User talk:Gazelle55

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quantum chromodynamics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duality ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Quantum_chromodynamics check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Quantum_chromodynamics?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phase transition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duality ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Phase_transition check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Phase_transition?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Interactionism (philosophy of mind), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Interactionism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Interactionism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laws of Form, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duality ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Laws_of_Form check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Laws_of_Form?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Time stretch analog-to-digital converter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duality ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Time_stretch_analog-to-digital_converter check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Time_stretch_analog-to-digital_converter?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Functions of consciousness
Hi, I saw your post here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hard_problem_of_consciousness. What do you mean by functions of consciousness? Isn't the mainstream view consciousness is epiphenomenal? Yet I heard Christof Koch say something about functions and he doesn't believe in free will. The obvious problem is with any use you can think of for consciousness, it can be done without and would take less energy. Imo I don't even know what consciousness is doing there, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken and planarian worms cut in half, life can get along just fine without consciousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 13:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Money is tight, Ned Block's distinction between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness seems relevant here. Phenomenal consciousness is "what it is like to be you" (as Thomas Nagel put it), the experience; access consciousness is the neural basis of that experience. All parts of the brain have functions (whether or not these are essential for life), as is known from studies of brain lesions, so access consciousness has a function—virtually everyone in the field agrees on this. Mike the Headless Chicken still had the part of his brainstem needed to stay alive (according to the article you linked to), but no doubt lost the (non-essential) functions associated with the rest of his brain. Depending whether consciousness is connected to the brainstem, he may or may not have still been conscious. Roughly speaking, when Chalmers talks about the easy problems of consciousness (those that concern the functions of consciousness) he is talking about access consciousness, whereas when he talks about the hard problem of consciousness he is talking about phenomenal consciousness. For the record, epiphenomenalism is a form of dualism and not the mainstream view, which would be reductive materialism (according to which phenomenal consciousness is access consciousness described in a different way). For example see here. (For what it's worth in my opinion reductive materialism actually entails panpsychism, for reasons David Papineau has articulated. But that's not the norm within reductive materialism.)


 * Anyway, as much as I like talking about these things, I do want to clarify: in what way (if any) do you think the issue affected my edits on the hard problem of consciousness page? Since really that is the point of a Wikipedia talk page. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know about access consciousness. Imo access consciousness has nothing to do with what consciousness usually means, it can be easily conceived to be explained in material terms since it's just input-output. I think panpsychism is indeed the only way to go, dualism (property or substance) does not resolve the hard problem at all, idealism is a bit out there. I don't understand how mainstream view is that access consciousness=phenomenal, it's clear with the current understanding of what is a physical system phenomenal consciousness is not part of the picture, like how magnetic fields is not part of the picture in Newtonian mechanics so it had to be added as an extra ingredient, so I'd have to disagree with you there as my impression is that epiphenomenalism is the mainstream view. As for your edits, I just wanted to ask you about this question and you perfectly answered me, sorry if I'm using wikipedia as a forum. You can delete this message if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Money is tight, nice to meet a fellow panpsychist. :-) No worries, I worded that more bluntly than I meant to. And actually, the point about epiphenomenalism is important to the hard problem page since I didn't cover it in much depth in the "Proposed solutions" section, but if it is the mainstream view it deserves more. Who would you says are examples of contemporary epiphenomenalists? I only know of Frank Jackson, but he changed his mind over 15 years ago. I have heard Robert Wright say epiphenomenalism is the mainstream view, but it isn't his area of expertise and you can see here (at around 9:00, and esp. around 12:45) that even Chalmers disagrees and says reductive materialism is the most common view. Personally I agree with what you're saying about consciousness being fundamental, but I don't think that means it isn't physical—it just means the nature of the physical is different than we intuitively feel. Galen Strawson makes that point much better than I could here. Most reductive physicalists use the inverse strategy and say phenomenal consciousness, while perfectly real, is different than we intuitively feel (see phenomenal concept strategy). They would say that when you write it's clear phenomenal consciousness isn't part of the physical picture, that's just an inaccurate intuition we've evolved to have. Not endorsing that, just trying to say it is the most common view and that it is different from epiphenomenalism. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That's funny, out of all my reading I had the strong impression epiphenomenon is the mainstream view... But obviously Chalmers knows the area far better and I must of got things wrong. Christof Koch, Francis Crick, the 2 who broke the taboo to talk about consciousness, both believe in epiphenomenal of consciousness, a lot of articles I read also supported this view. And yes I've listened to Strawson a lot, I fully agree with him our perception of "physical" is wrong. QM has already disproven the billiard ball solid stuff material view, and current theory is that all matter are excitation of the respective fundamental fields so what's physical is already far removed from our original intuition. I believe QM and consciousness are so weird - as both cannot be explain by the usual billiard ball Newtonian view of the universe - is because they are symptoms of a bigger problem, namely what exactly is "physical material". However there's still an issue of 1st person vs 3rd person with consciousness, merely assuming a naive panpsychism does not resolve this because properties are in the 3rd person, I think the hard problem doesn't just plague billiard ball materialism it also plagues panpsychism and substance dualism. I cannot understand how most reductionists adhere to thinking access consciousness=phenomenal, all physical systems are described using functions in some space containing all possible states, with laws (i.e. diff equations or Lagrangians) constraining what the functions are allowed to be, you're not gonna get the color of red out of this ever, full stop. This merely tells us the current understanding of physical is wrong, what Strawson has been saying for years. I get very frustrated by this tbh, they literally refuse to admit the emperor is naked. But a revolution in physics is needed before anyone can make progress towards consciousness... Roger Penrose hopefully will come up with something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 22:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, Crick and Koch definitely deserve to be mentioned on the epiphenomenalism page and perhaps the hard problem page if we can find a source for that. Could you link to one? Quantum mechanics is certainly something else and I imagine you know a lot more about it than I do. Since I have you here—I've been working on the panpsychism page including the part on quantum mechanics, and it mentions Noam Chomsky says a revolution in physics may be needed to solve the question of consciousness—do you know more about what he's said? He definitely deserves at least a full sentence on the page. On the other hand I tend towards Chalmers' view that even a revised physics will still only describe structure and dynamics (i.e., functions) so cannot solve the 1st person/3rd person issue. To me that is a philosophical issue. I agree that panpsychism doesn't resolve it either, since it is open to a dualist interpretation (where functional physical properties are separate from intrinsic experiential properties/natures) or a monist/physicalist interpretation (where the functional properties really are the experiential properties, my tentative view). Maybe you have a different reason for feeling the hard problem applies to panpsychism, though (as always if you have a source would be great for the panpsychism article). As for the intuition that the color red can never be reduced to functions, I feel it just like you do (indeed, very strongly), and I used to follow it to a broadly dualist conclusion, but I've come to think that like all our other intuitions it shouldn't be trusted. I've been influenced by Susan Blackmore lately who takes arguments similar to Dennett's about consciousness not being as it seems but uses them to support panpsychism. That said, it would be interesting to see what authors you've read on your side of the question cause they could be added to the relevant articles regardless of whether I agree. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Islamic attitudes towards science
I noticed your work there (a significant improvement), thank you very much. When looking at the Quran scientific predictions claims, I also reminded of WP:FALSEBALANCE where it would be possible not to separate the section in pro/criticism. But after a second read I think that the balance is overall acceptable, because of the way the arguments are toned. — Paleo Neonate  – 07:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, PaleoNeonate, I totally agree that the "scientific miracles in the Quran" thesis shouldn't be represented as a matter of serious dispute among scientists. Actually I think the section (and even more so, the Quran and miracles page) still needs to be a lot clearer that the claims have been overwhelmingly rejected by scholars whereas their support comes from popular writers and websites (which don't qualify as WP:RS). Right now the "claims" vs "criticism" sections could be easily misinterpreted as equal "support" vs "criticism". I'll have to find some sources for that, though. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit, improvements. Thanks you. Vtukol (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Vtukol, I'm a bit puzzled by your post. I have never edited that page nor do I know much of anything on the topic. Best of luck with editing. Gazelle55 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and collaboration
Hi Gazelle55 Thank you very much for creating the Santiago Bahá'í Temple article in English! I have contributed significantly to the Spanish version and had been dithering about getting the English version started, so thanks for taking the initiative. I have requested and obtained help to merge the corresponding Wikidata item for both articles. I will be working on adding some improvements to the article including adding awards and a picture gallery. Again, thank you for starting the article! --Vahidmasrour (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Vahidmasrour, no problem – thanks for continuing to improve the article. I also created a short article for Baháʼí Faith in Indonesia a while back, though I couldn't find much information available. Anyway, let me know of any future opportunities to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia! Gazelle55 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psychedelic experience, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert Hoffman ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Psychedelic_experience check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Psychedelic_experience?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hi, A.gee.dizzle, thank you so much! I'm honored to receive my first barnstar. By the way, I'm really glad to see you working on philosophy of mind pages. I have been slowly cleaning up the panpsychism page for some time but it is hard to find time to add a large volume of well-sourced material like you have just done! Kudos :) There may be a few small issues with what you added but I will look over the whole page again first and then post on the talk page there. Looking forward to collaborating in the future. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I’m glad you found it useful  A.gee.dizzle (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your consistently good edits to pages related to the Baha'i Faith. I hope you stick around. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  05:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate your honesty.Serv181920 (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for you kind words. Looking forward to working together in the future. Btw,, the story of how you got your nickname is hilarious! Gazelle55 (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

your revert on Baha'i india page
I have reverted your undo on Baha'i India pages, because the Primary source of Information is the Governor's letter. which is the highest office in the State of Maharastra.The Governor has asked for the action to be taken. The Secondary source of reference is the official website of University .There cannot be more profound news than the official website of the university. Jammu58 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your explanation. The governor and the university are both primary sources – a secondary source means one that is one degree removed from the events (usually an academic paper or a news article, see WP:PSTS). And the governor just said "appropriate action," meaning he was leaving it up to the discretion of the university.
 * But in general I do think a lot of the Baha'i pages on Wikipedia violate WP:NPOV so thanks for helping to clean them up. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pasting this on the talk page of the article for anyone checking in the future, if you have more thoughts you can let me know there :) Gazelle55 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gazelle55" Under secretary to the Governor Dr.S.M. Salunke wrote to the Principal Secretary to the Government Higher and Technical Education Department, which in turn wrote to the Vice Chancellor University of Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, The Registrar office of the university posted on the official site of the university. I wonder how it is just a Primary source.

Moreover the Governor has taken the action in his capacity by asking the university to take "Appropriate Action" Whether a positive or negative action was taken that shoud'nt be the part of this news. Thanks. Jammu58 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your interest and your respectful response. I'm pasting your response at Talk:Baháʼí Faith in India in case other editors are interested. I will reply there! Gazelle55 (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev
We urgently need a Wikipedia article on the famous neuorscientist, Mikhail Lebedev. Can you please finish the article on Mikhail Lebedev this weekend? It needs to be nominated as a good or featured article within 30 days. I Already started. Please see Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuorscientist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC
You may be interested in the RFC at Talk:Criticism of the Baháʼí Faith. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Diplomacy Barnstar
Thanks a lot for this,, and I should say your hard work is appreciated too. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Small footnotes
You might want to check out my sandbox User:Cuñado/sandbox. I leave it to remind myself of how footnotes work. Also Help:Shortened footnotes is useful.

I thought that the pointer to references always grabs the first in line, but maybe that changed. If it wants only one ref to point to, I added the ref= attribute to force the ref in "further reading" to be of the year "2008a" instead of "2008". It won't affect appearance at all and solved the problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  20:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes I'll take a look at that before I fix up anymore sfn refs, to make sure it's all done properly. And what you did seems to work so I'll do the same for Stockman. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Please repair the damage you've done to Baháʼí Faith. The article now has multiple citation errors because you've broken the links between the short-form references and the full references. Note for example, that calling a reference 'CNN 2010' doesn't work when there is more than one CNN reference from 2010 and the links from the Sfn templates don't work when the sfnref template in the full citation defines the reference as something else. DrKay (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi,, thanks for alerting me to the issue and apologies for the errors it has produced. I was changing them because they were written a format that shows the date as a second author, which was obviously incorrect. I thought I had then fixed them but clearly I was sloppy because I now see several are still not working. I will go through the ones I changed one by one and make sure they all work. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're not using them already, there are tools (particularly the user scripts) at Help:Citation Style 1 that can help highlight individual problems. DrKay (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, these look very helpful and should definitely save me time in the future. In the meantime, I simply checked every citation in the list for problems and fixed all that weren't working, so the article should be good to go. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks, – mainly just something I do while procrastinating from my real work, but glad to hear it's helpful! Gazelle55 (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Entheogen
Some sensible edits here. Grateful if you wish to take a look at the recent edits. I’m not going to start edit warring here :). Springnuts (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Baháʼí Faith needs your tender & loving care
Hello there. I gather you take a particular interest in topics concerning the Baháʼí Faith. I have at last nominated the main article for FA review. I shall be very happy if you could take a look at it, when convenient of course. Nutez (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi,, thanks for letting me know. It is a topic I have edited on a lot as you say and I will be happy to contribute to the FAR discussion. Gazelle55 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Baháʼí Faith Featured article review
User:Nutez has nominated Baháʼí Faith for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing these details, I will write up some thoughts soon and post them there for discussion. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Táhirih
"one of" does take plural, but there is no mention of "one of" here, instead it reads: "Táhirih was the first Iranian women to be executed on grounds of "corruption on earth", which is grammatically WRONG! Narenhofer (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree with you and I changed it back. By the way, it wasn't actually me who reverted your change, though – it was User:Soundofmusicals.  Gazelle55  Let's talk!  14:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
...for past attentions to the Entheogen article. I have made edits today in keeping with your edits, and WP:VERIFY, and other policies and guidelines. Note also, a part of what was done was to move into footnote bulky explanatory material about normative religious practice that was pasted in, in November 2022 (which is largely off-point, as it related Christian communion practices to entheogenic experience, a connection which is and has been a stretch, apart from clerical abuses, for perhaps 1800 years). I invite you to look in at your convenience, to affirm/correct what you see. Cheers, an educator. 2601:246:C700:F5:A9DE:5AC2:9872:31B9 (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)