User talk:TimidGuy

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Quantum mind

Reply to your posting I have revised the paragraph to meet your objections. The point I was trying to make is that we must be very humle in establishing where quantum processes can and cannot occur. The citation from Tegmark is over 15 years old. That is forever in science. Then it was thought that "noisy" macroscopic environments would inevitably decohere a quantum superposition. However, we know now that photosynthesis in a very macroscopic leaf depends upon quantum processes. Today we are even talking of building working quantum supercomputers so to rule out quantum processes in something the size of the brain is ludicrous. Indeed, we know about very big quantum devices like superconducting cables which are bigger than the brain. This is the point I was trying to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polambda (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see "A question of identifying reliable sources and references"

Here: [1] Jdontfight (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have indeed misrepresented sources, but I'm not sure the particular issue you're raising here is valid. TimidGuy (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Timid Guy!

I have certainly already experienced it, but I am trying to be smarter about how I edit this page now. But thanks so much for the support!! Since so many people use wikipedia as their first source of information, having it written neutrally is KEY, especially since biodynamic agriculture, as a closed system, is an important way to address some of the challenges we face in growing our food in the future. Any assistance you can give me by throwing weight into these edits, or collaborating with me on how to phrase them as most neutral will be much appreciated! -Samantha Snl223 (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help out. You were totally right, they are only interested in portraying it as a pseudo science, not in accuracy or having the most updated or neutral information. Yikes! I wish wikipedia were more transparent with that information. Snl223 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]