If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).

Archives

User Talk:Looie496/Archive 1 User Talk:Looie496/Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Looie496. You have new messages at Jimbo Wales's talk page.
Message added 17:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

(mainly wanted to point out that I changed some wikicode in your message; as I said, you can put it back to how you had it if you want.) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Looie496. I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm trying to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Looie, you mentioned on your FAC "the reader has no way of distinguishing a footnote reference from a source reference without looking at it." Take a look a Sarcosphaera to see how this can be done. Good luck with the FAC, I'll be adding my review in a few days. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the people who have an investment in being big frogs in a small (shrinking!) pond by writing articles on synagogues/train stations/mushrooms/hurricanes HATE hearing this. I left a long comment (see talk history) agreeing with you. As usual, the Wikidio...anz were more intested in playing the man than the ball, though. I actually don't think that requirements for reffing common facts is the main problem, though. That's a micro issue. -IP in hist

I want a picture of a hydrofluoric acid burn for a VA. There are no free images, but I am pretty good at asking for permissions. Sent a note to a couple academic docs, but no reply. Ideas?71.246.147.40 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are asking me. You could try asking at WT:MED, where the physicians hang out. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the bad refs for Spazzstick - should have checked what I got from the other Wikipedia article. I've replaced it with a better reference (checked today). (And no, I have no relationship with the product - I don't even use caffeine... just trying to give some links to an orphan page.) Allens (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been rather busy over the last few days. I expect to finish reading the article over the next couple of days. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, I see you have been adding to the Science#Philosophy section, which I have been watching.

As you know, I have been following up on a suggestion you made previously, and I am hoping my additions to Talk:visual system#outline of the vertebrate visual system can become part of an independent outline soon, so I am asking whether the following scheme is acceptable:

I have separated the LGN M cell pathway and the P cell pathway to their own table, as a detail, because each of these pathways is a separate modality within vision. My problem has been to flesh out that table for the outline. As you know, I previously added a dysfunction table for parts of the visual system which have demonstrated necessary, but not sufficient, parts of the brain to implement some brain function,

As a didactic scheme for the layout of the outline, I propose to lay out some of the modalities under the problem of situated cognition (meaning cognition about a situation) by some agent which is embodied in a vertebrate organism. Thus the agent has an agenda, because the agent is engaged in embodied cognition. Based on that agenda, the agent has an interest in resolving a situation under 5 Ws and an H: WWWWWH. At any time, the resolution can be restarted or discarded as a bad guess. So the sequence is a rudimentary form of hypothesis formation as output from its sensory system, in preparation for transmission to the motor control (e.g., saccade to another angular position, so this is all happening very fast, and occurs before conscious thought 0.5 sec later).

1. Where: get place location of an object in the scene (in this case, angular 2D position of a target) first, because an embodied agent already knows its own reference frame, being at the origin of its coordinate system. I recognize that the agent must continually infer distance to that target (that is immaterial to WWWWWH because the brain works much faster than physical motion of any objects in the scene, even at 100ms response times).
2. When: the agent's body has previously taken multiple looks and has taken multiple assessments of any objects in the scene, including what to ignore (so that is a rudimentary form of attention). But time sequence is an easy way to filter out what to ignore or not, in the vast array of demands for our attention.
3. What: the agent assesses what an object might be (Friend, Foe, Food, Fun, etc. as a rudimentary form of prioritization)
4. Who: the agent has combined previous steps in the assessment to judge the name of the object in the scene (a rudimentary category)
5. Why: the agent has just filled in enough to determine whether the cognition fits the agenda. In the simplest agenda, whether to ignore the sensory input or not. If the assessment is to ignore, then our conscious attention would end here. (I care/I don't care about the posited situation)
6. How: the agent has decided how to implement its agenda (e.g., Fight, Flee, smile, talk, frown, etc.), and this has all happened at a glance, within the half-second delay before it hits consciousness.

I recognize that I am laying out an agenda of my own for the outline. Here is my motivation. In the 1980s I heard a talk by Francis Crick, who had decided to tackle human consciousness as a topic for research. But he recognized he would not live long enough to solve that inquiry, so he limited his study to awareness in the visual system, and mentioned V1 to us. Since then I have attempted to track the scientific progress toward that goal, and your suggestion about the outline might help us all. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]