User talk:Logicdoug

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

( A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual technology
Could you provde some more sources for your article and clean it up a bit. I read through it and it seems like "intellectual technology" and "ability to think" are pretty much the same. If not, please clarify. It also sounds a bit POV. Anyway, welcome! ( A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 20:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Intellectual technology has been proposed for deletion. Please review WP:NEO for relevant concerns. NickelShoe 06:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Intellectual Technology
No one so far has suggested here that IT does not exist, just that it seems to be original research and the policy of this encyclopedia is no original research. See WP:NOR for more information. Had you published the article in another source and it was a notable concept, it would be fine for inclusion, although makingit more readable instead of trying to sound like Kant would make a big improvement. ( A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 11:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual technology
Having not met Kant, or heard what he sounds like, or read or heard his words, your perception of my attempting to sound like an unknown to me, diverts your otherwise useful ability to understand the plain English words I offered in print, not sound, as their meanings reveal of themselves. If to me you write or sound like Jim Smith, are your words, with their dictionary meanings, more, or less, useful or valid?

A description of intellectual technology, the accuracy of which is verified by its therein revealed process of questioning all things including the description, a result of the human mind's normal functioning, cannot be original research, except by the designer of the human mind. I am not that designer. Therefore, its description is not original research, and may only seem to be so to the person who simply does not ask and answer his any related questions. Intellectual technology, the original technology of the human mind, by design, is not any of the subsequent technologies developed as a result of intellectual technology, and effects its own verification when its process is not damaged by institutional technology. To perceive it as one of the subsequent technologies, is to have failed to question the hasty perception.

The objective source publishing of a suggested concept does not contribute to its existence or lack of existence, or those of Leonardo di Vinci would have not existed for the unpublished duration before and after he suggested them. He suggested concepts that existed regardless of his suggestions, useful to anyone who sufficiently questioned them to transfer their utility to their mind, therein utilizing intellectual technology to that extent.

The otherwise superlative concept of Wikipedia and Wiktionary, a profound opportunity for the advancement of human knowledge, a uniquely new product of, and made possible by, the internet age, was self-defeated by its program editors not understanding intellectual technology, amusingly even when it was presented to them in plain English words, in Wikipedia. If the program editors of Wikipedia and Wiktionary cannot, and hold no incentive to, understand knowledge beyond the proportional level of the detractors of di Vinci at his time, those program editors have nothing more useful to offer, otherwise demonstrated as less, than do the more established encyclopedia and dictionary editors who have so thoroughly stagnated the rate of human knowledge advancement, as seems to be the increasing rumor about Wikipedia.

The common understanding of intellectual technology, recognized by adequately questioning its description or definition, at a certain threshold level that might be very low depending upon circumstances, is going to effect a rather sudden, quantum advancement of the human phenomenon, as concurrently recognized by adequately questioning this sentence, which of course a person seeking knowledge would do to make knowledge useful for their brain's process regardless of the knowledge being presented by Jim, Kant, two publishers, no publishers or anyone.

It was noted for record of history that Wikipedia and Wiktionary program editors could not understand the technology of their own minds, as is the case with all institutionally trained human minds, and are not sufficiently curious to do so by asking and answering the related questions.

You might reconsider, and therein ask and answer your related questions, including and even featuring Intellectual Technology as a separate class of knowledge, in Wikipedia, including its home page, to identify Wikipedia's greatest contribution to the advancement of human knowledge.

And perhaps suggest that Wiktionary offer the real definition of, think.

It is only an opportunity. Human flight was not prevented by the detractors of di Vinci. They merely prevented their own benefit from the existent knowledge.

May you learn the most knowledge of the most concepts, most efficiently.

DougBuchanan.com

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Please see No original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)