User talk:Tesseract2

Welcome to my talk page!

First of all, let me just say that using images to illustrate concepts is professional if done properly. Accomplishing this can require discussion (to build consensus on an image, or its caption). Simply removing images is not a solution, however. This issue is worth mentioning, because many Wikipedia pages are starved for images (graphs, illustrations, etc).

You could check out WP:IUP (although it doesn't really talk about choice of image) or discussions revolving around Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations. The MOST relevant is WP:IMAGES (especially "choice and placement").

Also, if I had a religion, it might be WP:TECHNICAL

Welcome Tesseract2

Hello, Tesseract2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Heritability have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Crusio (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free will and new Neuroscience of free will page

Hi Tesseract2,

I've moved your additions to the Free will onto a daughter page, which I've titled Neuroscience of free will, since adding all of that material to the free will page would have unbalanced the main article (see WP:Summary style). The additions you've made are very good, and I don't want to lose them, but at the same time, since the free will article is meant to be a summary of all of the different things that people might want to know when they first come to read about free will, we cannot let the article become too heavily slanted towards one particular aspect of the topic, no matter how interesting that topic is to you or or me. In fact, with the daughter article, we can now grow the neuroscience of free will even further, and at the same time, shrink what is on the main free will page. I do not have the time to take this on right now, but I would love to work with you on this to help create a balanced, thorough coverage of the neuroscience of free will that integrates well with the broader issues that are raised on the main free will page. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Variable theory appears as OR

Didn't Von Neumann disprove Hidden Variable theory?[1] As a thing of locality which means it can't apply to individuals? So why is it in the Neuroscience of free will as something treated as unchallenged and established science in its depiction in the article? Also why no mention of John H. Conway and his Free will theorem in the article?[2] The way this article is written it implies that the each individuals life is a closed system, which is what experiments always have as a short coming.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

About my mentioning Physics at all

After the experiments that suggest philosophical determinism, I cite the page by Stanford University just to mention that certain, respected interpretations of quantum physics are also deterministic. It seems relevant to make at least SOME mention to the physics that might fit with the experiments I posted. However...
I agree with comments by user Edhubbard that we should avoid turning this page into a full fledged argument over determinism. I leave this matter to his discretion.
According to the current wiki page, "the Free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen states that, if we have a certain amount of 'free will', then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles." If my reference to physics isn't appropriate, it doesn't seem that this reference would be any more appropriate. We could also argue, on an unrelated note, how much that theory is really saying.

As far as physics goes...

An answer to your first question can currently be found on the page you cited: Hidden variable theory
I agree, nothing should be presented as "unchallenged", especially not quantum physics these days.
I can't help but notice "mathpages.com" provides no reliable source besides some vague mention to a "Kevin Brown"? I ask honestly: is mathpages.com a reliable site?
Note that even Stanford University's page does address arguments by Von Neumann. For example it mentions that one can easily find, in the quantum physics literature, statements like these: "The proof he [von Neumann] published ..., though it was made much more convincing later on by Kochen and Specker, still uses assumptions which, in my opinion, can quite reasonably be questioned. ... In my opinion, the most convincing argument against the theory of hidden variables was presented by J. S. Bell (1964)." [3] The article then goes on to explain that Bell himself became a proponent of the De-Broglie Bohm interpretation.

Tesseract2 (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to answer this would be to clarify somethings. Randomness exists, science has shown this via Niels Bohr's work. Bohr put this to rest in his debates with Einstein (see Bohr–Einstein debates). Now wikipedia is not current on certain things because of article squatters, I have tried but failed, oh well. Is relativity compatible with quantum physics? I think so, I know the string theory guys think so. But does the randomness of quantum physics manifest (is that a good word for that?) on human beings level of existence, consciousness? That's what Professor Conway and Professor Kochen together are working on. Because if it does we then would have self determination (libertarianism would be true over all determinism including soft determinism also known as compatiblism). We should all be weary of "thought experiments". As for Bell.. What you posted appears to contradict itself, Bell disproved it but then believes in it? According to someones opinion? Please explain.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you are using "randomness". I think everyone would agree that there is randomness in the sense that there are things humans cannot currently predict. On the other hand, the question of whether randomness exists at the fundamental levels of reality, objectively, was certainly not "put to rest in the Bohr–Einstein debates". That is the question being explored by various Interpretation of quantum mechanics (although I noticed wiki's current page for the Measurement problem captures the gist of our discussion nicely).

To your last question: yes, according the the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Bell presented some of the greatest proof against hidden variables theory. Bohm then countered Bell's arguments, and while many physicists continued to believe hidden variable theories impossible based on Bell's arguments, Bell himself joined the ranks of Bohm and other physicists that believed hidden variables possible or even likely. I think would find the Stanford Encyclopedia on Bohmian Mechanics - as interesting and accessible as I did. Tesseract2 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are speaking about established science or some potential in the future? So you are saying that quantum randomness does not exist? Please make a statement saying if you do or don't believe in its existence. As established science right now accepts Quantum indeterminacy.[4] There are plenty of theories and this article is not about any of that. Its not even about quantum mechanics. Are you saying that hidden variables will be found to be true at some point? Removing randomness. As that You are saying hidden variable theory is believed but not proven. I am correct in saying that of your positions? Like say the outcome of the Copenhagen model is not random? Any theory you post must be universally accepted and not a correct trend. Your response seems filtered. As I really would like you to address what [5] says as it explicitly denies what you say. Since according to Robert Kane and others, libertarian free will is that I determine or I will which is called self determined free will in contrast to soft determinism which gives us other freedom and calls self determinism "a freedom we really shouldn't want".[6] As all of this is covered in the introduction in Robert Kanes' book "The Significance of Free Will. Especially pages 10, 11, 12.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already agreed with Edhubard that physics has no place in the article on the Neuroscience of free will. You know that, right?
I am saying quantum randomness does exist, but is not yet fully understood. It must be interpreted, as far as I know. Do you acknowledge that there are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, some of them deterministic?
Yes, hidden variables theory may be true. The Copenhagen interpretation may prove to be wrong. Do you acknowledge that the Copenhagen interpretation is contested?

I don't meant to be rude, but this will be my last reply if you don't understand me this time. I think I'm being very clear. Tesseract2 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link addresses answers and clarify my objections.[7] And no you did not until now make it clear that you where not going to re-add section. I hope you follow up on some of the things I posted, as they at least show my sources are not opinion.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your link seems to discuss the views of Abner Shimony, who believed indeterminateness to be true. Despite the conviction with which that page states it to be a "fact" - it is not. For example, even if we reject hidden variables, the Many-worlds interpretation is also deterministic, and is also a reasonably popular interpretation for now.

Narrowing down the disagreement, and discussing quantum interpretations

No the link does not say that. It explicitly states and or calls it a theory, here I'll quote the link to address this.

"All modern science is falliblist in epistemology. That means that any scientific theory might be wrong. We all acknowledge this. But scientific theories vary a lot in how likely they are to turn out to be wrong. The present state of physics makes quantum indeterminism a very well-established theory. It may still turn out to be wrong, in the sense that any theory may turn out to be wrong. Just like the "fact" that the earth orbits the sun might turn out to be wrong.

But QI is very well established. Very few scientific theories are as well verified by experience. And remember, the evidence is not just that we don't know what the quantum causes are -- the evidence is that there are no quantum causes. Again, it might turn out to be wrong, but we still ought to take quantum indeterminacy seriously."[8]

This all is not something I am just saying, it is a matter of sources not opinion. Also is Professor Abner Shimony dead, you stated that he "believed". The link makes no mention of him where did you derive the co-relation? I also believe that the Many-worlds interpretation is completely compatible with the idea of alternative possibilities.[9] I dare say they are one in the same as is called the concept of the multiverse different yes but also related or of sameness. If this is true then the deterministic argument that there is only one possible outcome (one linear world with only one possible sequence of events) is not true anymore because there are many worlds, many outcomes. It is only deterministic in a greatly diminished way (it is deterministic in there is no collapse of the wave function the information goes to an alternate reality that we can't see or reach) only if you can determine which world your in. As far as I know the Many-worlds interpretation has no way to allow people a way to determine which world they are in. If it is correct (we are in all at the same time-maybe).
Also isn't Hawkings working on this, as a way to reconcile his information paradox? If there are an infinite number of "realities" or "worlds" wouldn't that mean that I would be a self determining agent in that my consciousness (nous) makes the indeterminacy of reality into a determined one by the actualizing (energeia) of my indeterminate reality by my sentience or intelligence (Entelechy).[10] Robert Kane says metaphysical free will fights for the freedom that I can be free. It states that freedom exists. Metaphysical freewill (metaphysical libertarianism) is the fight to validate self determination. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first say that I agree that "all modern science is falliblist in epistemology"- that's a great way of putting it.

It is exactly that claim that I disagree with: "the evidence is not just that we don't know what the quantum causes are -- the evidence is that there are no quantum causes". I do not disagree out of mere opinion either: the De Broglie–Bohm theory is the reason for my disagreement.

I must say however, you should re-read your link [11] since...

The last line on that webpage does say “Indeterminacy is an objective fact and not just a matter of scientists' lack of knowledge.” That is why I claimed that the author believed that fundamental indeterminacy to be an agreed upon fact.
Did you also ask me why I talked about Abner Shimony AT ALL? Because you will notice that Shimony is mentioned all over the end of that link. I do apologize for the verb tense- I didn't mean to make him sound dead.

I have not read the whole Many-worlds interpretation page- so far I'm more of a believer in the De Broglie–Bohm theory (which, I must repeat, has not been disproven. While bell mentions that Local Hidden variables are unlikely, there may be non-local hidden variables). If you are interested, see Superdeterminism or check out the "arguments" section of Determinism

We can discuss many-worlds theory another day, when I have at least read the wiki page about it.

Tesseract2 (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me but I have to disagree. There is a website I enjoy because the physicist likes to try and explain quantum physics and in specific quantum collapse. I love Kim's java. Here is the website. [12] You can contact him off of his website. Kim does not believe in free will and refers to it as term of art and mainly "nonsense". I will post some of "Kim G. S. Øyhus" comments here.

"I have had "discussions" with some of those before (the De Broglie-Bohm believers), and they have all had defective understanding of science, and an unwillingness to examine arguments properly.

The principles of science are:

1. Falsification: Explanations different from reality, are wrong.
2. Ockhams razor: Shorter explanations are better than long ones.

The Bohm theories fail on No.2, i.e. they are unnecessarily complicated. They have complex particle stuff that lies on top of ordinary quantum waves. As I and others have shown, the quantum waves are sufficient to describe reality, through their math, which give rise to the Many-World interpretation, because the math contains many worlds.
The probability that a longer theory is better, is 2^-n, where n is how much longer it is, in bits, according to algorithmic information theory, the mathematization of Ockhams Razor. This means that the Bohm theories are about at least 10^20 times less probable than the simpler math of Many Worlds.

Eliezer Yudkowski has some O.K. essays about this on lesswrong.com, but not any pictures, and he tends to write unnecessarily long."

I am not trying to be mean. Also the fact that you understand this makes you very very intelligent. I agree that De Broglie–Bohm has it's supporters. I do seek to be objective as I can. Kim is but one physicist I have spoken with about this larger problem in general (complexity). The last one (other then Kim) was in person and therefore I will not name them. I will say they stated the same thing and used string theory as the object of criticism. Their remarks were that science and reality is elegant in it's simplicity and that string theory is not simplistic (which is why they don't support the theory). But this is a good discussion.
I think you'll find my science wrong and lacking too, so...I will also comment on one final thing [13], Leibniz [14] spoke of complexity as a cause of randomness. So I think that science should always seek Ockhams Razor and in this sense I think "you are also speaking" (maybe?). I do not mean to misrepresent you, please forgive me if I have. All of this is very much all about Kolmogorov complexity. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we can disagree so completely, but also civilly. And about Kim G. S. Øyhus, to which QI does he subscribe?

As far as my understanding of science- you can and will form your own opinion.

I am familiar, and fond of, the importance of falsifiability in a theory. You will note that De-Broglie Bohm theory is falsifiable, from what I have read.

However, you oversimplify Ockham’s razor. It is not simply that “shorter explanations are better” it is that “all other things being equal, shorter explanations are better”. If one theory adds many more postulates but ultimately explains something that another theory does not, we would not defer to Ockham’s razor. As Einstein put it, “explanations should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

You even claimed that “This means that the Bohm theories are about at least 10^20 times less probable than the simpler math of Many Worlds.” That is a very bold claim, and I doubt that such a statement about the absolute truth probability of the Bohm theories CAN be made (certainly not without multiple sources agreeing on the estimation, at least).

Actually, I disagree that Bohmian mechanics are more complex to begin with. As physicist Hilary Putnam explains:

I rejected Bohm's interpretation for several reasons which no longer seem good to me. Even today, if you look at the Wikipedia encyclopaedia on the Web, you will find it said that Bohm's theory is mathematically inelegant. Happily, I did not give that reason in Putnam ([1965]), but in any case it is not true. The formula for the velocity field is extremely simple: you have the probability current in the theory anyway, and you take the velocity vector to be proportional to the current. There is nothing particularly inelegant about that; if anything, it is remarkably elegant![15]

As I have mentioned, I lack knowledge about the Many-Worlds theories and can offer no informed opinions. I will read about it when I get the chance. On your side, I think you could afford to learn more about De-Broglie Bohm theory. As always, I recommend you read Stanford’s philosophical look at Bohm theories, particularly the “Objections” section. It links to other resources including an FAQ about the theory, along with some letters written by Einstein, Shrodinger and Bell in support of Bohmian mechanics.

Tesseract2 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned you can contact Kim to confirm his comments. He is not the only quantum physicist who does not endorse the De-Broglie Bohm theory. Here is a nice overview for free will from a soft determinist's website.[16] Note even here you'll find the soft causality name for indeterminism and he renames nature libertarians event-causal libertarianism which are both confusing. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, just randomly here. Warning, I'll be good-faithfully provocative. As of today, support for de-Broglie Bohm sounds a little bit like supporting Newton after Einstein, because "action at a distance seems more plausible". In fact, I dare to say that the de-Borlgie Bohm theory has indeed been already falsified: By special relativity. While Dirac in the 1930's already encompassed special relativity into non-hidden-variable QM, the dB-B theory has yet failed to do so. The guiding-wave theory is, as of today, a falsified theory, to which the usual response for 60 years has been: "we'll find a way to accomodate for special relativity", which is of course as legitimate a choice of investigation as any other, but which shouldn't be turned into a merit purely on paper while not winning in the field.

Having said that, I'd totally agree with the statement that maybe out there there's an elegant deBorglie-Bohm-Someone theory waiting for us to discover, which could be better than all that we know of and could imagine today. Yet, letting this hypothetical eventuality be our guiding principle in interpreting the physical reality that we observe, in the face of much better and less falsified explanations is, in my view, a gratuitous leap of logic. --Gibbzmann (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thank you for the input. I'll go ahead and assume you're not lying when you say you know your physics on your user page. But I still don't feel too dirty about my stance. I am very aware that quantum physics is one of the deeper sciences where I must resort to meticulous choosing of an authority to believe, and yet I have unfortunately not found the unanimity (like there is for evolution, or is that too stringent a criteria?) that I was hoping for. Then the other day, in the reasonably reputable Discover Magazine, I read that some physicists are seriously exploring the possibility of causality from the future and evolving laws of physics... I get the impression that that the field of quantum physics is pretty chaotic, and so I feel comfortable saying "well I expect the world is deterministic, multiple realities doesn't make any sense to me, and if no one has a terribly persuasive argument to the contrary, I think I'll root for De-Broglie Bohm".

Or do I lack information? I could swear there were surveys backing me up that there are legitimate physicists who still have hope for De-Broglie Bohm. I do not otherwise intend to make up my own physics if there are no such polls for me to reference. I am just saying I can barely weigh the evidence for the theories, so I am left weighing the authorities, some of whom, it seems, think it is De-Broglie Bohm for the win.

Tesseract2 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a poll exists, look for it! I guess from my fallible memory that amongst real authorities the de-Borglie Bohm theory ranged within less that 10%, if not less (I suspect I'm being conservative). My stance, as another writer here rightly stated, is that until better explanations are found, the most honest position is to stand by the theory that is simpler and explains most. This theory is not dB-B's, today. As for being so affectionally attached to hard determinism, I can only respond with Feynman's reply. You could be (an) Einstein, but this doesn't change the fact that while Einstein can still be wrong, nature is always right. In other words, nature is as it is, and not as we would like it to be. And my stance is that if (suppose so) it is in fact not encompassingly deterministic, then there isn't very much I could do about it. It's not my choice, it's nature's. --Gibbzmann (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can free will support the burden?

That website almost makes it sound like holding individuals responsible, general creativity, and deliberation are each of them impossible according to determinism. I disagree.

I know Kim is not the only physicist who disagrees with Bohmian mechanics- it may be some time before the field of quantum physics has a large majority vote anything like the >99% for evolution.

I suppose that, if you believe that quantum indeterminacy is complete indeterminacy, then it would follow that will is also indeterminate (recall that I believe - with sources to justify it - that quantum indeterminacy is the result of non-local hidden variables). Here are some questions I have about your views...

I assume that there is one, highest level of reality. In other words, there is something like an 11-dimensional bubble containing "everything". What do you think? I am not sure what physicists have to say on this matter - whether many world's theorists believe that there is an infinitely large number of nested realities...

From that last assumption, we would imagine that reality, whatever it is, is a closed system. I imagine everything is connected, maybe non-locally, and that is why I find indeterminism so unpalatable. Do you believe reality is a closed system?

Actually I wonder, do you believe that we cannot hold individuals responsible if the universe is determined?

Tesseract2 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well to your statements about quantum physics, I have to say I don't know. I really don't think that there is a completeness. If we are finite there will always be that which escapes us. Therefore existence is not an opened or closed system. It exhibits properties of both and yet as something that can not be created or destroyed seems to have this quality as unexplainable. What is determined is done so by people. This is a fact that I from my own perspective have not been able to overcome. Determinism to me is a human trait. I find it extremely hard to say that we live in an infinite existence and then say it has boundaries or edges or ends. I also find it extremely hard to say with any honesty at all that something infinite could be simplistic enough to be completely determined. As things that are infinite by their own accord would manifest a complexity so great that at some point the inter-action between information becomes pure randomness, randomness based on complexity. Forgive me for interjecting Kolmogorov back into the conversation. As for the ethos of determinism. The argument that for the better of the group, collective or society is one that, based on protectionism, does not need free will or determinism to justify criminal prosecution. Free will is a matter of freedom more than one of functioning society and the highest freedom is worth having the freedom toward self determination (that my fate is mine to determine as best as my individual existence can manifest).LoveMonkey (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RetrospectiveConstructionOfJudgementOfFreeChoice fig1.jpg

I've deleted this image because it's easily replaceable — you could use this image to produce a new chart that could be freely licensed. Information can't be copyrighted, so there's nothing to stop you from creating a chart with the same data; it's simply this expression of the ways in which a chart displays this information that is copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true, by the way, of the other non-free images used at Neuroscience of free will. You can create them without any issues if you have the right software; if you don't, feel free to post a request at the graphics lab. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair enough. I'll get creative when next I get a chance. Tesseract2 (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of cooperation

Hi. Before you "sort" The Evolution of Cooperation how about we discuss the overall organization? E.g., the current approach is tightly (albeit almost superficially) focused on the evolution of cooperation, and its significance in the broader context. The section you added is between two sections on the context, so it doesn't really fit there. And is perhaps too low-level.

Should we discuss this here, or at Talk:The Evolution of Cooperation? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply there, in case a good discussion gets going

-Tesseract2 (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learned optimism

Well done for making such a substantial start to the Learned optimism article! --Annielogue (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! You can check the Positive Psychology talk page to see just how much material I already had to work with. -Tesseract2 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Determinism article

Great work on the article about determinism...your effort shows. From a fellow determinist, thanks for taking the time to make it much better. Jamesa7171 (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of you. If my edits so far have been a success, hopefully I can keep it up for the rest of that page and do determinists proud..-Tesseract2 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes terminology

Hi. I noticed that you added some points about terminology to Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure#Feature Requests (what might make it better). You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Closure#PC Terminology. Yaris678 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The Neuroscience of free will article looks interesting. I will keep an eye on it. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is outstanding for anyone who's interested in philosophy, psychology or neuroscience. Great work Tesserac :) --84.251.222.22 (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag on freewill article

Hi, I noticed that you had placed a cleanup tag on the article free will , which is also listed as a featured article. Logically, i would have thought that an article surely can't be both a featured article and require cleanup to meet quality standards. I don't have enough knowledge of either wikipedia's quality standards or the subject matter of the article to say which is right but i thought i would drop a note to suggest that if you do feel the article needs cleanup that you submit it to featured article review WP:FAR which would probably be a good way of sorting out any issues and determining whether the article either does need significant cleanup or should have the tag removed, thanks. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll do it asap.-Tesseract2 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:This article is unnecessary

I already put this in the talk page of the article in question(Reward system), but I wanted to ensure that you recieved the message.

I object. The reinforcement page describes the psychological mechanisms of reinforcement, while this page describes the neurological mechanisms of reinforcement. However, this subject would recieve much more attention on the reinforcement page, something that this article is in dire need of. The Cowdestroyer (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? --The Cowdestroyer (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh pardon my non-response. I agreed with you, although I will go and make a minor edit on that note.-Tesseract2 (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Moral Landscape

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to The Moral Landscape. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Cloonmore (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I will be sure to make my sources obvious where I have failed to.-Tesseract2 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nation published a review 27 April 2011 on Sam Harris worthy of mention in the article on The Moral Landscape. Greenjamese (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's razor

I appreciate your attempts on this article, but the popular summary is actually incorrect rather than misleading. This popular and incorrect summary is also too far ahead in the lead. Vexorg (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least for the moment, the proper use of the Razor is mentioned first, followed by the "popular" summary - which I agree is the best way to do it. Also importantly, the caveats and warnings I've added are still there.

I cannot be sure why some IPs are not satisfied to call the "popular summary" simply "incorrect", but I believe it is because that summary is sufficiently ambiguous to be potentially valid, depending on how they are reading it. I mean, I wonder if you would agree that it seems the summary "the simpler [of two otherwise equivalent] explanations is more likely to be correct" very well could be an equivalent way to put Occam's Razor. I guess what I may be asking is: doesn't it seem to be a necessary premise, of any good principle like the Razor which prescribes a simplicity-bias, that the simpler theory is, in fact, more likely correct?-Tesseract2 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GiveWell

Nice job on current work (maybe your not done yet), much needed. I was the one who cleaned up the "Shortcomings" section which used to comprise the majority of the article.. Saw your home page and agree with your suggestions on tools for readers. Maybe you already know of it, these stats are fun to see how many people are visiting a page. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Yeah, I was writing about Givewell on my user page and I realized there's so much to that organization that the Wiki page hadn't captured yet. There's even still plenty of potential to go into more detail about their methodology and reasoning, but I'm definitely done for now.

Yeah I love checking page view statistics. As I've re-written now in my talk page, I'm wishing for one page where I can see all the views for all my favourite pages to edit, or even one stat that gives me an idea of how many readers I'm helping through wikipedia. Who even changes such things?

-Tesseract2 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of Philosophy-Criticism

Hi Tesseract2. I agree with many of the points you are making in this section (the first and penultimate paragraphs are very good, although a lot of it only applies to the US system), but some of the rest seems like an assessment of the economics of getting a PhD, rather than a proper criticism. This seems to be a rather unusual and idiosyncratic point of view, I doubt for instance that anyone doing a postdoc is really that interested in the money in the first place (and postdoc salaries are actually much better than they used to be, on average). Also, many students simply don't want to stay in research, rather than failing to "land" a position. If I have time I might therefore rewrite some of this from a more neutral point of view, I just wanted to explain my reasons first. Best, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. I have since tried to edit the language to be more neutral, and re-organized things to make a little more sense. I'm still interested to see any other edits you think would help (or additions, like that stat about postdoc salaries being better than they used to be!)

-Tesseract2 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It reads much better now, thanks. Another point that I think should be addressed is that the section is very much written from an academic career path perspective. I don't have a statistic to back this up, but of the students that I deal with, only about one in five (if that) actually want to pursue an academic career, with most wanting to go into industry or consulting. Possibly something on the value of a PhD in industry would actually be more relevant than a discussion centred on academia. I doubt that I will have time to contribute much to this section in the near future, but Nature did a job satisfaction survey last year that you may be interested in: http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2010/100624/full/nj7301-1104a.html Perhaps some of the points raised there may be worthy of inclusion. Best,Rainbowwrasse (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of POV tag from Happiness

Hi. That a tag "ugly" is never a good reason to remove it from a page. Those tags are there to give a visible warning to readers about issues with the article. Tags do not expire just because they have been on the article for "months". Please only remove tags when the issues are resolved. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will explain this at Talk:Happiness.

-Tesseract2 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science lead image

Hi Tesseract2.

I appreciated your comments in your edit summary at science. Could you help me find an even more appropriate lead image? I thought that one was closest, but I understand that it leaves something to be desired. Just wondering if you'd seen anything better. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it's a woman doing an experiment. I thought that picture was great, actually.-Tesseract²(talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! IvoryMeerkat (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's razor pic

Hi, you recently replaced a picture in the Occam's razor lead a picture I had removed. I don't believe the picture belongs in the lead. Could you please explain why the picture better enlightens the reader? I believe it is confusing. I don't believe it illustrates the concept well. I think a more cogent picture would make for a better article. Fleetham (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I believe the Leprechaun picture which is already on the page is a far better explanation of the concept. Fleetham (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am quite happy to discuss! I only reflexively throw the picture back up because I feel that some editors don't appreciate that many people - like me- are visual learners and generally benefit greatly from examples, metaphors, diagrams etc.

I have made some edits based on your suggestions. Thoughts? -Tesseract²(talk) 22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. I prefer pictures myself, but for some reason the Occam's razor page reminded me of confusing high school textbook that had illustrations and captions that only served to confuse me further. I was already familiar with the Occam's razor when I looked at the page, but that picture made me consider the possibility that I actually didn't understand the concept.

As I understand it, the picture was illustrating the argument that because the earth travels around the sun, other planets do likewise. Maybe all it really needed was a better caption, but I do like Leprechauns. Fleetham (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky notes

Yeah, I got that you wanted the tiny little yellow squares to appear in the margin. I'm in favour of a very easy way for readers to leave notes on problems they spotted. But if it is as easy as I hope it could be, I don't like the idea of making them visible on the article's page itself, even if they only distract my attention in the corners of my eye. It would be acceptable if their visibility has to be turned on by checking an option in the appearance preferences, but not if it is standard. --Lambiam 18:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Quran and Science/ Islam and Science

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please remember that this is just an Encyclopedia, not a basket of repeated personal POVs AdvertAdam^talk 22:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I am well aware of Wikipedia's policy. So as you are deleting a cited critic because it makes you emotional, I will keep undoing the deletions.-Tesseract²(talk) 01:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you do, so I just wanted to send a reminder. I'll consider that a complement. I'm not here for personal attacks nor an edit war. I can bring a million reliable sourced materials to that article, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Anyways, read my summaries well, then discuss your concerns/disagreements on the article's talk page, for everyone to join. Thanks for your understanding AdvertAdam^talk 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear! Let us discuss.-Tesseract²(talk) 02:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the Bleep

Perhaps if you could explain precisely why you think it's important to highlight that material more than it currently is, it would be helpful. I worked long and hard to get the article to the point where it accurately described just how laughable the movie is without taking it to the point that the New Agers felt a need to storm the castle and turn it into a mecca for crystal-worshipers. If you push too hard, that's exactly what will happen again. This thing was full protected for seven months due to it's apparent flashpoint nature, and we don't need that started again.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am frequently disappointed at Wikipedia's soft treatment of skeptical issues, but fair enough. I did not appreciate that that was a motivation. I was not aware that the page had that history either. I appreciate your hard work, then!

Can I at least request that the sort of summary of criticism I attempted to provide in the lead be the starting paragraph of the academic reaction section? The skeptically minded have a real right to summaries too. That has always been my main contention. If you think that is too risky still, I understand. I have bigger bones to pick than with the healthy criticism section of What The Bleep's page.-Tesseract²(talk) 16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let the current heightened attention die down a bit, and I'll see what I can do.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input on Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page

Hi Tesseract2, Could I get your input on the Vilayanur S. Ramachandran page. There seem to be a couple of single-purpose editors (perhaps meat-puppets of each other) who are determined to simply enforce their POV an all things related to Ramachandran, and who really do not seem to be into things like talk page use. See Talk:Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Special:Contributions/Neurorel, Special:Contributions/Edgeform and Special:Contributions/Pfstarrs. I might be out of my head, as I've been involved in a slow battle with them, but as a fellow neuroscience contributor, I thought I'd ask for some outside input. I also just asked Looie496 for some input. Thanks, Edhubbard (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only promise to take science's, wikipedia's, and Ramachandran's side. It will also be a few days before I can make time, but I do admire the neuroscientist in question, and so I would be very happy to take a look when I can. -Tesseract²(talk) 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I would expect of anyone. In particular, I'd like input on the mirror neurons and autism section. Note this current debate about the MNS comes in the context of a long history of slow attempts to undermine and discredit Ramachandran in many ways. As for the current version, it might be too much; I wrote it in response to repeated attempts to This was the old version [17], and after repeated attempts to introduce the material you note above, I rewrote to include more details and references to current review articles. I have even suggested that I was willing to go back to that short version on the talk page Talk:Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran#Let_Ramachandran_speak_for_himself.21, but so far Neurorel has mostly simply made edits and avoided the talk pages altogether. Of course, the MNS and ASD section in the Ramachandran biography is not the right place for all of this; the MNS page probably is better suited, but so far, the debate has been on the Ramachandran page. Thanks, Edhubbard (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barn

Hey, thank you! Green Cardamom (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's razor image removed

A newbie has removed an image that you added; see Talk:Occam's_razor#Image_and_description_inappropriate. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane?

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane? requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. andy (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Christopher Langan

As the subject of this Wikipedia biography article, I hereby request that you remove your recent misleading, disparaging, and potentially damaging edits.

The reasons for my request include the following:

1. This article is not about the CTMU or any other part of my scholarly work, but is biographical in nature. The CTMU is described only in a very general way, and only insofar as it is informative regarding my activities, opinions, and areas of interest.

No Wikipedia biography is to be used as a platform for criticizing the work of its subject, especially in a skewed and lopsided manner. If you want to address the CTMU in any way, you or someone else would first need to write a CTMU article; only then would you be in a position to criticize the theory and justify your edits under Wikipedia guidelines. Even in that event, your present additions would not seem to pass (see points 2-4).

2. The only source you cite is a web page titled in an extremely deprecating manner. Both the title of that page and your link to it include the offensive word "crank"; the same blogger elsewhere uses the term "crackpot" in reference to me regarding the same essay. This clearly violates BLP guidelines. (The comments on that web page are still active, which raises the likelihood that you are a disgruntled participant trying to get revenge or gain the upper hand, or perhaps merely an annoyed reader. In any case, your edits appear negatively motivated.)

3. The author of that web page, a gadfly named Mark Chu-Carroll, does not appear to be notable by Wikipedia standards, but merely has a blog which is highly contentious and often downright insulting in character. (If you and/or Mr. Chu-Carroll believe that he qualifies for a Wikipedia bio page, then he needs to stand on his own merits rather than trying to use the biographies of others as back doors.)

4. Wikipedia editors are required to be evenhanded. Your presentation is non-neutral; it presents only Chu-Carroll's own hostile and non-notable POV, completely ignoring mine. For example, you fail to report that I personally addressed all of Chu-Carroll's main objections on the spot in considerable detail, thus betraying your lack of impartiality.

Forgive me if I seem dismissive, but I am not presently interested in your personal opinion of me or my work, mathematics or metaphysics in general, or Chu-Carroll and his blog. I merely request that you observe Wikipedia guidelines and remove your biographically irrelevant and potentially harmful edits as soon as possible.

Thanks for your attention. Christopher Langan (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]