User talk:Exa~enwiki

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Creating redirects

I noticed you created a page where you placed the text see computation in the limit in an attempt to redirect users to the correct term. There is a better way to redirect similar terms to their counterpart articles; use the following redirection text:

#REDIRECT [[place article name here]]

This will automatically redirect any page to the article name you place in the brackets. Thanks! PRueda29 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply notifications

Hi Exa, I've belatedly replied to your query on talk:hypercomputation. -- pde

Gosh you're rude Exa. I can try and find the time to write it up formally if you actually care. To me it's just a curiosity really. -- pde 09:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Multism

I have nominated this page for deletion as original research. Anarchia 03:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

quantum mysticism

Are you aware that edit summaries like that just make you look like a total loser? Looie496 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

--- Quantum mysticism is seen as pseudoscience by many. ~~exa

Hypercomputation

Hello, I have just made a slight edit to a section in Hypercomputation where you made a significant contribution (about hypercomputation not being physically realizable). However, you did not give any sources for verification, which are important since you expressed an opinion which diverges from that of some of the proponents of hypercomputation. You also used the expression "Neither energy, nor time seems infinite" - the obvious question would be: seems to who? Please help in making this paragraph more professional.

Incidentally, this criticism of hypercomputation has nothing to do with the Church-Turing thesis, and everything to do with the Physical Church-Turing thesis (see under Church-Turing thesis), so I would also consider separating it from the section where it now stands - but it first has to be improved. Hope you can help. AmirOnWiki (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

-- Hypercomputation is not physically realizable, and Prof. Martin Davis, who is the highest authority on this subject agrees with me. The whole "field" of hypercomputation is unfortunately pseudoscience as it hinges on a theoretical construct that was never meant to be physically realizable. Basically, we computer scientists use oracle machines only to disprove computability. It is not supposed to be a "better" model of computation than Turing/discrete computation. Please find Martin Davis's article, before debating that point further. ~~exa

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Exa. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Exa~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

12:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

With this edit you not only made legal threats but you also attempted to out Silence ("I am also going to ask for the REAL NAME of this pet administrator called Silent, because I or the AGI Society might eventually have to sue him in US. I am going to seek legal action against this blatant censorship of scientists' opinions. Is this the pseudo-scientist known as Eliezer Yudkowsky?"). If you wish to be unblocked then you need to retract the threats. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request with respect to threatening administrator Silence with legal action

I was not aware that threatening to sue an administrator for peddling pseudoscience, and blaming an entire professional scientific society of researchers (in this case AGI Society) was grounds for blocking. I retract my legal threats concerning suing Silence. I promise that I will not sue any administrator for their actions on Wikipedia, and abide by the "terms of service" of Wikipedia.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Exa~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am retracting my legal threats to Silence for censoring my criticism of Eliezer Yudkowsky's and Nick Bostrom's pseudo-scientific smear campaign against human-level AI research, and the activities of AGI Society for portraying us as an existential risk to humanity. Exa~enwiki (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

While you've retracted the legal threat and demand an admin's real name, I believe that based on your rhetoric throughout your talk page conversation you have too much of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to be able to positively contribute to Wikipedia. only (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Exa~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear administrator, I tried to explain my reasons for what I did, I concede with any regulations and laws that wikipedia has. I do not have a "battleground mentality", but I wished to criticize pseudo-science. Please unblock me so I may continue contributing to wikipedia. You can certainly ban experts from wikipedia, and allow high school graduates to assert their opinions on an advanced theoretical subject, but I request you to respect my expertise even just a little bit. Also, I did not know that speaking at length on my own talk page was a violation of any rule, that seems rather odd to me since I looked at many talk pages and some seemed to contain lengthy discussions. I merely explained my reasoning, I did not excuse my actions and I retracted what actions caused the blocking. I would like to request another admin to review this reason to keep blocking me and undo the attempt to curb criticism of a notorious pseudo-scientific organization that recently earned an international Luddite Award. Am I not allowed to criticize anyone or any organization on wikipedia? If so, please just point me to relevant regulations, and I will follow them. As I said, I repeat my intention to strictly follow any and all regulations on wikipedia. However, due to my extensive training in analytic philosophy, I sometimes write at length to clarify a matter of contention. If you read the discussion, you will hopefully see that I am trying to communicate relevant facts, than to apply rhetoric. Furthermore, I am noting the following fact, wikipedia as a community must uphold science over pseudo-science, and allegations of pseudo-science by notable experts in a scientific subject, must probably be taken seriously by the administration. I do not know if I can explain this any more clearly, but the entire article is actually fringe science by wikipedia's own reasoning as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, and since at least 3 top machine learning researchers who work on human-level AI (Yann LeCun, head of facebook AI research, Yoshua Bengi, and Ben Goertzel who is the lead author of OpenCog, who received death threats from less wrong/MIRI members) think that MIRI's claims are pseudo-scientific, perhaps you should consider the possibility that my criticism was actually very much true. At least, I believe as a PhD in computer science, I am entitled to criticizing bad science. Please let me know what you think about this, and let us resolve this matter with an intelligent debate. Criticizing pseudo-science is not ideological, it is the very spine of a high-quality encyclopedia I believe. The opinions of some inexperts and philosophers must not outweigh that of competent scientists. I am also noting that I have made many high quality contributions to wikipedia, most notably an extensive explanation of the A Priori algorithm. I got interested in this matter because a colleague who is getting paid by these organizations was sharing this page on facebook. I am not ordinarily interested in their self-promotion efforts. After all, it is obviously a bit crazy what they are talking about, I would rather contribute to actual computer science articles. Regards. Exa~enwiki (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see that you have not taken the hint to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground and I also would recommend you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting Great Wrongs, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to debate and present your ideas, no matter what your educational background. You consistently belittle other Wikipedia editors in your comments because they are not "experts" but civility and collaboration is more valued here than your diploma. You can not use Wikipedia articles to criticize others or elaborate on your reasons why you are correct and they are wrong because there is no original research (your ideas and conclusions) and you need to use reliable sources (secondary sources) to support all of your statements. I agree with only that I don't believe you have the temperament to edit here constructively. Before requesting another unblock review, please read all of the policy pages I linked to, especially Wikipedia:Five pillars which presents the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and make sure that you can abide by them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Do you also retract the demands for Silence's real name? Do you understand why that entire line of arguing is disfavored? I further expect that the passive-aggressive attacks in your response above will make others less likely to unblock you for what it's worth. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ricky81682, If you require that I am gladly retracting the demands for Silence's real name. However, there is more about my query that you should hear. Firstly, I am one of the scientists who believe that peer-review should not be done anonymously, which is why I asked for his name. Anonymous reviews and edits are sometimes used to block competing or critical views in science. In this case, the criticism is that their activities are pseudo-scientific, i.e., not following the scientific method properly. Secondly, Accusing AGI Society, a professional society of scientists that are trying to build human-level AI to advance humanity and establish the foundational information technology of 21st century (see: http://www.agi-society.org/), of causing an existential risk for humanity with 20-30% probability, these pseudo-scientists (charlatans if may say so, is this allowed to call out people for what they truly are?), are putting our personal lives and very important research at risk. People from MIRI have previously threatened to murder Ben Goertzel in cold blood, and we are not taking this humorously any more, they were very serious in their death threats. I, Dr. Eray Ozkural, have not received death threats, yet, but many AGI researchers have been directly or indirectly been threatened by these luddite psychopaths. <redacted>. It is very interesting and disconcerting that these pseudo-scientific organizations (FHI, MIRI, and FLI) will resort to the lowly tactic of using anonymous edits to vandalize the criticism I added, which is perfectly fair, by the way. I am pretty sure you did not know this matter about death threats. However, I have been communicated this information in person during one of the AGI Conference's, and although Ben is an extremely kind hearted person who will not defend himself against such threats, I was very frustrated and saddened to learn of this incident, and vowed to protect all members of AGI Society by any means necessary. Please accept my apologies for countering wikipedia's policy which was hitherto unknown to me, however know that, these fools and charlatans are actively and indirectly threatening our very lives, and the very future of humanity by this superstitious nonsense. Please do not let them destroy this most vital piece of computer science, and the work of genius computer scientists like Ben Goertzel and Marcus Hutter. We are severely dismayed by these barbaric and anti-intellectual attacks on our persons and our research. We are not a risk to humanity, however, lowly, immoral people like Eliezer Yudkowsky certainly are. With kind regards. Dr. Eray Ozkural. Founder, Celestial Intellect Cybernetics. Exa~enwiki (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Also you can't threaten to so anybody on Wikipedia not just admins. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I understand that, I did not know of this. I did not know that our right to sue people who disinform the public at large could be constrained by any such rules. My sincere apologies. However, please note that FHI/MIRI members have been using anonymous edits to vandalize the criticism section, effectively censoring the criticism of their pseudo-scientific organization. Have you received my mail? I urge you to investigate, and if possible write to the scientists I referred to, including Yann LeCun, and Yoshua Bengi, they might be able to explain to you why this is pure and unadulterated pseudo-science, I explain why they are a scammy organization in this blog entry: https://examachine.net/blog/scams-and-frauds-in-the-transhumanist-community/ Exa~enwiki (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not about the right to sue people. No legel threats is a policy because of the chilling effect it creates. We cannot work together if someone could always play a trump card of "if you insist on putting that in there, I'll sue." You would not find it amusing nor helpful if people threatened you with that for your points, respect them equally as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I understand this perfectly. It is not a problem. As I tried to explain, they are a band of charlatans and luddites that have previously sent death threats to AGI researchers, which is why I felt threatened by their attempts at censoring the criticism. I understand the policy perfectly, and I promise not to threaten anyone with legal action on wikipedia as I previously said. Exa~enwiki (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

For full disclosure here is the mail I sent to User:CambridgeBayWeather. Please help us battle pseudo-science. These people are professionals at disinformation, they are a cult like Scientology. Please help us! Exa~enwiki (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

""

Dear administrator,

If you look at my talk page, you will see that I have consistently tried to criticize articles with pseudo-scientific content. The AI existential risk nonsense, first peddled by MIRI, is no different. The reason I threatened to sue the disinformation agent called Silence was the following: he appears to be a member of MIRI (he edits wikipedia to make that organization look significant), I added a criticism section in that page that shows them to be pseudo-scientific (I added a lot of references and valid opinions starting from the suggestion in the talk page). I hold a PhD in computer science, and have been working on the AI field for 15 years. You can find that Marvin Minsky wrote my name in the acknowledgements to his last book The Emotion Machine. On the other hand, the perpetrators of MIRI are people with no real scientific expertise or capability. The person called Eliezer Yudkowsky is some high school graduate, and Nick Bostrom is a creationist idiot who believes in the movie The Matrix. They keep on publishing doomsday scenarios about the future. See this article on rationalwiki for instance about the extent of their idiocy:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

I wonder if you can tell why a MIRI or FHI member who is a wikipedia administrator would have a vested interest in trying to censor the views of prominent scientists like Yoshua Bengi and Ben Goertzel. These people are much more prominent, and certainly much smarter and knowledgeable than anyone affiliated with MIRI, FHI, and FLI, with respect to the AI subject, (including Stephen Hawking who is a physicist, and has NOTHING to do with AI who helped popularize the village idiot called Bostrom). Just read the vandalized criticism section and read it carefully, read the references and you will probably understand there is something funny going on, although apparently you must be one of the people who think that just because these pseudo-scientists are featured prominently in the media, means their ideas are scientifically valid. They are not, I assure you as an actual expert in AI field. They are fringe theories, they are pseudo-science. They make predictions of doomsday. They received a luddite award. And they are not noteworthy in the first place. See this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

You should at least let us add extensive criticism of MIRI, FHI, FLI and other AI doomsaying organizations under a separate article. Would AI Eschatologists, or AI Doomsayers be good? However, that page is also not noteworthy. I wonder if there are any notable machine learning researchers that are also administrators, someone with the required expertise would understand the scam here and help us communicate our case? I speak on behalf of AGI Society as a very concerned member, and a philosopher of science who is not pleased with promotion of pseudo-science on wikipedia which I hold dearly. Silence's actions is a result of the conflict of interest I mentioned in the criticism section. They are PROFITING from these actions, of spreading pseudo-science, and suppressing criticism of these AI doomsaying organizations. They have managed to vandalize the criticism section again. That is not welcome at all. I retract my legal threat because you are forcing me to, however, I hope that you understand this: I am on the side of legitimate, peer-reviewed science, and against their fake web of pseudo-science.

Kind Regards,

Dr. Eray Ozkural Founder, Celestial Intellect Cybernetics ""

Dr. Ozkural, I must ask you to cease your attempts to identify any editor on Wikipedia. I have removed the speculation you placed on this page as to the identity of one particular editor. If you repeat such speculations about any editors, your ability to edit even this page will be removed permanently. I have no comment regarding your unblock request. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that a biology PhD student would run to the defense of notorious pseudo-scientists. I sincerely hope that you are not excusing Intelligent Design proponents in your professional life. That would be like me excusing AI Doomsayers. However, let me note one thing. I unveiled the true name of that administrator only to expose a possible conflict of interest, which means he would have been abusing his administrative power. I respectfully submit this fact to your high attention, excellencies. I also did not know that we cannot attempt to identify a wikipedia administrator. Is this policy explained anywhere? I have learnt at least three obscure regulations today. There was no possible way for me to know all the wikipedia laws. At any rate, since an administrator must not abuse his privilege to make himself look prominent, any speculation I may have made depending on such an observation should be considered as highly unlikely since you surely do not allow such an abuse, am I right in this line of thinking, please explain dear editor. Also, I wonder if I can appeal to a higher court, please refer me to the relevant regulations. Thanks a lot for your time, and aiding me in my quest to defeat pseudo-science in advance. Exa~enwiki (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OUTING. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. As I said, I had no idea, and I probably could not have been expected to know that. I explained my reasoning that, if the administrator in question is not abusing his privileges, then my speculation cannot be right, so there is nothing to worry about. He can still be anonymous, I have no idea who he is, nobody told me anyhow. I do not need to be anonymous because all of my research in AI is highly legitimate. Kind Regards. Eray Exa~enwiki (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Exa~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19375 was submitted on Sep 29, 2017 14:45:47. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)