User talk:MelbourneStar

Reverts to Australian Federal Election 2013

Hi there,

I have made some contributions to page talk here. Arguments are pretty straightforward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_federal_election,_2013

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For all your hard work reverting vandalism on the Neighbours and Home and Away articles. 5 albert square (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, 5 albert square! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 00:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: September 2014

Hello. I have received your message, and the reason the Record at TCA's portion of the One Direction article was removed was because it is deemed unnecessary. It is formally mentioned in the Awards and nominations that One Direction have won all the 19 nominees for the TCA (Teen Choice Awards). Furthermore, this portion of the article should be placed in the List of awards and nominations received by One Direction article, which I believe already exists.

Since you caught this removal, I ask that you consider this and that you should do the removal of the portion of the article with reasoning.

Regards,

Muhand

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	After the attack on my page a few hours ago, I greatly accept your courage to fight against vandalism! I keep track of all vandal edits on my page and it's a thanks to have you monitor my page! DSCrowned(Talk) 03:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much DS!

Also, please keep up the marvellous job you're doing in reverting vandalism on the project.

Your user page, I've noticed, has received a considerable amount of IP vandalism of recent - you should perhaps have it semi-protected? Just a suggestion. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have asked somebody to semi-protect the page. However, it has not been done, User:Materialscientist came in and reverted a vandalism edit, but he may not have noticed my request to protect the page at Wikipedia's requests for page protection page. DSCrowned^(Talk) 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the report and I'm quite baffled as to the rationale behind not granting the protection. I count 10 vandalism related edits to the user page, from different IP addresses, in the past 24 hours. For now I suppose, let it slip. Should it persist, report it again, and I'll be more than happy to assist as I think that's pretty rediculous. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

consciousness

Hi,

This is a response to your message to me at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hguolcr

with regard to consciousness. The best source reference for that is that of Leibniz, who called it apperception. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apperception

where it says

"The term originates with René Descartes in the form of the word apercevoir in his book Traité des passions. Leibniz introduced the concept of apperception into the more technical philosophical tradition, in his work Principes de la nature fondés en raison et de la grâce; although he used the word practically in the sense of the modern attention, by which an object is apprehended as "not-self" and yet in relation to the self."

but that does not explain Leibniz's model of perception, which is given on

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/#PerApp

Thgis is unnecessarily complicated. I give a much simpler description on

https://plus.google.com/102826634347882994527/posts/KgWrPCPTA8S

as

"Consciousness is (awareness of a) perception. Leibniz called this apperception. The conversion by Plato's Mind of physical sensory never signals into mental experience. This is only possible in platonic or idealistic philosophies, such as that of Leibniz." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hguolcr (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

This concerns your page on "Leibniz's gap."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%27s_gap

There is some truth to this, for Leibniz clearly says that mind and brain are two different things, and have different essences:

http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/mindbody.html

  " The essence of matter is nothing but to be extended in space, that is, to occupy a volume of space.
   The essence of mind is nothing but the activity of thinking.
   From this he concluded:
   Since matter and mind have differing essences, the mind is not the brain, for the brain, being made of matter, is a purely material entity, and mind is not material in nature.

   Thus, the brain must be one thing and the mind must be another thing entirely.     The mind is therefore a nonmaterial or nonphysical entity."

"The essence of mind is nothing but the activity of thinking" This seems to be a mis-translation for the word essence, if by essence we mean monad, for mind, being nonphysical, can not have a monad of its own, rather it is the monad of the brain.

I believe that Leibniz was in fact a dualist, but a dualist in the Platonic or Idealistic sense (Mind/,matter), not in the Cartesian sense of extended/nonextended.

In the Idealistic sense, mind creates and controls matter, so that Mind plays the brain like a vi9olin.

Thus Leibniz's gap is simply the cause/effect gap.

-- Hguolcr (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: https://rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net