User talk:Gazelle55

706:

of consciousness, a lot of articles I read also supported this view. And yes I've listened to Strawson a lot, I fully agree with him our perception of "physical" is wrong. QM has already disproven the billiard ball solid stuff material view, and current theory is that all matter are excitation of the respective fundamental fields so what's physical is already far removed from our original intuition. I believe QM and consciousness are so weird - as both cannot be explain by the usual billiard ball Newtonian view of the universe - is because they are symptoms of a bigger problem, namely what exactly is "physical material". However there's still an issue of 1st person vs 3rd person with consciousness, merely assuming a naive panpsychism does not resolve this because properties are in the 3rd person, I think the hard problem doesn't just plague billiard ball materialism it also plagues panpsychism and substance dualism. I cannot understand how most reductionists adhere to thinking access consciousness=phenomenal, all physical systems are described using functions in some space containing all possible states, with laws (i.e. diff equations or Lagrangians) constraining what the functions are allowed to be, you're not gonna get the color of red out of this ever, full stop. This merely tells us the current understanding of physical is wrong, what Strawson has been saying for years. I get very frustrated by this tbh, they literally refuse to admit the emperor is naked. But a revolution in physics is needed before anyone can make progress towards consciousness... Roger Penrose hopefully will come up with something...

619:(property or substance) does not resolve the hard problem at all, idealism is a bit out there. I don't understand how mainstream view is that access consciousness=phenomenal, it's clear with the current understanding of what is a physical system phenomenal consciousness is not part of the picture, like how magnetic fields is not part of the picture in Newtonian mechanics so it had to be added as an extra ingredient, so I'd have to disagree with you there as my impression is that epiphenomenalism is the mainstream view. As for your edits, I just wanted to ask you about this question and you perfectly answered me, sorry if I'm using wikipedia as a forum. You can delete this message if you want. 469: 1204: 1898: 2330: 2180: 1967: 1544: 899: 394: 96: 578:

the easy problems of consciousness (those that concern the functions of consciousness) he is talking about access consciousness, whereas when he talks about the hard problem of consciousness he is talking about phenomenal consciousness. For the record, epiphenomenalism is a form of dualism and not the mainstream view, which would be reductive materialism (according to which phenomenal consciousness

1825:, thanks for alerting me to the issue and apologies for the errors it has produced. I was changing them because they were written a format that shows the date as a second author, which was obviously incorrect. I thought I had then fixed them but clearly I was sloppy because I now see several are still not working. I will go through the ones I changed one by one and make sure they all work. 1806:. The article now has multiple citation errors because you've broken the links between the short-form references and the full references. Note for example, that calling a reference 'CNN 2010' doesn't work when there is more than one CNN reference from 2010 and the links from the Sfn templates don't work when the sfnref template in the full citation defines the reference as something else. 655:, nice to meet a fellow panpsychist. :-) No worries, I worded that more bluntly than I meant to. And actually, the point about epiphenomenalism is important to the hard problem page since I didn't cover it in much depth in the "Proposed solutions" section, but if it is the mainstream view it deserves more. Who would you says are examples of contemporary epiphenomenalists? I only know of 522:. What do you mean by functions of consciousness? Isn't the mainstream view consciousness is epiphenomenal? Yet I heard Christof Koch say something about functions and he doesn't believe in free will. The obvious problem is with any use you can think of for consciousness, it can be done without and would take less energy. Imo I don't even know what consciousness is doing there, look at 757:

dynamics (i.e., functions) so cannot solve the 1st person/3rd person issue. To me that is a philosophical issue. I agree that panpsychism doesn't resolve it either, since it is open to a dualist interpretation (where functional physical properties are separate from intrinsic experiential properties/natures) or a monist/physicalist interpretation (where the functional properties really

667:(at around 9:00, and esp. around 12:45) that even Chalmers disagrees and says reductive materialism is the most common view. Personally I agree with what you're saying about consciousness being fundamental, but I don't think that means it isn't physical—it just means the nature of the physical is different than we intuitively feel. 2129:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1429:

I have reverted your undo on Baha'i India pages, because the Primary source of Information is the Governor's letter. which is the highest office in the State of Maharastra.The Governor has asked for the action to be taken. The Secondary source of reference is the official website of University .There

1242:

page for some time but it is hard to find time to add a large volume of well-sourced material like you have just done! Kudos :) There may be a few small issues with what you added but I will look over the whole page again first and then post on the talk page there. Looking forward to collaborating in

761:

the experiential properties, my tentative view). Maybe you have a different reason for feeling the hard problem applies to panpsychism, though (as always if you have a source would be great for the panpsychism article). As for the intuition that the color red can never be reduced to functions, I feel

577:

needed to stay alive (according to the article you linked to), but no doubt lost the (non-essential) functions associated with the rest of his brain. Depending whether consciousness is connected to the brainstem, he may or may not have still been conscious. Roughly speaking, when Chalmers talks about

1764:

I thought that the pointer to references always grabs the first in line, but maybe that changed. If it wants only one ref to point to, I added the ref={{sfnref|Smith|2008a}} attribute to force the ref in "further reading" to be of the year "2008a" instead of "2008". It won't affect appearance at all

572:

put it), the experience; access consciousness is the neural basis of that experience. All parts of the brain have functions (whether or not these are essential for life), as is known from studies of brain lesions, so access consciousness has a function—virtually everyone in the field agrees on this.

2307:

article. I have made edits today in keeping with your edits, and WP:VERIFY, and other policies and guidelines. Note also, a part of what was done was to move into footnote bulky explanatory material about normative religious practice that was pasted in, in November 2022 (which is largely off-point,

705:

That's funny, out of all my reading I had the strong impression epiphenomenon is the mainstream view... But obviously Chalmers knows the area far better and I must of got things wrong. Christof Koch, Francis Crick, the 2 who broke the taboo to talk about consciousness, both believe in epiphenomenal

1491:

Hi Gazelle55" Under secretary to the Governor Dr.S.M. Salunke wrote to the Principal Secretary to the Government Higher and Technical Education Department, which in turn wrote to the Vice Chancellor University of Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, The Registrar office of the university posted on

1098:

and had been dithering about getting the English version started, so thanks for taking the initiative. I have requested and obtained help to merge the corresponding Wikidata item for both articles. I will be working on adding some improvements to the article including adding awards and a picture

756:

says a revolution in physics may be needed to solve the question of consciousness—do you know more about what he's said? He definitely deserves at least a full sentence on the page. On the other hand I tend towards Chalmers' view that even a revised physics will still only describe structure and

618:

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know about access consciousness. Imo access consciousness has nothing to do with what consciousness usually means, it can be easily conceived to be explained in material terms since it's just input-output. I think panpsychism is indeed the only way to go, dualism

108:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

406:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

679:). They would say that when you write it's clear phenomenal consciousness isn't part of the physical picture, that's just an inaccurate intuition we've evolved to have. Not endorsing that, just trying to say it is the most common view and that it is different from epiphenomenalism. 2308:

as it related Christian communion practices to entheogenic experience, a connection which is and has been a stretch, apart from clerical abuses, for perhaps 1800 years). I invite you to look in at your convenience, to affirm/correct what you see. Cheers, an educator.

770:

about consciousness not being as it seems but uses them to support panpsychism. That said, it would be interesting to see what authors you've read on your side of the question cause they could be added to the relevant articles regardless of whether I agree.

1630:

We urgently need a Knowledge article on the famous neuorscientist, Mikhail Lebedev. Can you please finish the article on Mikhail Lebedev this weekend? It needs to be nominated as a good or featured article within 30 days. I Already started. Please see

599:

Anyway, as much as I like talking about these things, I do want to clarify: in what way (if any) do you think the issue affected my edits on the hard problem of consciousness page? Since really that is the point of a Knowledge talk page.

751:

link to one? Quantum mechanics is certainly something else and I imagine you know a lot more about it than I do. Since I have you here—I've been working on the panpsychism page including the part on quantum mechanics, and it mentions

1869:, these look very helpful and should definitely save me time in the future. In the meantime, I simply checked every citation in the list for problems and fixed all that weren't working, so the article should be good to go. 1449:, thanks for your explanation. The governor and the university are both primary sources – a secondary source means one that is one degree removed from the events (usually an academic paper or a news article, see 1495:

Moreover the Governor has taken the action in his capacity by asking the university to take "Appropriate Action" Whether a positive or negative action was taken that shoud'nt be the part of this news. Thanks.

2375: 2225: 2010: 1587: 942: 762:

it just like you do (indeed, very strongly), and I used to follow it to a broadly dualist conclusion, but I've come to think that like all our other intuitions it shouldn't be trusted. I've been influenced by

434: 136: 2265:"one of" does take plural, but there is no mention of "one of" here, instead it reads: "Táhirih was the first Iranian women to be executed on grounds of "corruption on earth", which is grammatically WRONG! 2122: 2359:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2209:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1994:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1571:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 926:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 418:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 120:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 825:, I totally agree that the "scientific miracles in the Quran" thesis shouldn't be represented as a matter of serious dispute among scientists. Actually I think the section (and even more so, the 803:

where it would be possible not to separate the section in pro/criticism. But after a second read I think that the balance is overall acceptable, because of the way the arguments are toned. —

2309: 829:

page) still needs to be a lot clearer that the claims have been overwhelmingly rejected by scholars whereas their support comes from popular writers and websites (which don't qualify as

2344: 2194: 1980: 1557: 912: 1238:, thank you so much! I'm honored to receive my first barnstar. By the way, I'm really glad to see you working on philosophy of mind pages. I have been slowly cleaning up the 1787:, yes I'll take a look at that before I fix up anymore sfn refs, to make sure it's all done properly. And what you did seems to work so I'll do the same for Stockman. 833:). Right now the "claims" vs "criticism" sections could be easily misinterpreted as equal "support" vs "criticism". I'll have to find some sources for that, though. 1282: 1122:

a while back, though I couldn't find much information available. Anyway, let me know of any future opportunities to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia!

987: 747:

Well, Crick and Koch definitely deserve to be mentioned on the epiphenomenalism page and perhaps the hard problem page if we can find a source for that. Could

26: 1281: 986: 25: 1666: 675:. Most reductive physicalists use the inverse strategy and say phenomenal consciousness, while perfectly real, is different than we intuitively feel (see 799:

I noticed your work there (a significant improvement), thank you very much. When looking at the Quran scientific predictions claims, I also reminded of

1306: 1169: 1011: 193: 350: 1305:

because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion

43:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge and get help from experienced editors like 1516: 2126: 362: 1910:

Just a note of thanks for your efforts to overcome differences and to seek and build consensus with other editors on articles related to the

1165: 278: 189: 2284:, I agree with you and I changed it back. By the way, it wasn't actually me who reverted your change, though – it was User:Soundofmusicals. 2075:. I have at last nominated the main article for FA review. I shall be very happy if you could take a look at it, when convenient of course. 2398: 2248: 2033: 1609: 964: 721: 634: 541: 448: 150: 1696: 874:, I'm a bit puzzled by your post. I have never edited that page nor do I know much of anything on the topic. Best of luck with editing. 266: 2094:, thanks for letting me know. It is a topic I have edited on a lot as you say and I will be happy to contribute to the FAR discussion. 1474:

Pasting this on the talk page of the article for anyone checking in the future, if you have more thoughts you can let me know there :)

1119: 2313: 2130: 1650: 2052:

Some sensible edits here. Grateful if you wish to take a look at the recent edits. I’m not going to start edit warring here :).

489: 481: 2394: 2244: 2029: 1605: 960: 444: 146: 358: 1927: 274: 1632: 1155: 179: 1091: 2368: 2218: 2003: 1580: 935: 427: 129: 2380: 2230: 2015: 1592: 947: 676: 439: 236: 141: 1453:). And the governor just said "appropriate action," meaning he was leaving it up to the discretion of the university. 660: 50: 320: 1216:

I don't know who you are but we have all the same interests and have read the same books so I think you're cool

1758: 717: 630: 561: 537: 73: 1151: 175: 2270: 2143: 1754: 1263: 1221: 1143: 1104: 809: 800: 672: 167: 2356: 2206: 1991: 1840: 1646: 1568: 923: 656: 415: 117: 2118: 2072: 1803: 1373:

Thanks for your consistently good edits to pages related to the Baha'i Faith. I hope you stick around.

232: 2057: 1943:– mainly just something I do while procrastinating from my real work, but glad to hear it's helpful! 1638: 1395: 1159: 1142:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

709: 622: 583: 565: 529: 183: 166:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

1911: 1772: 1717: 1676: 1380: 1349: 1059: 748: 713: 652: 626: 553: 533: 1512: 1497: 1446: 1431: 316: 1922: 1294: 1003: 826: 497: 486:, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with disability on Knowledge. 57: 40: 1118:, no problem – thanks for continuing to improve the article. I also created a short article for 663:

say epiphenomenalism is the mainstream view, but it isn't his area of expertise and you can see

2338: 2188: 2154: 2134: 1974: 1551: 1501: 1435: 1302: 1259: 1235: 1217: 1185: 1115: 1100: 1007: 906: 822: 804: 468: 402: 377: 335: 293: 251: 209: 104: 2387: 2352: 2237: 2202: 2022: 1987: 1914:. It's quite refreshing to see and it's clearly resulting in a lot of good work being done! 1642: 1599: 1564: 954: 919: 860: 411: 224: 113: 2367:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2217:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2002:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1579:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1405:

Thank you both for you kind words. Looking forward to working together in the future. Btw,

1010:

because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion

934:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 519: 426:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 128:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2281: 2266: 2080: 2053: 1848: 1811: 1391: 1049: 849: 763: 1203: 1162:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 186:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 2364: 2285: 2214: 2158: 2095: 1999: 1944: 1870: 1826: 1788: 1784: 1766: 1735: 1731: 1711: 1670: 1576: 1520: 1475: 1461: 1457: 1450: 1410: 1406: 1374: 1345: 1309:. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to 1244: 1147: 1123: 1087: 1055: 931: 875: 834: 772: 767: 680: 668: 601: 591: 423: 125: 1515:, thanks for your interest and your respectful response. I'm pasting your response at 526:

and planarian worms cut in half, life can get along just fine without consciousness.

2360: 2210: 1995: 1940: 1916: 1839:

If you're not using them already, there are tools (particularly the user scripts) at

1572: 1339: 1333: 1176:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1095: 1041: 1035: 927: 493: 419: 270: 200:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

121: 1897: 1505: 1439: 1181: 1177: 830: 753: 569: 373: 369: 331: 327: 308: 289: 285: 247: 243: 205: 201: 2329: 2179: 1966: 1543: 1322: 1024: 898: 393: 95: 568:

seems relevant here. Phenomenal consciousness is "what it is like to be you" (as

1239: 871: 856: 587: 2157:, I will write up some thoughts soon and post them there for discussion. Best, 1695: 1492:

the official site of the university. I wonder how it is just a Primary source.

523: 2114: 2091: 2076: 2071:

Hello there. I gather you take a particular interest in topics concerning the

1866: 1844: 1822: 1807: 664: 475: 2304: 586:. (For what it's worth in my opinion reductive materialism actually entails 574: 557: 1430:

cannot be more profound news than the official website of the university.

1014:. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please 45: 1456:

But in general I do think a lot of the Baha'i pages on Knowledge violate

2371:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2221:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2006:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1583:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

938:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

430:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

132:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2402: 2348:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2317: 2292: 2274: 2252: 2198:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2166: 2147: 2103: 2084: 2061: 2037: 1984:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1952: 1931: 1878: 1852: 1834: 1815: 1796: 1777: 1743: 1722: 1681: 1654: 1613: 1561:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1528: 1483: 1469: 1418: 1399: 1385: 1353: 1267: 1252: 1225: 1189: 1131: 1108: 1063: 968: 916:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

883: 864: 842: 815: 780: 725: 688: 638: 609: 594:

has articulated. But that's not the norm within reductive materialism.)

545: 501: 452: 381: 354: 339: 312: 297: 255: 228: 213: 171: 154: 474:

Hello, Gazelle55, I have noticed your interest in articles related to

582:

access consciousness described in a different way). For example see

2384:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2234:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2019:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1596:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1328: 1030: 951:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 349:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

307:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

265:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

223:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2374:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

2342:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

2224:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

2192:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

2009:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

1586:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

941:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

433:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

135:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

1978:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

1555:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

68: 1734:, and I should say your hard work is appreciated too. Best, 1094:

article in English! I have contributed significantly to the

2125:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 520:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hard_problem_of_consciousness

1757:. I leave it to remind myself of how footnotes work. Also 1519:

in case other editors are interested. I will reply there!

659:, but he changed his mind over 15 years ago. I have heard 1710:

Your fair and civil contributions are much appreciated.

910:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2355: