User talk:Peterdjones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Peterdjones! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Peterdjones, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 02:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Quantum mind

I have reverted your edits to this article. Your zeal in adding to it is commendable (you are certainly being bold, but given the large changes you made to the article, there must be consensus before the material is added back. Your edits also need to be put in a form acceptable unde WP:NPOV and must represent quantum mechanics correctly. Please see Talk:Quantum mind. Michaelbusch 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your Edits to Alternative Theories

Many alternative theories about everything exist. Some wilder than others, yet when peer reviewed a page dedicated to alternative theories creates a more complete and accurate Wikipedia. I ask you to restore the page as you found it, while making no objections at the same time to your cleaning up what you see fit (though not the page itself). Especially links to the various Forums where TOEs are being actively discussed are good for every person interested in this subject matter. In general, these are locations where the fantastic yet sometimes also dry scientific facts are mixed in with personal views on everything: it helps shape many young minds, often while furthering scientific education. Science itself has grown due to various outfield perspectives, and previous unsuspected information. The alternative theories may contain many scientific facts. And as a final argument, science itself is only able to deliver theories, not facts on everything. The house that is being built here is 'only' a theoretical house.

This may be one of the clear points where wikipedia needs to grow up itself still; how to address the many points of view that are part and parcel to various subject matters, such as for instance the overall theory of everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FredrickS (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

It wasn't me who turned it into a redirect.1Z 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your addition to What the Bleep Do We Know?

I have removed the link you added. Wikipedia prohibits linking to copyright violation (see Wikipedia:Copyvio), and a complete transcript of the movie extents past fair use unless permission has been given by the copyright holder. Michaelbusch 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: David Deutsch page. See also: simulated reality

Fair enough - I've restored the link. An anon had added that link to a few dozen pages where it didn't really belong, in an apparent attempt to make the article seem more important. I tried to leave it in a couple where it seemed to fit, but slipped up & missed Deutsch's connection. --Davepape 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simulated reality

Thanks for all the good editing work!

-Lord Volton, III, of House Florian.

[edit] philes and phobes

Hi Peter,

you left a signature at talk:qualia, but no comments. Was that on purpose? --Trovatore 00:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Materialism etc..

Hi Peterdjones. Thanks for your contributions to Self refuting ideas. But we can't put un-referenced arguments into WP articles. You need to say "but philosophers such as X argue that.." NBeale 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peterdjones. I'm afraid your links to SEP on Foundationalism still don't work. Can you fix please. NBeale 22:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computability of physics

Peter, I think this section can be edited down to 2-3 paragraphs. I'll give you the first crack at it.

Less is more.

Lordvolton 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


No. I am not editing down referenced, rigorously argued material. Why don't you edit down something else. "Humanity itself" could be edited down to the sentence "the creators of the simulation we are in, according to the Simulation Hypothesis, are not necessarily human", for instance. Or "Religious Arguments" could be edited down to nothing.1Z 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Materialism

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Peterdjones! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noumenon

This material left on my talk page is reproduced here for convenience, with my response below. ... Kenosis 18:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Please explain which specific editorial policies you were referring to in your decision to revert.1Z 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

'Noumenon ... is "defined" as "thing-in-itself"'.

Do you have a source for that?1Z 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


"Placing section on Noumena and the Thing-in-itself under criticisms with an OR tag)"

1. Its not criticism, it is explanation.

2 If you can source it, it isn't OR, and you know that I can source it, because there were many citations of primary source material in the version you reverted. I notice that you have still made no effort to source any of your stated opinions on the subject.

"Kant's usage is why the word is in our lexicon today".

I know. I stated so in my revision of the lead which you reverted. That Kant was not using "noumenon" in the classical sense was criticism made by Schopenhauer, as the article states. Kant himself aludes to the fact that he is using it to mean "not sensible" rather than "inteligible":

"If we are pleased to name this object noumenon for the reason that its representation is not sensible,.."

You attitude is most unhelpful. Your changes do not have editorial justification as AFAICS.

1Z 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What !Z attempted to apply to the article is original-research-based analysis of Kant, attempting to argue, based upon Kant's Critique, that "Ding-an-sich" (thing in itself) is not what Kant meant. I don't have time to give a lesson in Kant, but the assertion shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the context and influence of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's original research, and that's why I placed it under "criticisms" and put up an "original research" tag. That has nothing to do with "attitude" as you say here.

Briefly, why I reverted the newly written lead earlier on was that it started with an etymology rather than a definition. Currently the reads fairly reasonably again (after your last edits), so this time I left it as it stands. I removed the sentence alleging that "thing-in-itself" is a controversial interpretation, and as I said, placed the subsection on the same issue under criticisms with an OR tag, pending further discussion and analysis. ... Kenosis 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing for the moment. I did not assert that noumenon is defined as "thing-in-itself". Many editors have had their hands on this, and I support changing that to a more appropriate definition. The current definition is a reasonable choice in my estimation. ... Kenosis 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Was that Sysyphus? or Sisyphus. You should see the debate over this bot and category at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20. My objection is it's intrusive and highly inaccurate, and editors are entitled to make article-by-article decisions what their "citation-needed" policies will be. Now all of them, or virtually all of them, are labeled "February 2007". In addition, the whole thing involved an administrative override of an earlier community decision to do away with the category out of which the bot operates. Anyway, nice contributions recently in these philosophy-related articles; my compliments!. ... Kenosis 01:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverts

We discussed at length the Occam's Razor criticisms in the discussion page. You might not agree with the criticisms, but they're legit. I've also asked you to edit down the Computability of Physics material which is neither concise or to the point.

So far you've refused.

You need to edit it down or let others edit it.

Lordvolton 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

They are legit in your opinion. However, you were not able to make a clear case.

I am not obligated to acceded to your requests. You have not made a case based on the wikipedia editorial guidelines. You have not explained why Computability of Physics should be edited down, when there is so much more material in the article. You have shown no interest whatsoever in my other suggestions about shortening the article. You edits always leave the article a little shorter, and a lot more positively inclined to the SH. The conclusion is obvious.1Z 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My issue is not the content as much as the format and style. Simply state the issue and state the criticisms and then let people come to their own conclusion. And omit, omit, omit when possible. Less is more. Lordvolton 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The subject is complex and presentation is concise under the circumstances. I am not aware that wikipedia has any guidelines on brevity other than keeping a page below 50k.1Z 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Quale

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Peterdjones! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit to Metaphyics

I think you may have missed the point that the British "constitution" is unwritten.1Z 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, I understood that. I felt that the examples were too specific, particularly due to cultural qualifiers. Try to find examples that are not culturally bound. --NightSky 15:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for improving the unreferenced paragraph I had deleted

I noticed you restored and improved the unreferenced paragraph in the criticism section of New Age ( diff ). I'm generally a skeptic, so I had no issue with the point being made, but the section was vague and unsupported and I didn't have time to research it and fix it. With your improvements and reference it reads very well now, thanks for your help. Parzival418 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Margolis

Will add to Margolis, explaining robust relativism, if you could help with formatting my Margolis page. Relationalism is often said to be "the true for of relativism" precisely because it is so easy to defeat. Agreed, many valued logics are not per se relativism BUT robust relativism IS a many valued logic.

Pete Muckley


Thanks so much for fixing up the Margolis page. Will get back to Relativism as soon as I can.

Pete Muckley

[edit] 3RR:Peter Hitchens

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. You are in danger of being blocked for violating WP:3RR. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Yakuman 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] framing merge proposal

Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Complex systems

Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call for Deletion for the associated Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fries

About French fried potatoes: Unless you have verified the actual text in the reference, the saint 'first fried potatoes' (before cutting them?) should mean 'was the first to fry potatoes', the statement is that she fried the first chips. Your American preference is at fault: In Europe, British English is preferred and such is Wikipedia standard for articles (or in this case specific sections) about such countries. Especially the use of "fried fries" would not occur, and is all the more reason to maintain the original text, rather than making a completely different statement. "Fried potatoes" is in several languages the term for pan-fried sliced potatoes, about 7 mm thick.
Your translation of 'frietkot' by 'chip shack' is an error: friet (in frietkot) is not the singular of 'frieten' but a rendering of what the French 'frites' sounds like; it is used as for bulk. One cannot say "a bag of chip" but "een pak friet" is common. (There has been a confusion between the Netherlands using 1 friet / several frieten and Flanders writing friet as Dutch-language spelling for frites, and thinking of 's' as plural form. Dutch language forms plurals by adding -en or -s, depending the word; a few words officially allow both methods but then there is often a regional aspect. But things about fri[e]t[en|s] became mixed in peoples minds in both countries during the last 40 years or so). Sidenote: When I was a young teenager, "een pak frieten" still sounded almost as funny as "a milksman" would to you, but we got used to it by Dutch TV becoming available in Flanders. Already older usage in Flanders had a possibility of explicitly mentioning the singular or plural, by using the diminutive 'frietje' / 'frietjes' (a difference one can hear because the 's' for Dutch language plural is pronounced). Though 'frietkot' is a coined term, saying 'frietjeskot' would be quite normal for a small child, 'frietjekot' would never come into its mind. The article states that the term 'frietkot' is adopted by the French speakers in Belgium; they would however more often write it as friteskot (though being very colloquial, it may not be written as readily as it is uttered). A 'kot' is a shack, not a stall, but I'll introduce the latter term as the correct translation for 'kraam'. — SomeHuman 17 Apr 2007 01:01 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant whether "friet" is singular or plural, "chips shack" is not corect in English. You have not grasped what I mean by over-literal translation. Would you translate "pommes de terre" as "apples of ground"?
"Shack" is not a dubious translation as it has a slightly derogatory meaning in English (close to "hovel"). I don't know why you resist "stall".
I can illustrate both poits with this
1Z 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply because 1) I would not translate "pommes de terre" as "apples of ground" but if I want to express the origin (or in another case, connotations) of the term, I would indeed write, "'pommes de terre' (literally: 'ground apples')" [were it not that this could be confused with grinding apples, it might have to become "apples from the ground" - not "apples of ground" because this is not a literal but a bad translation, as "apples made from ground/dirt"] and not 'potatoes'. That's the usage in the article. 2) A 'kot' does mean a 'shack' including its quite clearly derogative meaning! (said of a badly build shack at the back of an old house, or of a dirty and terribly maintained house in which one definitely does not want to live, or of the not luxuriously appearing shack to keep a dog - a decent one would be a 'hok'). Which is why I call it "very colloquially" in the article, while 'frietkraam' is slightly less colloquial. With respect to what I wrote here above, the 'neutral' term would rather be 'friteskraam', at least in Belgium: Not only the French write 'friteskot', such was once the normal form in Flanders as well, while 'friet' was considered a modernistic, overly progressive, rather uneducated spelling. These connotations remain in (older) peoples minds in Belgium, but the currently more common spelling is 'friet' (and 'frieten' became a normal alternative spelling as well). In particular for the combination with the derogative 'kot', the spelling 'frietkot' is probably the only one that still occurs. I do not think the article would gain quality by using 'frietkot' and 'friteskraam' and trying to explain these variant spellings in Dutch. — SomeHuman 17 Apr 2007 02:22 (UTC)
By the way, there are other deliberately derogative joke-like terms in particular for food and gastronomy, e.g. older Dutch and Flemish 'kieken' is now 'kip' (chicken) ; here too one uses 'kiekenkot' (in Flanders) whereas the neutral term is 'kippenren' or 'kipperen' (whichever the latest spelling revision preferred) from 'kippen' and 'rennen' (to run). There are several restaurants by the name 'Het Kiekenkot'. In this case the derogative is triplefold: 'kieken' as not quite proper Dutch (any more), 'kieken' is also a term to call someone stupid, and 'kot' as 'shack'. Other samples can be more simple, e.g. a "paardeoog" (literally: 'horse's eye') is the normal Dutch for a fried egg. Notice here why it makes sense to make a clear distinction between a translation and a literal rendering. — SomeHuman 17 Apr 2007 02:55 (UTC)

[edit] Simulated Reality

You need to stop attempting to debate your points within the article. I understand that you really want everyone to come to your conclusion, but this isn't an argumentative essay. It's an encyclopedia. We know you think it's "real". We understand that is your conclusion.

Your entries that beg the reader to come to your conclusion have been allowed to stay for the most part. Running around the internet to find quotes that support you conclusion will result in everybody else doing the same.

And of course you'll hate that and remove it. We've already been done this road when you started linking to the website of your "friend" to prove your point.

And then I'll point out you're being unfair and applying a double standard and remove your entries. And we'll end up with a fair article.

Save me the trouble and simply stop attempting to turn this article into Peter Jones presents!

Lordvolton 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

it's precisely because it is an encyclopedia that notable sources like Russell should be quoted.

"Running around the internet to find quotes that support you conclusion will result in everybody else doing the same."

Yes, that's how WP articles get written, as you would know if you had worked on more than one. Now find some quotes to support your debating position. It's not like you don't have one. 1Z 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Mechanics and Reality

Have you read this?

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/4/14

Lordvolton 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bernard Lonergan, I have posted the question to the discussion page. I'm not quite sure of the basis for your contention that he is not notable as a metaphysician. --Myles P Dempsey Jr 08:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Will add to Margolis, explaining robust relativism, if you could help with formatting my Margolis page. Relationalism is often said to be "the true for of relativism" precisely because it is so easy to defeat. Agreed, many valued logics are not per se relativism BUT robust relativism IS a many valued logic.

Pete Muckley

Mr. Jones,

It would be appreciated if you would refrain from tampering with the multiculturalism page of Wikipedia.

Thank You,

Management

You are the one who is tampering. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:OR.1Z 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. If you want to kind people that you are in authority, at least get yourself a login.

[edit] Occam's razor->Ockham's razor

Thanks for moving the talk page. I am a little slower than you ;) I did check the talk page btw, but do not see a reference to that being rejected and barely discussed. I did however see incongruence as the "Occam" directed to "Ockham's razor" - just trying to clean up and create continuity. Thx for your help and guidance. User_talk:Ddarby14 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact

Thank you for your contributions. May I dispute your deletion of my edit to the opening definition statement of the article Fact in which I wrote "In common useage a "fact" is a perception derived from the individual's beliefs". Perhaps my statement should have included "wrongly used', however to simply delete and to describe my edit as an incorrect statement is being unreasonable.
In common useage a person may say to me "Women drivers are worse than men, that's a fact" whereas what the person means is that, within his belief, women are worse drivers. The later editor changed my opening statement of definition to a better one; but to my mind an opening statement which defines what a fact IS, followed by my statement of what a fact IS NOT in common useage, greatly clarifies the definition to the common or average reader. It also seems to me that the final clause of definition "In "philosophy"...etc" should be deleted from the definition and included (in some form)within the subsection *In Philosophy. Regards Geoffrey Wickham 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

When someone says "that's a fact" what they mean is that it isn't just their opinion. It is not that the word "fact" has acquired a new meaning, the opposite of the old one, the issue is that the claim is false -- it is just their opinion.
Readers who do not understand the philosophical definition can use the wikilinks. 1Z 11:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Peterdjones, please take a moment to review Talk:Fact#Scientific_section:_recent_major_update_and_duplicated_content when you have an opportunity. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] True believer....

The page basically said the same thing several times, it was also overly verbose and contained a lot of completely unnecessary quotations. Why say something with 500 words when you can say the exact same thing with 50? My version got straight to the point, said what needed to be said, and gave a clear and verifiable example from a notable source. Anything after that is unnecessary.

Besides, the page was self defeating. Psychologically, when readers encounter something that appears to be talking over their heads (for example, the LONG quotations), or trying to hammer the same argument into them over and over again (four examples of the exact same phenomona), they will turn against it and disbelieve it on general principle.

perfectblue 19:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the quotations and references is that people keep trying to delete material off the page on the basis, usually spurious, that it is underverified. The referencing could be tidied up, but it is needed.1Z 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting/editing Quantum mechanics

No hard feelings, you definitely made the right call reverting my edits (see my notes on the talk page for that article). --shoyer 10:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack (manque)

It might help if "manque" were explained? Corvus cornix 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's basically French for "lack", but Continentalists like to leave key terms in the original on the grounds that they have untranslatable shades of meaning. 1Z 22:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simulated Realities

Hi, I apologize but I have accidentally overwritten you two latest comments (6/29 around 6 pm EST) on this topic. I was moving sections to do a re-write to get it more organized and you edited in the meanwhile. I am still a little new here and undid your work. Thanks. Artman772000 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)artman772000

[edit] I think the edit is an improvement.

I think those discussing agree that someone has to go in there and re-organize the thing. The same idea is communicated and re-communicated multiple times in multiple sections. I also feel that it is not reasonable to discuss a total re-organization in detail. Isnt it true that someone has to go for it eventually. Every major point that was there before is still there, except now such points are there in only one location. I pulled comments on identical topics into one coherent section, I also pooled truly redundant comments into one. I think almost anyone would agree that it is an improvement without removal of any idea that was there. So, please take a look and let me know what you think.

[edit] Discussion

Hi Peter, So I added something in the talk section about my edits. Thanks, Art Artman772000 04:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)artman772000

[edit] Beer

You have made some very nice contributions to the beer articles, but also some that are not so nice. Quadrupel, for example, is the name of a Dutch beer. It is not the style of the beer, but the name. If people misunderstand that, it is not the role of an encyclopedia to support that misunderstanding -- it is to correct that misunderstanding. I will remove all your references to quadrupel and ask that you not encourage misunderstanding, but discourage it. Mikebe 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Quadrupel" is used as the name of a style by some people, albeit not in Belgium. Just because it is a name does not mean it is also not a style, or Dubbel would not be a style since there are beers called "Dubbel". 1Z 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

These "some people" are incorrect. It is not a beer style in Belgium or the Netherlands and since the article in question is Belgian beer, use of the term is incorrect. Dubbel and tripel are also not styles, despite what "some people" may think. Because the Trappist beers have a high respect in Belgium and the Netherlands, some brewers borrow the names because they think it adds a value to their products. I am myself Dutch and a member of Zythos, the Belgian beer consumers organisation. This is mostly misinformation from non-Belgians and non-Dutch and does not belong in articles about Belgian or Dutch beer. Mikebe 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you think decides on official styles, especially in Belgium. There is a style of monastic beer that is stronger than a tripel, and no-one has a name for it except Q-know-who.

BTW, I am a member of CAMRA and a former resident in Belgium.1Z 13:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I DO know who decides on official styles in Belgium: no one! Because there are no official or unofficial styles in Belgium or the Netherlands. There is not at all a "monastic style" stronger than a tripel. Since you are a member of CAMRA and lived in Belgium, I assume you know who Tim Webb is. Why not consult his guide to Belgian beer for the facts? Or, if you can read Dutch, I highly recommend Jef van den Steen's "Trappist. Het bier en de monniken". If you can find quadrupel or a "monastic style" stronger than a tripel in either book, I will concede the point. However, as you won't find it in either one (I have both books), we can end this discussion and remove quadrupel from Belgian beer! Mikebe 14:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Westvleteren 12.

If there are no official styles in Belgium, there can be any number of unofficial ones.1Z 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say I find this conversation a bit silly in that I must prove to a foreigner's satisfaction that I know my own culture! I would never presume to argue with you about British beer because I assume you know much more about it than I do. Can I not get the same respect from you? And if no, why? I thought you wrote articles on logic. Can you explain why you put a "fact" tag in the tripel article asking to prove a negative? Isn't that logically impossible? And why are you trying to force your "unofficial" styles on a foreign country? You are not contributing any facts -- only offering me your opinions. I have cited two books. Can you cite one from an authoritative source that supports your position? If you have no facts to contribute, can we not end this in peace and move on? Mikebe 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

yes the conversation is silly.

Tripel is a recognised style inside and outside the country. There are any number of sources supporting this -- google "Belgian Tripel" (160,000 hits). I do not recall Webb (another foreigner, by the way)making the claim that is is not a style.

I notice that you cannot explain what Westvleteren 12 is. 1Z 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I've had enough. You have now become insulting. I will remove your references to quadrupel and the fact reference in the tripel article. When you know as much about Belgian beer as I do, we can have this discussion again. Mikebe 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not addressing this issue in accordance with wikipeida guidelines. You need to find independent confirmation for your views.1Z 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quadrupel and Tripel Articles

I thought I'd throw in a comment or two as I was involved with the Quad article the last time this discussion came up. This might be a little overboard, but you'll get the gist. In Belgium each beer is considered an individual work of art which should never be compared to another. Some triples are sweet, some dry, some dark, some pale. Even though ALL of La Trappe's other beer besides the Quadrupel are "syle names" like bock, tripel, and dubbel, the name Quadrupel on the bottle is as significant as if the would have called it Charles...in Mikebe's words. It's not a style, just a name. The fact that US breweries have picked up on the term and use it does not make it a belgian style...it's a US style. In Mikebe's opinion it would be as if US breweries started making a bunch of beers name Nocturnam after Delerium Nocturnam. I think Tim Webb's book would probably be a source for the disputed fact claim in the Tripel article. I've never read it, but the index does not mention the term Quadrupel in a generic sense, just in the context of the one Trappist beer.Beakerboy 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I have read Webb's guide, and I don't recognise mike's version of what it says (particularly on Tripel). it might be helpful to have some quotes. Imitating a beer is one of the main mechanisms by which "styles" evolve. Most of the beer drunk in the world today is an imitation of the beer originally brewed in Pilsen. Names can become styles, IOW.

I have noticed that many Belgian cafe owners are quite happy to offer categorised beer lists. 1Z 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep

Hey, thanks for joining in, helping to find sources and moving this thing forward! Dreadstar † 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep sandbox

I would prefer it if we kept the Bleep sandbox strictly for presenting and discussing sources, not discussing policies or other items.

Let me copy this here, and we can discuss policy and guideline on our talk pages. Dreadstar † 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He is an expert himself and he was involved in the movie. In fact, he is probably the best-qualifed individual in the movie. What qualifies as reliable in your book? You seem to be setting the bar incredibly high. 1Z 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not setting any bar, Wikipedia Policy is the bar-setter. Not sure what you expect to get from Albert, but emails to and from you, phone conversations, faxes, anything not published in a reliable source is not content that can be included in Wikipedia.
If you doubt anything I've put forth, please feel free to check with other editors on the relevant policy or guidline talk page, put in for a WP:3O, or any other steps according to the Wikipedia Policy on Resolving disputes. I'm very experienced with the policies I've mentioned here, but, heck, I could be wrong. Please doublecheck me, and set your mind at ease! Heck, I've doublechecked myself in that fashion. And please, assume good faith. Dreadstar † 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that policies are discussed so that one particular intepretation does not slip through by default.1Z 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, the sandbox is not the apropriate place to discuss this. Discuss on our talk pages, or on the main article talk page.

I am still far from convinced by the "related to the movie" requirement. It does not seem to be followed elsewhere on WP. 1Z 19:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand your position, may I recommend following what I've outlined in this post. Just because other articles "do something" or "don't do something," doesn't necessarily mean this article should or shouldn't do it. We follow the applicable policies and guidelines, not what has been done in other articles. This page is not the right place to discuss this, it is for presenting sources. Dreadstar † 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The applicable policies and guidelines are not clear on the issue. The fact that your interpretation of OR is not being put into practice elsewhere is evidence against its being a genuine policy. 1Z 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Policy and consensus do not agree with you. Dreadstar † 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You keep rejecting sources for not meeting your criterion. So it is 1-way discussion or 2-way discussion. I choose the latter. 1Z 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not my criteria, dude. Dreadstar † 22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
So you say. 1Z 18:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
So says consensus. Dreadstar † 18:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Copied from the Bleep sandbox:

Please review WP:NOR. Dreadstar † 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it still doesn't offer clear support to you interpretation. But here's a funny thing: In a footnote it says: Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. But the crankery is going on in WTB itself.
Fine. I've done my very best to present details and evidence backing my view of WP:NOR, provided supporting comments by a veteran Administrator, and created this sandbox so we could source. I'm done arguing with you. Take it up the chain if you like, but please confine your edits here to sourcing and not policy. I will probably refactor this page to fit it's purpose and move policy comments to appropriate pages. Dreadstar † 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


There is no clear consensus at Synthesis dispute. Separating sourcing issues form policy issues would involve ceasing to reject sources that do not meet the disputed policy. 1Z 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No one is separating the two. The Bleep sandbox is for presenting and discussing new sources for the OR, not for disputing whether or not policy applies to the existing article's content that has been copied to the sanbox, and identified as OR. This does not preclude discussing whether or not a newly presented source meets policy.
But you have moved discussion of policy regarding new sources out of the sandbox. 1Z 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please point out even a single instance of where I moved a policy discussion over a new source to the Sandbox policy discussion page. Dreadstar † 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
OK:
[1]
Excellent try, but that comment appears to be merely an argumentative statement about the fundamental application of WP:NOR to all the sources you want to see included in the article. It is in no way a constructive comment about policy application to a newly presented source. It does not belong on the bleep sandbox. The true source presentation and discussion is still in place on the bleep sandbox.
I challenge you to present evidence of a single instance of a true comment addressing a newly presented source for the OR that was moved. However, if you feel that strongly about that comment remaining on the in the main sandbox, we can put it back. Please identify any others.... Dreadstar † 17:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your challenge as it was phrased. I would rather not get into an argument over the newly-introduced sub-issue about what is "argumentative" and what is not. 1Z 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That's your interpretation of how it was phrased. I honestly would like to know if I have inadvertently moved a comment that should have stayed. If you can't come up with one, then I kindly ask you to retract your accusation. Dreadstar † 18:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
By inspection, your original challenge did not include the words "argumentative" or "constructive". I cannot say what should move or what should stay, since I cannot make sense

of your criteria, at least in relation to your contributions 1Z 18:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, perhaps we each define "discussion of policy" differently. However, upon my clarification, you are unable to come up with any evidence, and continue to argue what is essentially a straw man. That's all I have to say on the subject unless you provide evidence to back up your accusation. Dreadstar † 18:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a distinct difference between the two orders of dispute re: policy as it applies to the live article's sources and content, and the discussion of sources and policy vis-a-vis newly presented sources. I hope this clarifies matters! Dreadstar † 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] container space

I'm not an expert, so if you know of a better, insert it instead. DGG (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Those look fine, thankyou for your good work. 1Z 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep OR straw poll

There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar † 16:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to your accusation of railroading. Please assume good faith, but if you truly believe this is being railroaded, then file a complaint on the Administrator's noticeboard. You may want to note that User:SlimVirgin is an administrator with a great deal of experience in Policy issues, who has commented on the issue. Although being an administrator does not give her vote more weight, I think her opinion is a good measuring stick for this issue. Dreadstar † 20:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to continued confusion around the scope of the Bleep OR straw poll, I’ve added a clarification note to say that the poll is primarily meant to see if everyone agrees that a majority of that content identified as unsourced or improperly sourced OR in the Bleep sandbox, is indeed OR. Please feel free to change your vote if necessary. Please post a message on my talk page if any of this is unclear. Thanks for your patience! Dreadstar † 17:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert on Belgian beer

Can you explain why you reverted my edits to Belgian beer? For instance, is there any reason the discussion of purchasing Belgian Beer in America should be under a section heading of "Outlets in Belgium"? Among other edits, such as delinking the word Brussels which is linked twice in the same line of text, I think this edit was in good faith and should not have been removed. MKoltnow 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. All is forgotten. MKoltnow 01:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualophobe

Do you really think this merits its own page? (Subtext: I don't, but you often tend to be right about things, so maybe I am missing something!) Anarchia 07:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I originally wanted it on quale, but I was informed that it was "insulting". There is a disucssion on the talk page 1Z 08:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Would you mind if I had another go at getting it into that article or a couple of others? I would leave the existing one for a while to see if the addition to 'Quale' (puke title) takes.Anarchia 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Be my guest. 1Z 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social Simulation

I thought you might enjoy this book on simulations. It's on google books and the link is a little long.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kkQnUwQW8UAC&pg=PA72&dq=social+simulation&as_brr=1&sig=AczgrhdcEsnVOLYlwxwqSEdNMtU

Lordvolton 07:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of matter and form

Hi there. Thanks for your interest. I would have thought rather you would have a problem with the whole article, which in no way presents the theory of matter and form. However, let's go on from here. What you see there is a new introduction. What seems to trouble you are the statements about physics. I would say, if you really want to be troubled, get more into the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Items there disappear suddenly into nothing and just as suddenly reappear where they have no right mathematically to be. It's a big subject. Let me reassert, there are no electrons as such and that is the view espoused in quantum mechanics. The term "electron" is a convenient assertion. You can describe the mathematics and physics of it by conveniently refering to little round balls flying around the nucleus. There are no little round balls. You are limited by the inherent physics of the situation from ever finding either their momentum or their position precisely and if you can never find them than by the economy principle they cannot exist and so whatever they are they cannot be little round balls in motion. All this is standard physical philosophy. Nothing new here. Physicists talk about some sort of wave or wave function, which is best presented mathematically as a "probability" function stating the "probability of finding the electron there." And then you have Einstein saying matter and energy are one and the same, not to mention the "dual nature" of light.

Anyway with that over I should explain that this introduction will introduce the sections that follow when I get through with them and those sections will include ample and adequate references to good and scholarly books on the subject. So, I've only just begun, moved by the fact that no one who knows anything about it seemed to be taking a hand. I know I have a wolf by the tail. The alternative is for Wikipedia to admit philosophic defeat. Certain cliques will not allow philosophy to be written on Wikipedia. I'm not ready to give up yet. You don't see any statement by statement references to books in the introduction (yet) because I am not sure of the final layout. The main references to those ideas summarized in the introduction will come later in the article. I hope you did not think that the article was an actual article that said anything! Wikipedia is to some degree self-delusional; one thinks that because one has written something, that something is valid and authoritative.

Now for the physical statements I have a few dozen books here written for the general public by reputable physicists and scientific authors. I can cite everything said, but this is an article about matter and form. So I do not wish to get too heavily into physics at this point. I've seen quite a few Wikipedia physical articles and they are not written for the general public. Eventually they will get requests for someone to write them in a comprehensible manner but so far that work remains to be done. Similarly I have another dozen or so college textbooks from the big Catholic universities so I have no problem backing up the philosophy part. I just did not want to teach a course in metaphysics or present this as a catholic thing so my main sources are going to be Plato and Aristotle and possibly St. Thomas and the non-denominational scholarship on their writings. It will of course include some of the big catholic philosophers such as etienne gilson, who I think is in there to some degree but I doubt if she is correctly represented.

So I would say, bear with me for now, but if you cannot do that throw all the templates in there you like or raise all the issues you like. Whatever you do cannot make the article worse than it already was. Make whatever changes you like. If you err I will revise that stating my reasons. For the moment I wish to get the main works and ideas of modern/ancient scholarship in there so the public can actually get an idea of the theory. Crank web sites are not a source and this is not a crank or cult topic. So that is where I am. One needs to stick to it to accomplish anything so you will see much more of me here or in the article. I tried making suggestions in the discussion but apparently no one cared to work on the article who could profit by them. If you have never read any Plato and Aristotle you are not a good author for this article and Internet philosophy blogs just do not cut it. To go further with this you need to state more precisely just what you find objectionable. I think you will find me a reasonable man, but beware, I expect the same of you. If you are going to throw a template in, state what it is that bothers you; otherwise, I will just delete it. I think that is reasonable. I can't fix something I don't know is broken, if it is.Dave 14:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a physics degree and I have been studying the philosophy of physics for many years; "getting into it" is not the issue. "there are no electrons as such" is a ridiculous statement. 1Z 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


"One thing you need to do urgently is contextualise your statements as "Plato believed.." , "Aristotle stated.." etc. 1Z 14:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] quantum mind

"Please note the difference between verifying that someone has claimed XYZ, and verifying XYZ itself." <-- I understand that distinction. I think the way the article says, "Galileo and Newton (together with their admirers, viz., Locke, Hobbes and Descartes) excluded the secondary qualities from the physical world," implies that quantum mind theorists have reason to believe that Galileo, Newton, Locke, Hobbes and Descartes placed human sensory experiences outside of the physical world. You now seem to indicate that there is no reason to believe that, but quantum mind theorists believe it anyhow. I've read a large amount from these folks, and I do not recall seeing such a claim, so I'm asking for citations and direct quotes to support this. --JWSchmidt 18:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a claim is given with regard to Galileo immediately below the passage you object to. 1Z 18:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Stapp

Good to see the reference to Stapp's work. I reckon that he was quite bold to write Mindful Universe and put it on the net. I'm not entirely sure that he's right, but it was a good try. Davy p 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I am the person that wrote the "criticism" section on "chinese room". Searle's argument sounds idiotic and infantile to me. I thought that this was true for everybody sane who knows anything about computers. I felt that a "personal essay" systems reply is appropriate. You obviously did not. It is not OR, it has been said many times before. Could you tell me why it is inappropriate? I do not want to restore it until we agree. Likebox 17:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I hasn't just been said many times before, it has been said in Searle's original paper and elsewhere on the page. Have you actually read Searles' paper all the way through? 1Z 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not read Searle's paper at all, and I am not planning to ever read it. I read part of an essay in one of his books once a long time ago, and that was more than enough for me.Likebox 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You are not qualified to work on the article then. 1Z 20:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, you are not qualified to work on the article. Please don't resort to name calling. Qualifications don't come from reading. I have understood Searle's arguement completely, I have been aware of it for 20 years, and I am not going to go back and read more about it, because I sorted it all out to my own satisfaction years ago. That does not mean I expect everyone to agree with me.Likebox 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You have already made mistakes due not reading the source material, ie the non memory claim. "Agreement" is not the issue, the issue is WP:V andWP:N. 1Z 08:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody's perfect! Likebox 19:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, and you need to write edit summaries and/or make comments on the talk page and not just revert.1Z 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I get it, I do. We have a disagreement. I don't think we will agree on Searle's argument, but I just don't know why you think my point of view is somehow inferior to your point of view and does not deserve representation. The fact that I am closed minded (as are a lot of people) does not mean that the whole discussion should be deleted.
Every problem should be presented from all viewpoints, not just one. Since the counterarguments are phrased in Searlish language, it is heavily biased towards Searle's point of view. I don't mind if you write the Searle stuff, but let someone like me write a criticism section too.Likebox 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not a question of being pro or anti Searle. "Replies" is a criticism section, and it is properly sourced. 1Z 20:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
But someone who thinks that Searle's argument is legitemate wrote it. It would be nice if someone who thinks Searle's argument is illegitemate would have written it. It would more fairly represent the point of view.Likebox 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The argument has been criticised and the criticisms have been mentioned. What is "illegitimate"? Another word for "I don't like it"? 1Z 08:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
In this context, illegitemate means trivial to refute. You don't have to believe that (to me obvious) refutation, called the "systems reply", but you don't have to censor it either. Likebox 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not being censored, there is whole section on it.1Z 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity--- mind you, I am done with this Searle business as far as the article goes--- I can see that there is no way you will allow my edits. But I am curious. What is your personal position about this chinese room argument? Why do you think that the systems reply doesn't demolish it? You have every right not to answer of course. It might be your religious beliefs that prevent machines from thinking. But I wonder, because you are certainly very insistent.Likebox 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The SR doesn't demolish it because a) Searle and others have counterarguents to the response b) it leads to counterintuitive implication like thinking stomachs. "Religion belief" is a cheap shot. 1Z 08:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I respect religious beliefs, so it is not a "shot" at all, nor is it cheap. I agree that the argument that machines think leads to counteintuitive consequences, like stomachs thinking. That's why it is interesting. But Searle's argument really has no bearing. Why does it matter if Searle doesn't understand Chinese to the question of whether the system does? You could argue that the system doesn't understand chinese for other reasons, but that's not Searle's argument. For example, you could say "if this system is concious, how do I distinguish between conscious and unconscious systems?"Likebox 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, intuitions on whether systems larger or smaller than a human being can be conscious differ greatly. I think Buddha would have said "of course a stomach is conscious! Everything is conscious." Since Buddha probably didn't study any formal logic or computer programming, I think it is safe to say he came to this conclusion by following his intuition.
If you ask a religious monotheist whether systems larger than a human being can be conscious, they will say "There is always god!" And so, their intuition includes consciousnesses larger than a human being.
If you ask an economist whether the "market", a system larger than any one person, can make autonomous decisions, some will say "of course, yes", so I think some economists intuition is that systems larger than a human being can be conscious.
So Searle's argument about this being "counterintuitive" isn't universal. To many people, the intuition goes the other way. Personally, I don't like to discriminate. If it computes and it evolves, it is conscious.Likebox 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the AI research programme is a waste of money, then. 1Z 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Come on, be serious. The AI research is to make an intelligence that we can communicate with, that acts like a human being. None of the programs that we have written to this day have the property that they compute and evolve. They mostly just compute the same things again and again.Likebox 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godel's Theorem

What is dubious??? I only added well known and uncontroversial stuff. If you tell me what is dubious, I will explain. I would also prefer that it would be more than you and Trovatore, who decides what they think is dubious. Likebox 21:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Room

The additions there are more philosophical, and then I can't say if it is "well known" or not. As for sources, sources are to support a statement, not to plagiarize it. You should use source verification for material which is not accepted by a majority of people.Likebox 21:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't have much to do with normal WP standards.1Z 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? People only bring up "unsourced" when something is controversial. I don't want to say anything controversial, only to repeat well rehearsed things.Likebox 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything that isn't widely known should be sourced, irrespective of what people do. If your additions really are well-rehearsed, you should have no trouble finding sources. But then you have also said: "the additions there are more philosophical, and then I can't say if it is "well known" or not."

1Z 07:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I have to keep talking to you. Because there's no objective way to tell who's right. Sources don't really help in that regard, because I consider Searle as about as good a source as Ludwig Plutonium.Likebox 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on verifiability and notability. Searle is a notable authority on his own argument.1Z 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You have your opinion and I have mine.Likebox 19:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I am citing guidelines which apply to everybody, not my personal opinion. 11:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno effect

Have you read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

98.197.141.197 (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualophobe

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Qualophobe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is now explained on the qualia page as I originally intended, so I have no objections to the deletion. 1Z (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sussex county flag.JPG

Image:Sussex county flag.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consciousness causes collapse

Were you aware that the article was marked for deletion and then an attempt to merge it with quantum mysticism took place? I've temporarily resurrected it from such an untimely fate, but you might want to share your two cents if you don't want to see the article vanish. Lordvolton (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hard problem of consciousness

Hi. I just wanted to bring your attention to a comment I wrote in Talk:Hard_problem_of_consciousness#Need_an_explanation_of_the_Opposing_view, which you previously contributed to. I hope you find it useful and would give your opinions on it, if you have any. Remy B (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Measurement causes collapse

You might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_causes_collapse

And their unfortunate attempt to delete it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse

Lordvolton (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed

Yes, I think it's unfortunate that CCC was merged with quantum mysticism, which is completely POV -- and pretty disgusting. I had supported merging with Copenhagen interpretation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LoveMonkey's additions on Libertarianism (metaphysics)

Hi Peterdjones, I see that you've removed LoveMonkey's massive essay from Libertarianism (metaphysics). Just a heads up: you can expect that he will continue to edit in a disruptive fashion despite any attempts to reason with him. Take a look at the Free will page history and the associated talk page. He somehow really does not seem to get that what he is talking about is often a very different thing, which happens to be identified by the same word as some other things. I've tried reverting, discussing, slow-reverts, and now, just basically listing all of the problems with each sentence, but his responses really do not engage in any constructive dialogue. Can we try to get other editors to help out? I've found at least one new user, Philosophygeek, who seems to want to make constructive changes to the articles. We've lost some good editors, like Bmorton3 (see his user page) and, Francesco Franco, so we probably need to be on the lookout for other good editors. Cheer, Edhubbard (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Ontology

Dear Peterjones,

you asked for a reference for the fact that an informational ontology does not need to be digital. This is a fair and reasonable point. Here is a reference: L. Floridi, "A Defence of Informational Structural Realism", Synthese, 2008, 161.2, 219-253. [[2]]


I wonder whether this might also be of interest:

L. Floridi, "Against Digital Ontology", forthcoming in Synthese. [[3]]

Cheers

Luciano Floridi (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)