User talk:Cimon Avaro/ArtConsc mediation

Mediationpage

This is the mediation page for Artificial consciousness. Please sign in below; to indicate cognisance of this page.

• Cimon 09:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
• User:80.3.32.9 9:46 9/12/04
• Paul Beardsell 09:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Matt Stan 13:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Tkorrovi 14:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I would like to go further to arbitration, concerning trolling by Paul Beardsell, and Matthew Stannard. Tkorrovi 18:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nothing? Paul Beardsell 11:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, considering how things are going so far, I see no possibility to ultimately omit arbitration, no matter how much I would like to do that. Though I shall prepare it carefully, based on other cases and precedence, I'm not very optimistic concerning the results, taking into consideration a more than lukewarm perception of your persistent personal attacks during a long period of time, and I was trying to be so patient bearing it, that I already look like a massochist for some. But in spite of all that, as I said, there is likely no other alternatives either. Well and then I certainly do it, no matter how much I dislike it, or how well I would succeed in doing it, that's all irrelevant when there is a matter with no other alternatives. Well and then, I go further if necessary. Fortunately I have endlessly lot of time. Tkorrovi 19:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

In revolutionary times, those who accord themselves, with an extraordinary arrogance, the facile credit for having enflamed anarchy in their contemporaries fail to recognise that what appears to be a sad triumph is in fact due to a spontaneous disposition, determined by the social situation as a whole. (Auguste Comte - Philosophie Positive, Leçon 48) Matt Stan 12:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes that's right, considering you. Considering me, you and Paul don't allow me to have a dignity of a simple human. Tkorrovi 15:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I note that Tkorrovi is now allowing the typically constructive and interesting edits by 80.*.*.* to stand despite his repeated assertions that 80.*.*.* is someone's sock puppet. I like the direction the article is taking. If it is the "trolling" (and, of course, the word is misused by him) which has made him sit back and think again then the outcome is positive. Edit boldly, 80.*.*.*. Come back, SlimVirgin. Paul Beardsell 09:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This was the most impudent. I never wanted to prevent editing by anybody. Because of the danger of your trolling, I almost cannot edit the article at all, whenever I do, the trolling begins again. Tkorrovi 15:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Material from here moved to Talk:Artificial_consciousness#Epiphenomenalism Matt Stan 20:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but, who recently said on Cimon Avaro talk page, that he is a black hat thinker? Tkorrovi 15:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

De Bono's point about the black hat thinker (itself derived from the Vatican's institution of the devil's advocate) is that it is more constructive to criticise in a ritualised context by indicating in advance that one is playing devil's advocate (or putting on the black hat). That's not to say that the person playing that role can't also provide praise where praise is due. Matt Stan 14:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought about physics, the system developed by me for example has many similarities for example with the implicate order of David Bohm, and this seems to be not just a coincidence. And this is true also concerning other systems, potentially capable of implementing AC. Also, considering the suggestions that neuron works based on quantum effects, there may even be a practical connection, if we for example consider using quantum computer. But the problem is, that there are yet no good published theories about the connection between AC and physics, and nothing like that has been proved anyhow. So at present, it is at the best just a speculation. This is why I preferred not to mention that in the article, it's better to explain AC, which is much better determined, has its sources in the papers, and is something which at least can be in some extent properly explained. Not even to talk about original research, it's better not to connect it with the theories of universe or such, which at present are not more than speculations, the whole thing may look like a doubtful speculation then, and the article cannot anyhow be considered anything serious then. People can read about all the philosophy there is, and make the connections themselves, the way they like. We may provide some links though. Please consider. Concerning style, it's not so good, just an inevitable consequence of editing by different editors in the condition of trolling. Tkorrovi 15:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New

As a preparation for arbitration, I archived the article, archives, and history of both the article and its discussion, at http://adsproject.sourceforge.net/acw.zip to prevent deleting comments from the history.

As you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_2 I asked Paul to apologize. I remember previously there was a comment when I asked it first time, and there was an offense by Paul before that. But now all that is deleted, deleted from the history, not just a talk page, and it gives an impression like I asked an apology for nothing. The history has been tampered with, don't know by who or how it could happen though.

So for any occasion for whatever reason the parts of the history to be lost from now on, the whole discussion is archived now in addition to the archives on discussion pages. Tkorrovi 18:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TKorrovi, the history will be found by pressing the "history" button. Nothing has been lost. But, for the avoidance of doubt, no archiving of the AC article or its talk pages has ever been done by me. And, if there is anyone left who is interested, please do follow the link in the above posting. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 06:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remind us, Tkorrovi, what did you ask me to apologise for? Paul Beardsell 21:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember, I don't want to remember the bad things, I want to remember the good things. But now it was only as much important, that I found it necessary to archice the discussion and history, just as a precaution. But if one wants to see an offense by Paul Beardsell, now they will follow. Tkorrovi 22:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You remind me of this. Paul Beardsell 05:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rather look like this. Tkorrovi 19:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You conform disconcertingly to type. Excellent haircut, by the way. Paul Beardsell 09:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes I don't look like a movie actor, I'm also not one, concerning how do I look like there is nothing I can do to please you more. Tkorrovi 17:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sysops, please consider banning Paul Beardsell, as "no personal attacks" is an official policy of Wikipedia. I already once reported him in "vandalism in progress" [1], he was then put in the category "Non- or minor vandals" though (btw, the sentence that they there so much talk about, is removed today by me). Tkorrovi 15:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nothing removed today by you, according to the log. Have you been drinking? Paul Beardsell 21:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't drink at all, but thanks for another insult. And stop mocking my English, I said it is removed (a passive verb in the singular third person indicative mood), today, which means that today it is in the state of being removed, and I removed it. Are you still unable to understand? Tkorrovi 21:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The inclusion of the word "today" introduced an unnecessary ambiguity. So, on what day did you remove the sentence, if it were not "today"? Paul Beardsell 06:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes you are right that it added an unnecessary ambiguity, this has often been your style as well. I removed that sentence when I tried to satisfy your NPOV requirements. You had to check that, as removing this sentence was one of your requirements. But you apparently did not notice removing that sentence, and did not check whether your requirements were met, when immediately after I removed the NPOV label, you added NPOV label again. Tkorrovi 14:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this mediation?

Hey, is this what was meant by "mediation"? Paul Beardsell 05:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I think it's almost a kind of steganography. We are dealing with someone about whom we can known in advance (in line with the claimably dubious notion about a conscious entity necessarily having the ability to predict) that he will predictbly misunderstand and react negatively to any assertion made by you, regardless of context, claiming that he is not being treated as a human. In order for mediation to be successful, a mediator - probably not Paul or myself - needs to get involved to defuse this situation. Otherwise I fear that this will just become another of those enormous archives, of which there are now many (and stuff can't be deleted out of wikipedia without the intervention of a developer, incidentally) characterised by a Tower of Babel-like inane, though it has to be said, at times, highly entertaining, chatter. Paul, why don't you take your own advice posted elsewhere and not take any notice of Tkorrovi, i.e. just don't respond, just let him have the last word, and focus on the content of the articles? Matt Stan 15:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the cartoon that is what the chatting pedestrians should do too. Easy to say, more difficult to do. Paul Beardsell 16:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes it's difficult sometimes. When you started the article, for a long time everything is peaceful, and then comes someone called Paul Beardsell, wants to delete the whole article, and refuses to discuss. If we did discuss then, we did avoid many conflicts, and the result was certainly not worse than it is today. Tkorrovi 15:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What this page is for

Please, continue discussion about the topic itself on the article's talk page. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 11:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)