User talk:Dndn1011

Hey, thanks for your comments at Talk:Singer-songwriter. Though I don't agree with everything you have said, you have made some good points. I'll try to respond in the next few days. Best regards, -MrFizyx 22:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soliton

Dear Dino, I will explain briefly what is soliton, and possibly I will make some edits in Wikipedia in the soliton article because it is not complete in my view and can be updated/expanded. Well, soliton as you may know is just [1] a "wave that preserves its shape" and [2] "does not dissipate in time". Therefore the soliton is JUST a mathematical object. The soliton may propagate in space (e.g. kink, antikink) or stay at the same place swinging forever (e.g. standing breather). I will update personally the article on the sine-Gordon model, and I will release some of the animations under GFDL license. Please see for some details my paper CogPrints 3894 or this perfect site on the sine-Gordon model Solitons and soliton collisions. By the way there are many nonlinear equations that obey the criteria [1] and [2] above. So solitons themselves cannot explain consciousness. Nevertheless, the solitons that we investigated with prof. Glazebrook are quantum solitons, so they may be entangled, etc., thus bringing quantum mechanics and entanglement into consciousness studies. See also the highly censored article on quantum mind where it is said that the said quantum effects can be neglected when one studies consciousness. For me this un-argumented insisting that quantum mechanics is not relevant to consciousness studies is nothing but manifestation of intellectual laziness. Kind regards, Danko Georgiev MD 07:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness

Dear Dino, you may send me e-mail to discuss consciousness. Soon I intend to release a paper on the nature/ontology of consciousness that I am preparing since 3-4 years. Basicly what I say is the same as Wittgenstein and Neurath - science is limited and can capture only that can be captured by science - tautology isn't it :-)? The ontology of consciousness is outside of science and you may try this exercise - try to explain in words/symbols what is the redness of the red colour to a blind man! Can science help? Do you believe any string of symbols can help? Answer is - no solution. Science captures the order only, and what can be communicated is order. Mathematical objects, solitons, etc. are "communicable order". Qualia are themselves out of scientific description, since they cannot be communicated as a form of "order/string of symbols". Thus all attempts to explain consciousness as emergent out of order is doomed to failure by the very construction. In my personal view consciousness may be viewed as a primary intrinsic and noncommunicable ontology of the Universe. Noone has ever described what electron or quark really is. What we know is how these physical objects behave. In similar fashion we may assume that all the stuff in the Universe is sentient and even if we cannot explain what kind of sentience/experience is outthere, we may continue to describe the order in this sentient world. At first glance may seem as mysticism, but it is much more than that. I hope soon I will be able to release my paper online. The need of quantum theory comes from the theoretical consideration of causality and free will. Only if you have intrinsically non-computable non-predictable laws such as quantum laws, you may postulate causal role of the intrinsic ontology/consciousness. otherwise if everything were predictable, even if you postulate that the electron has feeling, this feeling would turn out to be causally ineffective - so called epiphenomenon Danko Georgiev MD 11:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ey Oh Dino,

There seems to be quite a kerfuffle on the 'quantum mind' page. I wonder if these things ever settle down on Wikipedia? There ought to be a whole raft of ideas from the early days of the quantum revolution (1920 or 1930 on) that could usefully be brought back to the surface if suitable references can be found. Is there no 'metaphysics' category on Wiki, for this is where quantum mind seems to me to belong.

But my reason for writing a note on your page here is to mention to you Alfred North Whitehead (despite Danko's comment above, which I now note). Whitehead seems possibly to have been somewhat prescient in his ideas of proto-mentality in all things. Bertrand Russell, with whom he wrote Principia, had reckoned, at least at a fairly late stage in his career, that the human brain could be entirely simulated by a deterministic computer; or, if it wasn't entirely logical, then by a deterministic system with a suitably random number generator incorporated. Thus he missed entirely a complete and most relevant aspect of the mind/matter question. Though the deterministic model allows causality, it doesn't appear to allow free will. And this goes to the nub of the quantum mind issue.

Best for now Davy p 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emoto's Article

Hey I've noticed that you've edited the article on Emoto. The references you are referring to can be found at:

The Explore journal Website http://www.explorejournal.com Vol 5. pp 408-411 (Dean Radin et al.) - This is the outline of the experiment. It can also be found on Dean Radin's blog - Abstract of the Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html

The mean aesthetic ratings can be viewed here - Results of the Double-blind test http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/image/68488129/original.jpg

Anyway just thought I should point it out.

Solitons

Dear Dino, I have updated the article of Sine-Gordon equation with some visualizations. I will try to do some edits in related articles discussing various soliton equations. Danko Georgiev MD 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: your comment on afshar's talk page

I know you are trying to mediate. Trouble is, you are no longer considered impartial by the contributors to the article. It also helps if you get all parties involved to agree to mediation. What you have reached is now people are viewing you as somebody "on the other side", even if you aren't. Hopefully, they will accept a 'fresh face' who is unbiased, and asking if everone will agree to sit down and talk civilly. Leave me a message if you have concerns. Thanks! Sdirrim 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already resigned the role. I did so as soon as I read that you were willing to mediate. You have my vote already. I suggest you just do it, don't wait for more votes. Voting is not the way of wikipedia. It works by concensus. Check the guidelines. I attempted to mediate (and actually had made some important progress) because no one was doing so. Get on with it, don't be shy. There is no formal process. You have to win people over by your actions. Dndn1011 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is a formal process, called arbitration. I am an informal mediator, with only as much authority as people will give me, same as you (Didn't really mean to steal your thunder - sorry if I did). Therefore, I have to get people to agree that they need mediation, preferably from me. So far, this has worked, and I am moving on to the actual dispute resolution. Thank you for the work you have done so far, and your continued help. You helped make this resolution possible. You might even consider checking out the Mediation Cabal (if it really exists) and adding the page for new cases to your watchlist. Have a good one! Sdirrim 18:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self confidence

I note that you contributed most of the text to self confidence, although you did not add any sources. The article was proposed for deletion and I have reverted it to a redirect to self-esteem, which starts off "also called self-worth, self-confidence"...

If you feel that any of your contributions should be retained, please fit them into the latter article. To recreate it would go against Wikipedia:Content forking. - Fayenatic london (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two topics are different. But I can't be arsed to argue the point any more. Dndn1011 23:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from an editor

I have been editing in Wikipedia.

May I ask you whether you are an administrator? (Salmon1 (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Quantum Information and Consciousness

Hello Dino. I thought the following book might be of some interest. If you want, you may contact me on my talk page or via e-mail.

Georgiev, Danko D. (2017). Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction. Boca Raton: CRC Press. ASIN B077YQCZ7N. ISBN 9781138104488. OCLC 1003273264.

Danko Georgiev (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]