones. However, it would also make clear that physicalism is the scientific standard, and even scientists who might have private beliefs about souls do their best to keep these away from the science they do.
I agree about cutting the intro down a bit by moving some of the details down into the body of the article, so long as the relative importance and popularity are hinted at to some extent. I don't want to mislead people through brevity.
If you'd like, take a stab at it and I'll follow up. Alienus 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I describe physicalism as the scientific standard. Science will always be limited to studying the physical world, but that doesn't mean that science rules out non-physical ideas. The obvious example is mathematics, which is clearly not subject to scientific experiment and is not physical. A scientist (who is wearing his scientist hat, so to speak) should not way "science is physicalist", instead he/she should say "science studies the physical world, go ask a philosopher about how far that'll get us; by the way I can put on my philosopher hat and give you my thoughts". Anyway, I must go to bed, it's after midnight here in Ireland. I'll return to this article and thread later. Thanks for your time. --Aaron McDaid 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent)

Now that's a whole new can of worms. People like scientist Stephen J. Gould have often argued that science has a limited domain and cannot be applied outside of it. Others, including philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, say that any attempt at philosophy that ignores science is invalid. Once again, I find myself leaning towards Dennett. In specific, if there's no scientific evidence for something, we must be highly skeptical of its existence.

I'm on the east coast of the USA, so it's not so late here yet. We can pick this up when daylight strikes your shores. For now, I'm going to hold off making any substantial changes. I'd really rather let you take a stab at it when time permits, then follow up from there. Until then. Alienus 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again guys, the original version was:
Some philosophers divide consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is experience itself, and access consciousness, which is the processing of the things in experience (Block 2004). Others consider this distinction to be mistaken (Dennett 1991). Many cultures and religious traditions place the seat of consciousness in a soul separate from the body. In contrast, many scientists and philosophers consider consciousness to be intimately linked to the neural functioning of the brain, dictating the way by which the world is experienced.
My first attempt would be something like:
Some philosophers divide consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is experience itself, and access consciousness, which is the processing of the things in experience (Block 2004). Others consider this distinction to be mistaken (Dennett 1991). There is much philosophical debate as to whether or not science can fully understand consciousness. The idea that something 'non-physical' is required to explain consciousness takes many forms, many of which are described as dualism. The idea that science is all that's required to fully understand consciousness is called physicalism, but this isn't necessarily believed by all scientists. Some believe that the problem cannot be solved and that we will never fully understand consciousness, in particular sentience and its interaction with the physical.
Many cultures and religious traditions place the seat of consciousness in a soul separate from the body. This is a form of dualism, but note there are non-religious forms of dualism. The religious idea of a soul often includes more than is necessary to explain consciousness, such as the ability to think without a body, and perhaps to intervene in the physical world after the death of the physical body.
I'm not sure I fully understand the first two sentences, so I'm not proposing a change to them. My main aim is to move the mention of 'soul' - the original version gave the impression that it's simply a case of 'religion versus science'. Instead there are a number of views, some of which are shared by religious and non-religious people. Aaron McDaid 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Aaron here again. I'm probably going off topic a bit here, but I think a number of the articles on Wikipedia could be improved when it comes to anything related to consciousness or the Mind-body problem. The exact cause of the debates should be made clear. Whenever I first came across discussions about how decisions are made and acted upon, I couldn't help thinking "So what?". I was not suprised that a plant could grow towards the light, so why should I be surprised that humans can decide to mate or eat? It should be made clear that sentience is the only cause of the problem. Of course, our ability to report and discuss our sentience causes the problem to spill over into consciousness in general. I think readers of Wikipedia who are new to the subject should have this explained ASAP before they conclude "There is no problem, those philosophers should get a real job!". Only when readers understand that there is a problem with sentience, can they understand that there is a problem with consciousness as a whole. Is the above a fair summary? Could it get readers interested in the subject without being POV? Am I right in assuming that there wouldn't be any philosophical problem or debate if it wasn't for sentience (or should I say 'people who insist sentience is a problem')? Would that be a NPOV summary of the background to the debate? Aaron McDaid 13:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Before I respond further, could you tell me what you mean by sentience? Alienus 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I mean sentience to mean the very basic feelings, as described in the first few sentences of sentience (even before the recent edits I made to that article). It's probably not dissimilar to qualia. Sentience is what would justify epiphenomenalism. It's only our ability to report on our sentience that causes epiphenomenalism to break down. Aaron McDaid 10:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, now that I understand you, my basic response is that not everyone is Chalmers, so we need to be clear in distinguishing between that POV and any sort of consensus. We can (and should) say that some people believe that qualia/sentience is the big mystery to be solved, but we should also make clear that others disagree. Alienus 15:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right. There are such a wide variety of ideas on this subject (just look at the length of the article) that it would not be possible to give any but the most vague description of the theories in the introductory paragraphs. I'm quite happy with the way that paragraph has turned out, also because it no longer seems to imply that the debate is just 'religion versus science'. I'm in the process of re-reading the rest of the article. On the article's talk page, I'm going to suggest merging in the 'Philosophical explanations of consciousness' subsection into the final lines of the 'The description and location of phenomenal consciousness' subsection. Thanks for your time and patience. Aaron McDaid 20:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds reasonable; we'll see how it turns out. No need to thank me, though. It's a pleasure dealing with someone who I can work with despite disagreements on the underlying issues. We'll never all agree, but it's important that we all get along and work towards our common goal of crafting articles that are both comprehensive and NPOV. Alienus 21:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. I've just been checking through the above conversation and some of my comments don't make sense. I was pretty sure I knew what I thought, but I couldn't come up with the right terms to describe my thoughts. It's only while reading the consciousness articles on Wikipedia recently that I've got a clear idea of what the various terms mean and a clearer idea of what labels to apply to my beliefs. So I'm going to wear my POV on my sleeve here, which might help understanding if I get involved in editing these articles again. I follow Weak atheism and dualism and (some form of) New Mysterianism. To clarify the dualism, I mean that as we study the brain more, we will notice inexplicable seemingly magic physics - these effects will be non-random but also non-predictable. I'm not sure whether I'm talking about a duality of worlds or of substances or something else, I think the words probably don't really matter. And as for a soul, I do believe in a soul but I'm not religious. I'm not sure if a soul needs a brain but I'd guess it does. I'm not sure that there isn't a God, but I guess there isn't. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 13:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Noted. You've probably noticed by now that I largely agree with Dennett on matters regarding consciousness. Alienus 16:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind-Body and Mysterianism

Thanks for bringing up Colin McGinn on Mind-body problem. One question though-- if someone says we cannot know the solution to the mind-body problem, doesn't that make you more of an agnostic than an actual atheist. Do you think it would be fair to say that people who subscribe to Strong atheism are only physicalists? Or could they too be New Mysterians?-Alecmconroy 10:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked the atheism article. Some of it is surprising, such as the suggested definition that atheism refers to a number of theories including agnoticism. But anyway, I think rejecting physicalism is compatible with atheism. Atheism is about the existence or otherwise of deities, and deity is relatively narrowly defined. Atheism does not rule out non-deity non-physical 'stuff'. While a New Mysterian will say that the problem cannot be solved, he/she might well rule out some of the suggested solutions, some religious and some not religious (for example, epiphenomenalism and physicalism). That's pretty much my position at the moment, but that could change as I do more research. Aaron McDaid 12:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Atheism entails rejecting theism, but it doesn't necessarily require rejecting dualism, idealism, supernaturalism or even idiotism. However, a very common basis for atheism is the endorsement of naturalism, which does entail rejecting all of the above. I'm not sure that the New Mysterians have much to do with atheism/theism. Rather, they're normative agnostics regarding consciousness. They're saying that, not only don't they know, but it cannot be known. This is a rather defeatist attitude, but there you have it. Alienus 17:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Christianity

Hello. I've been making substancial changes on this article, mostly just expanding the points already made, while changing some language, as well. Since you are active in this article, I just wanted to stop by to let you know of these changes that I hope you see as improvments. I like the subject of the article and think its important, so I'd like to work to get those warning tags removed. I have experience debating with the other editors active in this article over from the [Christianity]]--(Ann/ML, KH03, Str1977, Wesley), so I'm sure we can address their objections and reach consensus for an article worthy of featured status. Giovanni33 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt at cleaning it up somewhat, including a restoration of the GWB link. Hopefully, we can get that big BIAS banner removed from the top of the article. From there, it would be nice to see what other improvements we could make. Alienus 17:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:CIVIL. Thanks...KHM03 11:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No thank you. Civility will not solve the problems that article has, which is why I'm simply giving up on it. Let it rot. Alienus 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speciation

Hi there. Regarding observing speciation, what is the best example that you know of that shows a gain in function, increase in complexity/usefulness? Has it been observed in the fruit fly perhaps - I've only heard about 1 useless pair of extra wings? rossnixon 08:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The wing changes are a fine example of how the homeo box works, but not of speciation. For a good list of speciations, check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html. Keep in mind that we've seen increases in adaptation, such as resistance to a disease or poison, that's caused by natural selection but does not result in speciation. We also have genetic evidence linking the lineages of many extant species through extinct ancestors, which is very strong but indirect evidence of speciation with all sorts of changes in complexity and usefullness. A good example of that is the evolution of the whale from a land animal, for which we happen to have a number of clear intermediates, in addition to the usual genetic and phylogenic evidence. This is all off the top of my head, so let me know if you need more information. Alienus 17:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disagreement

See the talk page on social contract ;) Foant 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of where the article is now? Alienus 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Safe Sex"

The quotes around "safe sex" aren't scare quotes, because it isn't truelly safe. If you say safer sex I wouldn't use quotes because that is true, but SAFE sex??? Even a supporter of it defended my point somewhat on the Condom's talk page where he says "I'm not against the term, I just believe in being honest with myself". I hope you will now revert your edits to Safe sex. Chooserr 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've allowed others to take care of your persistent attempts at adding a conservative, religious spin to articles. Alienus 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social contract

Thk for corrections. This article really should be worked on, its worth it! Santa Sangre 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help. I consider social contract theory important, so I'm glad to help. Alienus 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive reverting on Multiple Drafts Model

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. 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. Blocked for 24h, which is a bargain, considering the truly excessive number of reverts involved. Alai 02:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A few things...
First, before I do anything else, could you please confirm that Loxley is blocked for at least the same duration as I am? If not, then something is very wrong here.
Second, I'd like to suggest that the relevant articles to be Protected so as to end this edit war. Unlike Loxley, who does nothing more than make the same unacceptable changes over and over and over again (what you called a "truly excessive number"), I actually contribute. If you look, you'll see that I make a large number of changes to a large number of articles, and most of these changes are entirely uncontroversial. I'd like to continue making them, and if the articles Loxley vandalized are Protected, then I will not be goaded into violating 3RR.
Third, there is something going on here with Loxley. The fact is that I've explained to him -- at length and repeatedly -- why his changes are unacceptable, but he consistently ignores this -- and any sort of consensus -- instead overwriting the article and wiping out contributions by others. His changes are clearly POV and visibly non-factual. In addition, I have links that show he has admitted to a strong bias against Dennett, and that he has made a habit of imposing his biased POV whenever possible, and that he has stalked me to taint every Dennett-related article he can get his hands on. He even tried to use an RfA to get his way, but was rejected. Simply put, Loxley is a POVandal and a menace to Wikipedia, while I am a good citizen who acted to defend articles.
Fourth, my reverts always contain a comment, and most of them ask that he take the issue to Talk, which he wasn't doing. His overwrites are typically without comment, and when there is a comment, it is often an often outrageous lie. In short, because he won't explain his edits and won't take it to Talk, I feel compelled to revert, regardless of the 3RR. Call me a rebel, but I strongly feel that it's more important to do the right thing and protect these articles than to follow the rules. If anything, this is a case of a vandal baiting people into violating 3RR.
That's all I've got to say for now, but I will pursue this matter further and do everything in my power to have Loxley permanently banned from Wikipedia. Alienus 05:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You were both blocked for the same length of time, if that's any comfort. After the block's expired I'll look in on the article again; you should feel free to go to WP:RPP yourself then, of course. I'm making no value judgements here, beyond that you both reverted on an epic scale, and in neither case was it inarguable vandalism. Had either of you been explicitly warned beforehand, or had it not been a "first time offence" for each of you, I'd likely have blocked for longer (given that around six times the number of permissible reverts were involved).

If you feel you're being baited, you shouldn't need me to tell you what the wise response would be -- or at least, what it wouldn't be. If you feel there's insufficient "eyes" on the article(s) in question, make an article content RFC, though frankly given how quickly you were reverting, it would deter anyone else from getting involved, and makes it impossible to tell whether anyone else was concerned about the changes. Personally I'd wait before reverting more than once to see if anyone else wishes to do so, otherwise it's far too easy to get sucked into these "revert cycles".

If the problem's indeed down to Loxley, you'll want to go to WP:WQA, WP:RFC and if necessary WP:RFAr (ideally in that order) to get it resolved one way or another. Alai 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to take sides. If anything, I'd rather avoid bothering admins about this nonsense. Loxley, on the other hand, has already tried an RFM and an RFAr against me, neither one successful due to its merits, and then filed an especially biased RFC. As you surmised, third parties who get involved in this mess tend to quietly back away, then turn and run. And I don't blame them. The latest newcomer, Noisy, has responded by trying to clear both Loxley and me out, using you to do it, which was a dumb move.
Anyhow, there was indeed an excess of reversions and you were just doing your job. Having said that, I don't believe that any positive effect will come of it. If Loxley continues with his POVandalism, I'll request a page Protect and see where it goes from there.
Thanks for explaining my options. Alienus 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Cartesian materialism

Please stop removing comments on that page; it is supposed to be for an open discussion Sceptre (Talk) 15:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making changes without understanding the situation. Loxley's comments are not deleted UNLESS he intermixes them with my own text, in violation of Wikipedia policy. You are not doing anyone a favor here when you jump in without looking. I suggest that, instead of just making changes, read the comment and ask about it if you don't know what it means. Thank you. Alienus 15:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Philosophy of Mind

You are welcome to join the newly-created WikiProject Philosophy of Mind. Porcher 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epistemic Advantage

I found this article in dead-end pages where it has been lingering for a number of months. The original author has made no other wiki contributions. As you have contributed substantially to articles in the Feminism field, could you take a quick look at this and see if it is salvageable and let me know, otherwise I will put it on the AFD list. Thanks MNewnham 16:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for considering me for this, but I'm not sure that I'm the right person for the job. Epistemic advantage is associated with the postmodern wing of the feminist movement, and that's not a wing that I support, so I'd be a poor choice to explain it. Alienus 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you perhaps point me to a page where I might find an appropiate contributor? MNewnham

I can certainly try. Perhaps some of the editors of Postmodern feminism would be helpful. Alienus 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartesian materialism

No problem. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarians??

Libertarians are the ones you claim worship Rand?? Geez... you're even more out of touch than I thought.

Obviously she has long been popular among libertarians and there have just as long been many libertarians who reject her ideas. And, of course, obviously, she rejected libertarianism and refused to be associated with it. Michael Hardy 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rand was famous for her hostility to those who call themselves libertarians, yet her political philosophy was itself libertarian. She admitted as much, but claimed that she had it first and all they did was steal her ideas and present them poorly and without a solid basis. Her biggest problem with them was that they only agreed with her on politics, not everything else. Alienus 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

(Regarding edit summery your Safe Sex reversion) Please review WP:Civil Thanks,--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 23:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

When I reverted your changes, my comment was "undoing bad changes". I stand by this comment; your changes were bad for the article and I'm glad I reverted them. If you try again and do a better job, I may well be able to integrate the better parts, but I'm sure that some bits will end up being cut out. In any case, I don't believe that bad is an uncivil term so I reject your complaint. Alienus 08:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanist Atheism

I still don't agree that humanism is in any way atheistic. Would you like to enter the discussion in the talk page? I won't revert again unless I don't hear from you or lose the argument. Factoid Killer 13:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Secular humanism is largely atheistic. Humanism in general need not be. However, even religious humanists base their ethics on human interests, not divine right, so their moral theory is agnostic at best. Do you disagree? Alienus 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic reversion?

Your revert to oral contraceptive was biased. I added a Citeneeded template to two sentences which I felt needed it, and deleted one unnecessary sentence. Please talk to me on my talk page about this...I'll be around. Chooserr 05:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The citeneeded tags were lost by accident, and I've restored them. However, I also restored the segue sentence that you cut. Alienus 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

copy from talk page of "condoms"

Fine than you have to state specifically "semi-observant" because they aren't totally observent wouldn't you? I mean seriously you can't just say there are varying levels of observance. You have to be observant of all, because that is what the word implies. It is definitive.
I'll make an analogy with the first definition of the word. A guy is walking down the street, he comes to an intersection and steps out into traffic being observant of the birds fluttering in the trees. Would you consider the guy smeared over your bonnet observant? Would it be POV to say he wasn't? Chooserr 08:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody observes 100% of anything, so you can't require perfection. If you want to avoid POV, you either leave it as "observant" or simply say "some", which is accurate and non-judgemental. Alienus 16:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned post from Loomper

I don't know if this message will get to you Alienus. I want you to be reasonable. Where are you getting your facts. Why don't you cite it. I won't post any biasness. I'll post the truth. You can change whatever biases you want, but some of the stuff that you keep posting on there aren't true. (unsigned by Loomper)

Your last edit was to simply wipe out the entire page, which I'd call more than just a little biased. So far, none of your posts have been cited, and all of them have tried to make the Kingston clan look better. Apparently, you're a member of this group and don't want it to look bad.
If you have any strictly factual edits, you need to fully support them with citations. Otherwise, they will be taken as a whitewashing attempt and reverted. If your changes are true, it shouldn't be so hard for you to show citations that support their truth. Alienus 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Where are your Citations? Apparently you have something against the Kingston Clan. Say what you will, but get the facts right. It was NOT in 1800's and there was no guy with the last name of KING! Where are your citations!??!!?!?! (unsigned by Loomper)

I didn't write the original article. If you had even the appearance of neutrality, I might be swayed by the idea that your lack of citations is no worse than the current lack. However, you do show clear bias, so I must demand citations. Unfortunately, you just admitted that your sole source is Original Research, and that's never acceptable. If what you say is true, find references to support it. Otherwise, go away. Alienus 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. As you can see, I get heated over the topic of my religion, but I'm over it. You can change it if you would like, I won't change anything. How do I get rid of my account on this? Once again, I'm sorry. I'll go away. Loomper 04:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you leave Wikipedia, just that you leave this article alone until you're willing to comply with the reasonable demands that Wikipedia puts on editors. If you know about the subject of the article from personal experience, it should be particularly easy for you to find citations to back up what you know personally. What you can't do, though, is speak from personal authority. If you don't want to edit Wikipedia, simply stop logging in under your Loomper account. However, don't leave on my account; leave only if you're unwilling to comply with what's required of all editors.
Just so you know, I have no specific bias against or knowledge of the Kingston clan. I do know a bit about both mainstream (LDS) Mormonism and the fundie variants, both from citable references and personal experience, though I rely only on the former for what I write, allowing the latter to guild my research and offer insight into it. Alienus 16:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for causing any convenience. There are websites that back up my claim as far as the origins, but the websites are all anti-kingston, so I don't prefer to cite them. Anyway, I'm really sorry for being a bother. I'm not leaving wikipedia on account of you. I just barely joined and so I'm not really "into it", I also have a lot of other things which press me for priority. Anyway, I ask your forgiveness, and I hope that I can have a friend out of this rather than an enemy. Loomper 17:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaszloWalrus, Chinese legalism, false neutrality and other unnecessary Wikidrama

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Ayn Rand. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Ayn Rand). Sceptre (Talk) 10:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I find this funny, disgusting and not particularly surprising. For the second time, I've had to deal with an avowed Wikipedia zealot who just won't take it to Talk. And, for the second time, I wind up being blocked alongside them.
What's particularly amusing is Woohookitty's comment on the Ayn Rand talk page, "Work out your differences here, not in edit summaries." Uhm, the entire content of my edit summaries was a repeated request for LaszloWalrus to come back to Talk instead of edit-warring. With both of us blocked, neither of us can participate in Talk. In the manner of Chandler, I must ask: Could your actions have been more counterproductive?
Added irony comes from the fact that I went out of my way to avoid violating the 3RR, warned Laszlow repeatedly that he was approaching a 3RR violation and reported the violation myself. Laszlow clearly violated the 3RR with intent. On the other hand, I'm not sure that I violated it at all. If I did, it would have been despite trying not to, and certainly not despite any sort of warning. Given the context, the most I have deserved is a warning to avoid 3RR myself.
An interesting commonality between LaszloWalrus and Loxley is that both were admitted zealots. The former endorses Ayn Rand religiously, and says on his personal page: "Like all REAL Objectivists, I endorse the Ayn Rand Institute." (original emphasis). The latter compared Daniel Dennett, a philosopher and moderate liberal, to Hitler; enough said.
It seems that I have a habit of butting heads with people who are so incredibly biased that they just can't allow dissent. And it seems that, as per Chinese legalism, I typically (but inconsistently) wind up being branded an outlaw for doing this. One of the hallmarks of that form of legalism is that rulings come down to irrelevant minutia, leading to seemingly arbitrary and morally inconsistent conclusions. For example, it turns out that I've had to deal with vandalism against this particular line of text before; only the last time, it was by some anon user and I wasn't punished for pointing out the problem. I'm sure there's some trivial and irrelevant difference to account for this, but it only underscores my point.
I could go on about the unfairness of this treatment, but I won't. If you can't see why it's wrong from what I've already explained, you never will. I could even remind you that taking even-handedness to the point where Chinese legalists would be proud only serves to demotivate those who genuinely want to contribute and do the right thing. However, this sounds like another lame threat to quit, and I doubt anyone would care, as there's no shortage of people contributing.
I could say a lot of things, but it would be pointless, because I'd be insane to expect fairness and decency from a system of volunteer bureaucrats who are accountable to none. Wikipedia's brand of face-to-faceless corporate "justice" reminds me of why I oppose people like LaszloWalrus in the first place. The message you're sending with your actions is that, just as with Chinese legalism, in striving for the semblance of neutrality, the law is so apathetic towards context and caught up in irrelevancies that it's never safe to invoke it in self-defense; you'd be safer resolving your problems outside the law. In short, it's the sort of law that is so draconian and immoral as to swiftly breed a broad disrespect for the law.
If that was your goal, it worked. At this point, my confidence in and patience with Wikipedia have been further eroded, though it's not quite gone yet. I think it's safe to say though, that you are not dealing with a happy camper. I'm frankly disgusted with the whole thing, from the crazy zealots to the incompetent admins who enable them. I expect that I will at some point run into some other zealot, do the right thing, and be punished for that, too. Eventually, I'll be so sick of this nonsense that I'll walk away (not that you care).
Until then, I'm going to make it a point to protest the rules and the way they're enforced. If I'm going to be mistreated, I might as well vent my anger about it. However, I will under no condition pretend that the administration of Wikipedia is fair or right except where it coincidentally is. Furthermore, I'm going to do the right thing, as I see it, regardless of the consequences to me. Call it civil disobedience, call it disrespect for Jimbo's kingdom; I don't care. Either way, I'm knowingly and willingly walking down the path that will end with my departure. You can club me into the semblance of compliance, for now, but you have lost my respect.
I say all this, not with the hope that you will recognize your error, but simply for my own benefit; it's healthier for me to let it all out. I'm done now, but I'd like to end with the words of Elie Wiesel, who's seen all this before in a different context: "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Alienus 18:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you really just quote Elie Wiesel? A Holocaust survivor from the deathcamps of Auschwitz AND Buchenwald. Are you really saying that being temporarily blocked from posting on Wikipedia puts you in his league? That statment is howling mad.
From what I read of your above statment you have declared your open hostility and intentions for future "civil disobedience" and "disrespect" which I take to be saying that you plan to disrupt Wikipedia.
This is the first time I have really seen you as a possable vandal. I have untill this moment believed that your edits where intended in good faith. I still hold out the posibility that your last post was simply out of anger. In honor of that I would say you should probibly stop hanging out on the Ayn Rand page. I say this for the same reason I stay away from the L. Ron related topics. I could very easly lose prospetive and make a fool of my self. Billyjoekoepsel 21:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Too late; you've already lost your perspective and made a fool of yourself. Zealots like you and LaszloWalrus are the self-interested minorities that are toxic to communal projects. It's up to people like to me to act in good faith and do the right thing, regardless of how misguided or improperly enforced the rules are.
I'm not surprised that you didn't understand the relevance of the Wiesal quote, and I don't think you're capable of doing so, or of understanding much of anything that's relevant to this issue, therefore I'm not going to waste further time on you. If you want to pretend that I'm your enemy, you're free to entertain this or any other delusions. As far as I'm concerned, you're just another card-carrying POVandal, like LaszloWalrus, Loxley and Lumper. I will no longer keep up the pretense that you have the objectivity necessary to act in good faith with regard to Rand and her Objectivism. Alienus 22:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S.
It turns out that LaszloWalrus saw that he was about to violate 3RR and did it anyway. The proof is on your own talk page. Thanks for supporting my search for the truth, however unintentionally. Alienus 22:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
All righty then. Billyjoekoepsel 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You only think you know me. You know nothing. You think you can read this man like a book but your not even in the same library.
This evening I was watching Olympic Ice Dancing. The couple from Israel performed brilliantly to a cut down version of Ravel's Boléro. I was absolutely enraptured. I felt goose bumps on my arms and tingles all over my body. As the music reached the absolute height of its crescendo I put forth my hand and for a moment felt the face of joy. I wept.
Later I spent time at a local night spot dancing with my significant other. I can still feel the warmth of that body as I type this.
I have hopes dreams and aspirations and my life is full so your label's mean nothing to me Alienus. Life is my joy, not what other people think of it and not what you do on this web site.
I have spent some time going through your contribs and you know what I found? Wikipedia is all you have. As sad as that is I pity you for the pain you must have felt for being banned for 24 hours. I can see that it must have been hell. Billyjoekoepsel 04:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry because, as far as I can tell, the sole purpose of your message was to hurt my feelings. As it happens, that attempt suffers from unfortunate premises, such as the notion that I claim to know you or even want to. More deeply, it is based on the premise that you are in the position to judge me. Frankly, I pity you for wanting to hurt me and pity you more for how much you lowered yourself to do so.

For me, this is a matter of making sure the facts aren't whitewashed by petty zealots. I have no emotional connection to you, no avenue by which you mean enough to me for your comments to affect me. I'm not particularly interested in justifying my personal life to you, because I don't know, like or even respect you. Worse, I'm really happy with my life, so there's nothing for you to bite into.

You're a weird little stranger trying to play Randish mind-games. To paraphrase your hero, if you have an ounce of rationality left in you, an ounce of intellectual health, your fingers will be numb for the next 20 years; and if manage to type at all, you'll know it's a sign of still worse intellectual degradation. Or, in my own words, get a life. Alienus 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Smith

The witness through a vision claim has very limited sourcing (i.e. it is less verifiable than the thing it is trying to dispute - that they saw and held the plates). Only Harris is attributed to have made that claim, and then in his old age in an interview. He did not repeat that it was a vision only, even though he had many opportunities to - in a friendly environment of people who believed that you would need to be transfigured to stand in the presence of God. So including that sentence summarizes a complex issue in a very non-neutral way. Additionally, we should be trying to edit out all we can from this article which is over length - and letting the facts stand - the debates should go on the detailed pages. See my edit Trödel•talk 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI - I am stepping out of this Joseph Smith thing for a bit - but am asking COGDEN, who was able to get the early life article up to featured status, to chime in. Trödel•talk 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll continue discussing it on the Talk page of the article. Alienus 00:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Just thought I'd say hi and thanks for your help on the "jesus" article. I feel it's like bashing your head against a brick wall dealing with all the POV pushers and ad hominem arguers. Why can't they see the POV the article has? Why don;t they want verifiability? Surely a verifiable and totally factual article COULD help their case - or is taht the problem - it would just blow it out of the water!!! Anyway, since SOPHIA's disappearance it's goo to have someone else who appears to be trying to reduce the "faith" POV and achieve balance. Robsteadman 20:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to do my part, though I get the feeling that I couldn't have picked a bigger windmill to tilt against. I can understand your frustration, as I already share it even though I just started editing these articles, but I do recommend that you keep your cool. Some people, lacking the ability to rationally support their stance, instead infuriate their opponents, then point that fury as evidence of error.
For the record, I'm not interested in pushing any particular POV on Jesus. I just want the text to read like an encyclopedia, not a sermon. If objectivity is a POV, then I'm guilty of POV-pushing. Alienus 20:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
For my part, although a Christian I do understand Rob's frustration. I do believe that a verifiable and totally factual article WILL help the Christian case, but then I also affirm objectivist NPOV by adhering to the adage "Truth cannot contradict truth." I think we can all work together if we're all civil. Arch O. La 05:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I couldn't care less whether an accurate article makes Christians happy or sad. I do, however, care whether the article is accurate, however, which is why I'm not willing to allow partisans to censor their opposition. This means that both sides need to calm down and stop trying to silence each other. Alienus 05:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good enough. I'm politically a radical centrist, so I like to hear all sides as well. Arch O. La 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppets

How are sock puppet vandals usually dealt with? Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the main account is banned for extended periods, but the sock pupppet accounts are closed down for good. Alienus 03:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I didn't know the procedure. Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A reply to your post on the Talk:Jesus-Myth page

You have posted that due to my temporary silence I have conceded your points. Well, I now break my "silence" to say that I do not concede your points posted on the above-named page. I contend that Jesus-Myth advocacy is a slanted, pseudo-scholarship, which operates with a hidden agenda, but that is my POV I admit. I concede nothing to it or to you. Oh, and by the way, I never attacked you personally: I only interacted with User:Robsteadman as far as I know of. Respectfully submitted by drboisclair 13:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

It seems to me that you are reverting any edits I make to wikipedia no matter the content, or the reasons just on general principal. As I stated else where, I am trying to explain my reasons more often - I hope you will do the same, or at least not stalk me around. Thank you, Chooserr 23:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I revert a lot of changes, most of them outright vandalism. When the reason for the reversion is not obvious, I try to leave a note to explain my reasoning. As for stalking you, that's paranoia. It's simply that you've been making a lot of bad changes to articles I've contributed to. Try making better changes. Alienus 01:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I AM

Not really knowing what I'm doing, but trying to follow the pattern, I want to point out that the 2 most notable characters to use "I am what I am." are Popeye (to Olive Oyl) and God on Sinai (to Moses).

Cgmusselman
And then again, sometimes it's best not to try to read too much into a thing. Alienus 20:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact

I don't doubt it, but I would like to see some sources especially since when I do provide a source - see talk page of parental notification - it is still shot down. We ought to address the reasons for why this law is believed to be benifitial, shouldn't we? Chooserr 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that parental notification and consent laws are not simply about making sure Mommy and Daddy get to hold their "little girl's" hand when she gets an abortion. The laws are supported by anti-abortion groups and necessarily decrease, rather than increase, the number of abortions that occur. However, this might look like editorializing, so it's reasonable to ask that the view be cited. And, in fact, I easily found citation for it.
On the other hand, the fact that some people support parental notification and consent laws but also support laws allowing adult women to have abortions is not in the least bit controversial. Note that no claim of specific percentages is involved, so there's no need for annoying research on the statistics. The sole purpose of the sentence was to make clear that support for one did not mean a rejection of the other. This does not need a cite. Alienus 20:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I agree with you one that, but I would like to say that the stats I entered were from actual polls, if you can find other ones to counter them that is fine, but otherwise I don't think they should be removed. Chooserr 21:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
When it comes to something like precise numbers, we need citations. No cites, no stats.
As for whether there are people who support parental notification while supporting an adult woman's right to choose, I flatly reject any implication that this is controversial and refuse to waste another moment defending this or offering further, unnecessary support.
I'm also not impressed by your repeated attempts to insert POV, such as "pro-abortion", and will revert those on sight, as per the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I do not need to seek consensus or any other support in order to enforce this policy. If you try to revert these changes, that will be considered vandalism. If you repeatedly revert, that will be considered edit-warring. You have been warned. Alienus 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 21:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)