User talk:Neuroscience325

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Neuroscience325, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Darylgolden! You might think that Wikipedia is near completion and doesn't need your help, but that's not true! Wikipedia may seem to be running smoothly on the surface, but we still have many backlogs and problems that need attention, and I would like to thank you so much for helping out. Here are some pages to guide you!

Introduction and The five pillars of Wikipedia
Markup guideline (it may seem daunting at first, but it's actually quite easy!) and Simplified Manual of Style
How to edit a page

Wikipedia requires editors who can perform different roles - what would you like to do?

Y Would you like to help to correct the spelling and grammar of some pages? Here's a list of articles you can copyedit! Here's a guide of how to do that.
Y Would you like to update and increase the accuracy of some of our pages? Here's a list of outdated articles! Remember to cite your sources (This is a helpful guide to get you started).
Y Would you like to help make Wikipedia better by fighting vandalism? You can and it's very appreciated! Here's a quick and simple guide.
Y Are you a writer or an expert in a field and would like to lengthen a few of our existing articles? Click here for a list of short articles you can expand, sorted by topic.
Y Would like to improve one of our articles in a specific topic and interest? Choose a WikiProject to join here!
Are you a company owner, employee, person or writer paid to correct information on you/your client's page or company? Please refer to WP:PAIDHELP for guidance on paid editing. Please also see our guidelines on autobiographies, notability and conflict of interest.
N Are you a company owner, employee, person or writer paid to promote or advertise on pages about you/your client's page or company? Please note that we are not a means of self-promotion. See our guidelines on autobiographies, notability and conflict of interest.

I still need more help!

Play the Wikipedia Adventure to learn about editing in one hour!
Seek mentorship from an experienced user, letting you know everything you need to know about editing!
FAQ
Ask questions in the teahouse
Live help chat

Again, welcome aboard! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 23:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience325, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Neuroscience325! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing tag

Maybe you missed my later note -- you still need {{User alternative account name|Biotheoretician}} on the User:Neuroscience325 page.

Are you also

2605:E000:6384:B800:A1D8:25C9:784B:6F47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2605:e000:6384:b800:c54c:a44b:ee84:cba7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

? Manul ~ talk 19:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those edits were me as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroscience325 (talk • contribs)

You are making more edits, but have not added the second tag? Manul ~ talk 19:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've added the tag now.

Y'know, it's been quite a time sink fixing your edits, as I have to explain everything when I revert. You still don't seem to realize that you are missing key aspects of Wikipedia policies. Some of your edits are even perverse, such as those discussed in this thread, where you blatantly misrepresent a source, writing the opposite of what it says. You went on to make another misrepresentation after I fixed the first one.

There is surely enough here to topic-ban you from fringe science already; you were served the discretionary sanctions notice as Biotheoretician. When one person makes so many problematic edits, it's unfair to expect others to keep fixing them indefinitely, which is why topic bans exist. This comment is almost deserving of a ban in itself. I just noticed you sourced something to youtube, which someone needs to revert. Because I don't feel like writing another WP:AE request now, would you please resolve to cool it? Take some time to read up on WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and other policies. WP:FRINGEGOAT and WP:NPPOV were written specifically to address your situation. Manul ~ talk 20:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously my views on science, spirituality, and what is considered evidence are completely at odds with Wikipedia editors generally. I'll try to resolve these issues on talk pages before I make any more edits, and I'll definitely read the Wikipedia policies before changing anything further. But please do realize--studying science is my job as a student right now, I intend for studying science to be my job for the rest of my life, I read about the metaphysics of all this stuff in my spare time extensively (meaning on a daily basis as part of my extended and non-school-related studies)...so maybe I just might know a little something that a bunch of anonymous Wikipedia editors and philosophically-illiterate pseudo-skeptical academics generally don't? And maybe the problem of contextual knowledge and poor science journalism is preventing metaphysically sophisticated and evidence-based truths about what science actually says from inclusion on Wikipedia? And banning me would therefore further degrade the quality of your site. I really do want to help, I don't like seeing my edits reverted, and I do want to come to a position of mutual understanding with Wikipedia editors, their policies, and the way they actually handle themselves in the real-world (as opposed the their theoretical dealings by their theoretical policies, which real Wikipedia editors seldom apply to themselves--and in this regard, I freely admit to having as much self-assessment and self-improvement to do as anyone).

I do apologize for making edits that took time for other people to revert. And I will do my very best to ensure that such misunderstands don't occur in the future. At the same time, that doesn't mean I haven't been absolutely correct (factually) on every single word I've hitherto written on Wikipedia.

Neuroscience325 (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your walls of texts on talk pages, I can confidently say that you have a complete misunderstanding about how Wikipedia is written. You present these long arguments with sources that can't be used (like youtube and primary sources) and propose that they should somehow be incorporated. That's exactly what Wikipedia editors cannot do: we cannot take disparate sources and tie them together, called original research. Even after I mentioned youtube being unacceptable, you went ahead and gave a bunch of youtube links at Talk:Quantum mysticism. That's totally worthless from the perspective of Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. Like your other long posts that someone collapsed, I collapsed that one.

Wikipedia is a reference work, not a hosting service for essays or debate. When you mention things like contacting PEAR staff, it just further confirms to me that fundamental misunderstandings exist. The relevant skill on Wikipedia is to read, comprehend, and summarize secondary sources with a sense of proportion of what the major and minor points are. That's basically it. It helps to have a broad understanding of the topic, but a narrow focus on some particular view can be detrimental if it involves WP:ADVOCACY or WP:PROFRINGE.

It still looks like you are on a quest to right great wrongs. The "philosophically-illiterate pseudo-skeptical academics" comment seals the deal, suggesting that my initial instincts were right: you won't be able to contribute constructively. Manul ~ talk 03:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Updated the now-expired thread showing that you misrepresented sources more than once.) Manul ~ talk 04:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all interested in righting any intellectual wrongs; that's what the scientific community does and what scientific debate is for. On Wikipedia, I'm mostly interested in developing my writing skills, so I'll be better prepared to write about this stuff in the professional world and for my own popular audiences. That being said, I would like to contribute my own insights into the science journalism that Wikipedia does play a part in.

As for the editorial standards, I hadn't thoroughly read them in the past and did make several errors. For that, I do apologize.

"The relevant skill on Wikipedia is to read, comprehend, and summarize secondary sources with a sense of proportion of what the major and minor points are. That's basically it."

I understand that now, and realize that my utility is probably more on talk pages, directly talking to editors about various things I've read. This was the issue, too, in the case where you accused me of "misrepresenting sources"--I didn't misrepresent any sources, I just didn't cite them properly. Plenty of engineering obviously went into the construction of PEAR's countless devices; I can easily conjure many sources to prove this point if you'd like. The issue, simply put, was that I was more concerned at the time with presenting a more neutral viewpoint in better prose (the PEAR article was way more ridiculous then than it is now--it openly called PEAR pseudoscience, essentially accusing Jahn of being a fraud with essentially no rational or well-sourced justification ) than accurately summarizing a concise list of sources. I understand now that the latter is the job of the Wikipedia editor and the former is the job of the science journalist acting on behalf of their own editorial board.

I won't make that mistake again.

I didn't see the comment about YouTube videos before you posted that, so I won't use them as sources on talk pages. (That being said, it rebutted a very specific and incorrect claim that another editor had made to be regarding the relation of science and religion to various quantum theorists--and I think it was a perfectly appropriate rebuttal of that point that served its purpose.) Similarly, my comment about exchanging personal emails with Dunne was only meant to underpin the fact that I understand and am more invested in their research better than most of the other people editing the PEAR article at present. You can't type words out of your own head in a coherent manner to form a coherent reference article if you don't know what it is that you're talking about--and most people on the PEAR page unfortunately don't. That article had severe problems long before I ever touched it, it continues to be plagued with problems, and it's my hope is to contribute my own menial improvements that the rest of the editorial committee will accept as well-sourced and objective. I'm not trying to change the world through Wikipedia; I'm just trying to correct obvious errors I see--like editors who continually edit the article to defame the lab and incorrectly present Jahn and Dunne as pseudoscientists rather than the anomalistic and quantum psychologists they respectively are.

Wikipedia articles are a reference work, but Wikipedia pages are absolutely the place for debate: It's where individual editors debate in an open and public setting what is or is not factual or worthy of inclusion in a well-sourced and well-respected encyclopedia that holds itself to an open standard of scrutiny and editorial behavior. I enjoy this--both reading other people's comments on talk pages and making my own--very much. I'm not trying to engage people in fruitless debates--I'm just trying to get articles fixed where past editors have made obvious scientific mistakes (misrepresenting what the founders of quantum theory believed, for example, or lying by omission).

And I'm editing my own talk page here; naturally, I feel a good deal of personal freedom in criticizing anybody I want (i.e., academics who don't know what they're talking about)--that has nothing at all to do with how I hold myself out on an article's talk page or another user's talk page or how well I am able to contribute insightful and novel sources and summaries thereof to the articles themselves. I realize that there have been noted difficulties in the interface of this procedure, but that's why I'm commenting here and responding to you--so we can work out our intellectual differences and move forward in a clear-headed and objective manner.

And believe me, it takes a whole lot more time to write and make those edits--and it costs me a whole lot more pain and annoyance to see them blindly reverted--than it takes you to revert them. It isn't fruitful for either of us, but I have a firm belief that we will soon be able to come to a point of satisfactory agreement in amending the aforementioned articles in the form of more scholarly and objective sources.

Much love from the Universe, the Source of Consciousness,

Neuroscience325 (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had gotten across the point about secondary sources, but you're back to dumping lists of primary sources onto talk pages and using primary sources in articles. You recently misrepresented a source for a third time -- you call it not citing properly, but there's no difference: the reader is misinformed, and if the author of the source knew about it, he would be insulted. It appears that you are still not familiar with WP:NOR, WP:V, and other policies.

I didn't read your above response until now, and I quite resent that you said I "blindly" reverted your changes. Above I told you that "it's been quite a time sink fixing your edits, as I have to explain everything when I revert", which is the opposite of blind reverting. I even followed up on your talk page here with further explanations, though apparently to no avail. I'm not willing to offer goodwill if it's going to be met with this kind of response. Manul ~ talk 22:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that intro to the quantum mysticism article without sourcing the sources I later added was indeed a mistake.

But I don't think Kaiser would be insulted given that he reviewed Frank Wolf book, The Loops and Space Twists: How God Created The Universe positively. I do apologize for not sourcing those edits as well as I should have initially, but I did cite Kaiser's book, which is a legitimate secondary source for the claims about Wolf and Capra. Because Schrodinger and Wolf themselves discuss quantum mysticism quite openly, it's absolutely appropriate to use a primary source here--they are the quantum mystics whose views are under debate!

And this is absolutely not original research--I cited three well-respected and absolutely legitimate secondary sources, each of which discuss the mysticism issue quite openly: The Systems View of Life (Cambridge University Press), What is Life?: The Intellectual Pertinence of Erwin Schrodinger (Stanford University Press), and How the Hippies Saved Physics (HarperCollins), in addition to the original, primary sources that they draw on.

This is absolutely in line with Wikipedia's editorial standards.

Neuroscience325 (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note....

Hello, and thank you for registering as a WP user. I believe y'll find that being registered will be very helpful for productive, collaborative editing. If I may, here's a quick comment:on your statement above: "On Wikipedia, I'm mostly interested in developing my writing skills, so I'll be better prepared to write about this stuff in the professional world and for my own popular audiences." Unfortunately, I think you'll discover that trying to achieve that goal on WP will probably be a rather frustrating and fruitless task. Because of our collaborative editing process, it's pretty likely that little or none of our original text survives, as y've already found out! The endless need for consensus about what is actually encyclopedia-worthy involve quite different skills beyond those needed for 'traditional' journalism, even when such material is written collectively.

On a separate topic, I have a couple of other thoughts to share with you, if y're available for off-line discussion. You can reach me via the Email this user to the left of my user page. Tnx again for registering! jxm (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly coming to understand that success on Wikipedia has a lot more to do with one's ability to summarize specific sources to other people than developing well-formed thoughts and writings on the topic as a whole. This is a very different style of writing than "typical science journalism", but I find it enjoyable nonetheless.

And being able to write text in such a way as to get consensus from others about its correctness is a similarly useful skill--and one I'd like to work on.

Neuroscience325 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://poetsandengineers.com/blog/

went to your website you mentioned on Quantum mind . Website failure, something about "couldn't make database connection}". FYI. GangofOne (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has complained about your posts at WP:ANI and has said that you make discussion impossible by posting lengthy screeds. Unfortunately, your reply at WP:ANI is a lengthy screed that is nearly incomprehensible. Read the too long, didn't read essay and please try to be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the person submitting the inevitable AE request: this alert given to the user's declared alternative account is much earlier. Manul ~ talk 04:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming talk-pages

You keep 'spamming' talk-pages with long lists of dubious links to conspiracy theory or paranormal pseudoscience websites and in some cases internet forums - I noticed that sometimes these links have nothing to do with articles you are commenting on. They are not reliable sources and you should not be using Wikipedia as a soap box to dump a load of links or promote your beliefs on the subject. Also if you copy and paste huge chunks of text you should use quote boxes. Future Kick (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for whatever offensive I've caused you, but I really don't think this sort of attitude is warranted.

"This needs to be taken to AE. This user neuroscience is spamming more pages with dubious links, quoting internet forums, doing huge off-topic related rants etc. Bottom line it is trolling. Future Kick (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because my interests in the New Physics (and what some might even call fringe physics--i.e., post-relativity and post-QM) are more etherial than most of the other physical theories you commonly read about does not negate their legitimacy as real areas of rational inquiry that a serious academic such as myself can and ought to look into. With the rise of unified field theory, the multiverse, string theory, and now M-Theory, a well educated physicist cannot help but consider whether it's time to consider subquantum processes and post-relativistic frameworks, namely those that allow for new effects which scientists or some repute have claimed empirical verification for--namely, ESP and antigravity. I'd recommend looking into Hal Puthoff (though his Wikipedia page isn't very thorough) and How the Hippies Saved Physics by MIT Professor David Kaiser. For example, see the information I found about Puthoff's ongoing involvement with members of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program that dates back to the 1990s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program#Hal_Puthoff.27s_involvement

I realize that most other Wikipedia editors and scientists generally are uncomfortable dealing arcane and numinous topics as these--namely, the Fundamental Fysiks Group, John Hagelin, Dean Radin, Transcendental Meditation, True REG, the quantum mind, antigravity, parapsychology, zero point energy, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, the Global Consciousness Project, etc. But they're all history, written in the annals of Time, and if you aren't interested in finding the sources to put together a good article, somebody else has got to.

That being said, it is indeed very difficult to find solid sources for this type of thing, and great care is undoubtedly needed. In each case, I posted what I found to the relevant talk page because I'm really not sure how we are meant to systemically consider psi, electrogravitics, and associated phenomena with respect to the other more established realms of physics--for example, Louis de Broglie's hidden thermodynamics, or David Bohm's Holomovement and hidden variable paradigm--or to go a bit more countercultural, Timothy Leary's Info-Psychology and Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology.

Now, if I've quoted a source that's horrendously inappropriate or I've fallen short of reasonable editorial standards, I do apologize. I'm still learning, and I really do appreciate whatever criticism--particularly informed criticism--you and others have to offer on the information I'm in the process of researching. These past few months of editing have exposed me to an enormous variety of new topics and have broadened my interests considerable--and I think I've at the same time developed my ability to write intelligently about this sort of thing considerable.

And I really do resent your belief that I'm trolling, especially since we're talking about science. I grew up in High School considering myself the most skeptical person I knew, reading a lot of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others. I was admitted to my university after studying AP Physics for two years (four semesters of As and a 5 on both AP Mechanics and AP Physics B), and I've spent many hundreds if not thousands of my own dollars on my personal physics library that spans everyone from Erwin Schrodinger to Wolfgang Pauli to Stephen Hawking to Timothy Leary to Fritjof Capra to Fred Wolf to Roger Penrose to David Bohm and many, many others. Although I didn't end up sticking with my original physics major (the opportunity cost was too high to do something else, especially given that I've been a computer programmer from age 13--namely, artificial intelligence), I take a good deal of mathematics courses, I do what I can to learn what I do on my own, and I'd like to continue my university education in physics at Berkeley once I graduate.

Your insinuation that I'm vandalizing Wikipedia articles on physics or am intentionally being malicious or otherwise just don't know what I'm talking about is personally hurtful. Now that doesn't mean I'm a good physicist or scientist or philosopher or writer or thinker. I could be wrong. I could have listened to my father and Professor Feynman and Professor Dawkins growing up telling me to think critically and think for myself and question authority and completely misinterpreted what they said. The ideas of these couple rogue physicists have indeed consumed my time and thought process that I could otherwise be devoting to other areas of scientific endeavor and research.

But I don't think my interest is misplaced, and I don't think I am promoting my own beliefs--I think I'm researching the history of science and physics itself, and I don't see what could possibly be wrong with that. I've been interested in physics since I was ~5 years old but have only come into this information on parapsychology and antigravity during the last few months in college. So I don't think I am wrong. I don't see how researching for my own fun or amusement far-out physicists with millions in private aerospace and government contracts like Robert Jahn and Hal Puthoff and alerting other intelligent researchers as to my findings is improper. These are real academics with real Ph.D.s who really worked for what are generally considered reputable and well-regarded agencies and institutions.

It's not that I believe parapsychology or antigravity are real effects and am trying to promote them. It's much more subtle than that. It's that dozens of other smart physicists have repeatedly claimed from the 1950s, the 1940s, and before--up til the present day--that parapsychology and antigravity are scientific phenomena that can be and have been studied in a laboratory setting under controlled conditions. And in both cases (both with psi and with antigravity), the United States government has--on paper--backed scientists who make such claims with millions of dollars, since the 1950s with antigravity, and since the 1970s with parapsychology. And so has McDonald Douglas and Lockheed and Boeing. And these FACTS are not in dispute.

For more on why these interests are legitimate and rational and scientific--and not mystical, conspiratorial , paranormal, or pseudoscientific:

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/pwr_antigravity.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/gravstat.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Research_Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_gravity_control_propulsion_research#Forward.27s_protational_field

http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/HowIControl.html

http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/13_NFTRH_3_hemadethingsup.html

http://archived.parapsych.org/members/h_puthoff.html

Neuroscience325 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen you are obviously very dedicated to your interests but Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, it is biased towards mainstream science. It is dangerous and misleading to be promoting fringe or pseudoscientific beliefs like "psi" as factual on a public encyclopedia because there is not any real scientific evidence for these beliefs. Please read WP:ABIAS and WP:SCICON. If you have peer-reviewed repeatable scientific evidence from reliable journals or sources that you can cite then you would get on well with Wikipedia. Unfortunately at present you do not have any so I do not recommend that you keep using talk-pages like a forum because you may end up blocked. Remember science is based on repeatability. The PEAR Lab, Puthoff's Uri Geller, antigravity ore "remote viewing" experiments etc have not been replicated by neutral scientists. Even Jahn had failed to replicate his own results and the lab closed down. Not a single scientist out of pear could replicated the results of his experiments. All you are doing is copying in the same sort of pseudoscientific hearsay from unreliable websites, it is not going to convince anyone of anything and all it is going to do is annoy other editors but I am not getting further involved, regards. Future Kick (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your latest comments indicate substantial problems with your editing. Not only are you very obviously in violation of WP:FRINGE, you are also making defamatory remarks about identified living people, which is absolutely forbidden by our policy on living people. This is the last warning you are likely to receive: any repetition of this behaviour may result in a block or even a ban from Wikipedia altogether. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Information and Consciousness

Hello Neuroscience325. 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) 17:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]