Hi A.gee.dizzle! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 22:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Conscious Mind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Lewis. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks again for putting in a lot of effort to expand and organize the panpsychism page! Great to see new editors on Wikipedia and I hope you'll keep contributing when you have time! Some thoughts on the article while also giving some editing pointers:

• I like how you consolidated and organized the "Variants" section. I'm concerned, however, that for some of the viewpoints listed as variants it is the exception rather than the rule to classify them as panpsychist (IIT especially but also some others). I think a good way to show they're not necessarily panpsychist but still closely related might be to move the "Relationship to other theories" section directly under "Variants" and put them there. Does that sound reasonable?
• Your expansion of the arguments sections is generally excellent. I would just encourage you to take a look at WP:SYNTH since in some cases I think you've strayed into that territory a little. I'd be cautious about numbering the steps of an argument without providing a source that follows that same organization.
• Thanks for adding sources where they were lacking and removing some spurious unsourced material (like the criticism of Nagel that appeared to just be an editor's opinion). As much as possible, try to cite journal articles rather than encyclopedia entries (see WP:PSTS) – though I admit I've been very guilty of using encyclopedia articles for both panpsychism and hard problem of consciousness and will need to replace them in due course.

Anyway, I don't mean to be overbearing – hopefully this is helpful. Please continue to be Be Bold and let me know if you have any thoughts for the article. If not I'll be doing a bit of cleanup after a few days. Gazelle55 (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gazelle55. Thanks for the kind words. I'm a bit busy with school at the moment, but once I'm done for the semester (I have about a month left) I'll contribute some more. These criticisms are all extremely fair, and I agree with everything you said. Thanks for bearing with me here, I'm still getting the hang of things.

As per the variants section: That sounds perfectly reasonable, I think restructuring things would be a good idea. It could also be useful to make ambiguity surrounding the term clear early on. In addition to Phillip Goff's definition, we could reference other versions of panpsychism that have been influential in modern times. Bertrand Russell's analysis of matter may be a good addition since his work in this area arguably popularized panpsychism and related theories in the English speaking world. Chalmers' "dual-aspect principle" may be another good addition, since it has been influential and is meaningfully different from the other two. (It's a way of incorporating panpsychism into a digital physics framework, making consciousness a fundamental aspect of information rather than matter.) Anyway, let me know whether or not you think this is a good idea (you can be honest).

As per the encyclopedia citations: are there any sections in particular that are in dire need of citations? I might be able to locate suitable replacements. Also I thought it would make things easier for us if we had a bunch of source material all compiled in the same place. Please feel free to add to it, or copy and paste it elsewhere, and so on.

Contemporary philosophers:

* Susan Blackmore's website

* David Chalmers' website

* Phillip Goff's website

* Daniel Dennett's website

* Galen Strawson's website

* Patricia Churchland's website

Older philosophers:

* Leibniz: modern English translations, wikisource page

* Spinoza: modern English translations, wikisource page

* William James' wikisource page

* Bertrand Russell's wikisource page

Thanks!

A.gee.dizzle (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No rush on the edits, real life should take priority over Wikipedia lol (I need to tell myself that more often). The citations aren't urgent, don't worry. I think that's a great idea to include other definitions than just Goff's – I'll add some and then feel free to continue with more. I actually was a bit concerned that a lot of unusual versions of panpsychism are covered but the "normal" ones (Chalmers, Strawson, Seager, Nagel, etc.) are barely discussed. And yeah, having some sources to draw on seems great too, thanks for those ones above – if you make a sandbox page for that I'd be happy to add some that I know. (I'm glad you include Susan Blackmore, she's great, I just can't find her supporting panpsychism in print even though she says it in a Youtube video.) Anyway in the meantime, a few sources:

* Evan Thompson's website

* David Papineau's website

* Jay Garfield's website

* Keith Frankish's website

Good luck with the semester! Gazelle55 (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just looking at Hard problem of consciousness for the first time in a while and saw you'd made some edits. Thanks for your contributions to the page. :) I appreciate you tagging the sentence at the start of "Relationship to scientific frameworks" with "citation needed". I was the one who added the two sources there (a few years back), and you are right, neither is a survey. I'll keep my eyes out for something better that talks about the balance of scientific opinion, or if you can recommend a source let me know! In the meantime, though, I changed the tag to "better source needed", since there are two sources - they're just sub-par sources. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hard problem of consciousness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dualism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]