Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 3

New Version(s)

I have made a start on a version which will attempt to put the real artificial consciousness position. But this, I am finding, requires contrast with the AC can never be real view so that is fleshed out too but it is not my intention to argue for that view. Please all feel free to contribute at Talk:Artificial consciousness/real. There are no special rules about contributing there. It is not my page, and there is no Master Editor: No unreasoned reverts, please, as per normal Wikipedia etiquette. All standard Wikipedia behaviour is permitted, including anonymous edits. As with all Wikipedia articles, this is a "work in progress". Tkorrovi is encouraged to contribute as is Paul Beardsell. But I understand that tkorrovi may be creating a version looking at AC from a more AC can not be real perspective and I have suggested that happen, if at all, here Talk:Artificial consciousness/notreal. Ataturk 02:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's a great start. In my view it is already the most balanced version we have had. Recognising that there are two underlying irreconcilable views viz Strong AC and Weak AC has to be the way forward. What this requires, though, is that anybody who states a supposed fact must allow that someone else modify it to state that that is only the view of those who hold the strong AC view (or only the view if those who hold the weak AC view). Paul Beardsell 03:17, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Ataturk 03:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who is Ataturk?

> No, you suggest to write an article either entirely based on one point of view or entirely based on other point of view ("real" or "not real"), this is not NPOV ("no point of view") principle of Wikipedia. As there are different points of view, then the article can be NPOV only when all these points of view are incorporated in one article. Tkorrovi

> Now you have me confused as only a few paras above you seem to be in favour of the idea. Ataturk 02:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please stop tricking, you saw clearly that my opposition was only on the ground that your last suggestion is not NPOV. Ataturk, please confirm that you are not Paul Beardell, just because you registered only during the dispute ...

You said I could not contribute unless I registered. Previously my contribution was anonymous. Ataturk 04:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

... and that you have no real name (and nothing at all) on your personal page and that I never asked you this. Just if you don't confirm, then there is a very different picture of what is going on here. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

I meant Paul Beardsell Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

If you disagree with Ataturk do so without dragging me in. I take umbrage at the implication that anybody who disagrees with you must be me. Paul Beardsell 04:07, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV does not stand for "no point of view". See NPOV. 203.100.251.10 04:32, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please register, if you want to participate in decising important questions, you should also have responsibility to identify yourself. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

Stop the wind up. But thanks for replacing my heading. Ataturk 12:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consensus

The article was frozen pending consensus. As there was an edit war going on presumably not everyone is happy with the frozen version. A task was set - to achieve consensus here. A new version of the article seems to this writer to fairly represent the various POVs expressed so far. Other versions have been invited. Other contributions have been invited. This writer proposes that in the absence of other versions that the version so far contributed should be considered the consensus view if only by default. And that it be made the new unfrozen version of the article. Do not complain about this proposal, get editing if you are unhappy. 203.100.251.10 05:00, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The one (so far) new version is here Talk:Artificial consciousness/real. 203.100.251.10 05:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A discussion re freeze and new version: Wikipedia:Village pump#Master Editor 203.100.251.10 16:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

tkorrovi continues to attack me but is not contributing suggestions for a consensus view of what the article should be. Neither is he contributing to the page proposed as a candidate for the new version of the article, nor is he proposing an alternative version. Paul Beardsell 16:52, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No dispute is solved yet

You make a lot of noise but you have stopped contributing. Are you happy with the proposed new version or not? Paul Beardsell 17:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I already said that I don't agree, read above. And no „new“ version as you did must be sturted, after everything is solved, work must start from protected version to honor all the contributions included there. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

Tkorrovi refuses above to contribute to any version other than the frozen one. He has ignored suggestions that he do so on the page created for him for that purpose. I suggest editing continue on a new article: Consciousness (artificial) Paul Beardsell 18:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How ridiculous is this? Now tkorrovi DICTATES what the section headings can be on this Talk page. We have an edit war about the section headings on the talk page!

I see that unsigned comments start to appear here. Presumed to be by Paul Beardsell. How much headings did tkorrovi change? 90% of the heading here are written by *you* (Paul Beardsell), so you don't like me (or perhaps anybody else) even to edit headings. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

Consciousness (artificial)

Editors are encouraged, should they find their contributions unwelcome here, to contribute to an article which has evolved from the frozen version of this one and which seems to represent practically all POVs expressed here, ever. It has also moved on and contains new and interesting edits. See Consciousness (artificial). 203.221.246.108 02:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reciprocal courtesy requested

At the top of the new candidate consensus version of artificial consciousness to be found at consciousness (artificial) the following notice can be found:

Please see artificial consciousness for an alternative article on this subject. This article derives from that one. See Village pump also.

I wish to have a similar notice at the top of this Talk page. I ask that tkorrovi stop removing such notice.

Ataturk 11:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, this talk page is not dependent on consciousness (artificial) talk page, maybe Ataturk (or Paul Beardsell) is recognized by users as master editor there, but he has no such status here. And please stop playing with the headings. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

New Comments

I had some reason to consider a masked attempt by Paul Beardsell to make this article effectively blank. See revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Artificial_consciousness&diff=2749589&oldid=2749452 and before that he tried to remove other components of article what he only left in the article in that revision. I tried to protect the content of this article. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

You try to protect the article from improvement. Paul Beardsell 16:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's obvious that these two comments don't belong to the section "Who is Ataturk". Moved here as new comments. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

And it is also obvious that they do not belong in the Consensus section. To start a new section place two '=' signs each side of the section header. You are able to do this for yourself. Paul Beardsell 16:36, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For making it clear. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

Can you please figure out that there should be no section below "New Comments" section, only then new comments posted by people to the end of talk page appear in *that* section. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

I suggest you petition the Wikipedia developers to change the system so that it works like you want. In the interim I suggest you operate in accordance with the current system. Paul Beardsell 17:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Paul, if you even want to harrass me next few months, every day, every hour, I'm prepared for that, though it is the least what I want. I have no joice because I once started this article and cannot leave it just because of you. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

Stay, read NPOV, stop reverting without good reason, contribute. Paul Beardsell 17:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you please figure out that there should be no section below "New Comments" section, only then new comments posted by people to the end of talk page appear in *that* section. I just deleted another such added by you. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

I repeat what I said, I just deleted another such section header added by you. If you want to start another article, it's your concern, at least concerning artificial consciousness I maintain only this article. Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

Your position is stronger than that: What you say by your actions is that only you maintain this article. I am going to move Artificial consciousness to Tkorrovi's article. Paul Beardsell 01:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

> And it is also obvious that they do not belong in the Consensus section. To start a new section place two '=' signs each side of the section header. You are able to do this for yourself. Paul Beardsell 16:36, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consensus section was last then, so it was your wish that all new comments (posted without subject) must be considered to be in last section, I considered it and so „New Comments“ section was started. But if you all the time change your wishes, then any person treated by you like that cannot possibly have agreement with you even in smallest things.

Tkorrovi 15 Mar 2004

If all comments go under one heading, why have a heading at all? Paul Beardsell 18:32, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged, should they find their contributions unwelcome here, to contribute to an article which has evolved from the frozen version of this one and which seems to represent practically all POVs expressed here, ever. It has also moved on and contains new and interesting edits. See Consciousness (artificial). 203.221.246.108 02:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

203.221.246.108 (presumably Paul Beardsell), the duplicate of the message above was deleted from the top of this page. You are not administrator, neither am I, so you have no right to put your opinion as a first message of the talk page as a main guideline. Also the header "Is field worthy of discussion" because by questioning that, you put yourself higher than users, who must have right to decide themselves what they like to discuss. It is assumed that people who write here find the topic worth of discussion, but if it is the case that you write here without finding the topic of this article worth of discussion, then the mildest name of such activity is trolling. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

Ridiculing heading "Tkorrovi reserves the bottom of the article for himself" deleted do I have any right to protect myself? Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

He will not allow new sections at the bottom of this Talk page. He will not allow text to be inserted at the top of the page. He will not allow perfectly reasonable titles to be inserted into the document to give it structure.

Ataturk, please don't disturb Ugen64 with your long accusations, most of what you said there has been talked about here. Just one comment by me, concerning "my own external articles" (there is only one such, no my contributions whatsoever in the other(s)). The only my "external article", what in fact is a link to download page of a freeware program, is the link named "Proposed mechanisms for AC implemented by computer program: absolutely dynamic systems". As you see from page history, there was before a heading "Proposed mechanisms for AC implemented by computer program" and under that as one item "absolutely dynamic systems". It was for a long time so, but as nobody added more links to that heading, then one editor (see history) decided to remove the subheading and make it only one link under Externel Link(s), and for a long time nobody added other external links either (see history). Also many people who edited this article didn't want to remove that link, except Paul Beardsell. This particular program written by me was once also a subject of offense by Paul Beardsell, after that he refocused on removing all the rest from the article, one possible motivation to make article blank to start his own article from that place written then mostly by him and his close friend Matthew Stannard (most of the comments on his talk page are by Paul Beardsell, he is also the same as Matt Stan). It's interesting to observe that you proposed changes to article exactly in the same wording as Paul Beardsell, supported without exception everything what Paul Beardsell said or proposed, and now are against the same link Paul Beardsell was. Then if you really are not Paul Beardsell, then you might be a twin brother of Paul Beardsell. But now concerning your criticism. It was also talked earlier in this page, there are not much freeware programs written especially for AC (what might be necessary for AC), so I considered useful to have it there, to have all such freeware programs. I am against including commercial programs or even freeware programs what are somehow used in commercial activities (maybe including book selling) as this would be promotion, whether then self-promotion or not. I cannot agree though with the argument that a link to freeware program written by me cannot be added by me. There is a huge number of links to freeware programs in Wikipedia and most likely most of them were added by either authors or by maintainers of these freeware programs. If you now want to delete links to all these freeware programs, then there are too many of them in Wikipedia and you know that you cannot do this because of the huge opposition what it would result. Also one cannot agree with the argument that freeware program cannot be included if there is not article about it in peer-reviewed journal. Yes, there is no such article about my program (the earlier version of this article with a to my program was listed though in the web page of "Science Daily", don't know whether it needed a review or not). Though there is also no negative review of my program by any expert. If there was a demand that any program or amendment to software was only accepted when published in a peer-reviewed journal, then software couldn't possibly develop to what it is now. When you know something about programming then you know how many programs there are what are never published in a peer-reviewed journal, but are in wide use. For example I entertain myself now by porting public domain vi editor Stevie to curses (Windows and Linux) and making it a "real" public domain program by changing the regular expressions code there to real public domain one. Stevie is a very important editor, based on what was written one of the best programmer's editors today called Vim, but I don't know that there is article about it in peer-reviewed journal, and if you even look how much there is talk about it in the Internet -- only a few web pages, not much interest seems to be, but it is so likely at most because people don't understand these questions much, not because it has almost no importance whatsoever. So I don't know about your point of view, show me even a precedence where link to freeware program (not anyhow used commercially) was deleted in Wikipedia because it was not published in peer-reviewed journal. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

Sorry, I had to give my condolences to close person of mine whose mother died, I could not omit that. But now I'm back to deal with possible further trolling. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004