User talk:Stampit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 02:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kim Jaegwon.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Kim Jaegwon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Midgley and Eliminative Materialism

I think there are two related issues here: First, I understood the implications synthetic biology for Midgley's arguments about biology, but it is not clear that these same implications carry through to the question of reducing some mental processes to neural substrates (or even eliminating them). As a practicing cognitive neuroscientist, I would hope that we can one day attain the sucess in neuroscience that they have in biology (and therefore prove Midgley wrong), but it is not necessarily a given. Second, and far more importantly for wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you and I can't even say that synthetic biology has the implications it clearly does for Midgley's theory unless some reliable source already says that it does. That is, if no one else makes the link between synthetic biology and Midgely, in a published article, if you or I were to say this, it would be considered as original research since we would be gathering sources to advance a position. If there is another practicing philosopher who has made the counter-argument in print (say, for example, in Paul Churchland's most recent book, which I haven't had a chance to read yet) then we can cite them, and explain how this works against Midgley, but we can't make the (rather obvious) point that synthetic biology questions Midgley's arguments about biology, nor can we make the (less obvious) point that this carries through to EM. Personally, I agree with you. As an editor on wikipedia, though, until someone else says so, I wouldn't support including the material about synesthetic biology. Edhubbard 08:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logical Positivism

All I did was change early to late. Sorry anyway. 84.203.181.35 (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I was suspicious because you are already accused for a number of other vandalisms. Stampit (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)