User:Ohadaloni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ohadaloni (talk | contribs) at 00:57, 15 June 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Motivation

If after reading this page you do not comment by saying: Can you please write about..., or, can you please write something in that page, then you will spend much time in vain.

This page is meant to help me distill my goals as a wiki by soliciting comments to my knowledge and see what might be more desired for the wikipedia.

It also serves as an introduction to evolution theory for kids, while the issue of original thought is here marginal and so it is on this page until much time might have it make its way into the wiki, not through any direct action of mine.

My becoming a wiki was a small matter of curiousity regarding microfiber, where I am as yet to become even a wee bit more than totally clueless. The page titled Microfiber Production Process is not yet in exsistence, though I wish it to be. At this stage, I wouldn't dare putting up a page with zero content with the hope it will fill up on its own.

The Ceratoid Angler Fish is a fish I abandoned researching a few years back for lack of my ability to find sources, with the general notion that One day the Wikipedia will have all the info I need. I just need to be patient.

Today it exists, and all it contains is some vague recollections of mine. Its not like I abadndoned the page. It is now my page, at least emotionally. It is one of the poorest in the pedia, and it will be nurtured.

Psychology

For the purpose of studying human psychology, on which subject I have much original thought, and some fragments likely already quite detailed in the wikipedia, I have spent years stduying the high order extant animals of Nature, Darwin's Evolution Theory with extreme scrutiny and dedication, and Some Freud and The Anatomy of the human brain.

I believe most of my contributions to wikipedia, save discussion-like pages such as this one, will be in two areas:


1. ammending and correcting information in Evolution Theory well known to science and well documented also within the wikipedia already, but is preceived by most of mankind in some false manner. My goal is to make sure no false facts regarding known scientific facts of nature and evolution, which cause a false perception of the entire subject, will pass un-noticed by my inquistive attitude and knowledge, as I scan the wikipedia in search for more of similar knowledge.

Bee Brain

2. I see missing internal links as a kind of proofreading errors which I intend to correct. The wiki process must intrinsically create these supposed errors. If page B was created after page A, then A is not likely to have a link to the word B in its text, until such time a reader like me will effect a stitch.

I believe those stiches for the reader act in much the same way the synapses in our brain connect associations and make our memory lookup an instantanous process. While they are much encouraged, there are many missing, and new ones are constantly being created. (when you add page B, you just created a missing link in page A).

This is my bee brain mission. The bees did it. So did you thus far. So can I, join in this effort, without the need of posessing any meaningful knowledge. Just buzz around, and when you see a small piece of wax in the wrong place, just pick it up. Next when you see wax missing somewhere, drop it and start over.

It is an algorithm superb in its simplicity, and extremly powerful. How does the three bit brain of a bee know morals enough to tell between right and wrong places of wax in a hive? (This is a separate discussion that started with The Origin of Species and the Bible, and will not end with the Wikipedia.)

It is also of Godly importance not to side track the reader with references that are associative rahter than elaborative, or have their own agenda. --Ohadaloni 16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Common Evolution Magic Tricks Exposed

A very large collection of facts today clearly un-original and Verifiable, composed into a pile, thereby becoming original thought.

This is mostly a fight against Hollywood, which markets mutations as the tiny little gene sourcerers of Nature in movies like X-Men and Planet of the Apes, and it is not clear whether the film makers are so ignorant or are just greedily uneducational.

Jurassic Park

All this long story about the mosquito was to tell us through the eyes of Hollywood Evolution followers, that which can be as easily accomplished by taking a blood sample from a living bird.

How on earth did Hollywood manage to advertize the dinosaurs so well, while hiding the fact they are all around us, still ruling the planet, with air coverage any army would yearn to have? And why should such lines, well known to most naturalists for some time, be at all surprising, funny, or valuable fiction to even the minutest degree, rather than re-iterated dry facts as they should be, and hopefully are to the wiki writing readers, the only ones who will ever visit this page.

The birds are decendants of the Dinosaurs, and from blood a sample of a living bird, you can get about as many dinasaur species as from a single cell of one living dinosaur of the time, at least for lack of more accurate scientific backgroud for this fiction.

This fact was well known to the researchers of Jurassic Park, no doubt: The entire Dinosaur Genome ancestry information is in that of every bird, and this includes quite a few, while the many species in the movie can not possibly be extracted from the blood of a single dino, let alone a mosquito, which, as fictionate as this story is anyway, makes no difference.

One must creation some falsehood as a cushion for fiction, no doubt. Yet some creators are educational, some are vandals of the future human brain.

While the Douglas Adamss and Isaac Asimovs of the world give this theory good publicity, movie forces are at work corrupting their marketing.

All the while this is fiction, and I am not responsible for any level of accuracy nor verifiabilty, much like Douglas Adams does not need to scientifically show how animals can be trained to deliver themselves as food, even though science knows that from Evolution theory it makes perfect sense. For this, I wrote for the kids who would otherwise raise an eyebrow:

The Cows are Dancing Into the Slaughterhouse

Go see for yourself.

Douglas Adams can easily make fun of Evolution so well for the same reason Woody Allen and Mel Brooks do it to the Jews. Not that the Wikipedia is far behind. I just verified the Jew link above to discover a new question raising the biggest LOLs of the day so far: Do They Allways Have These Horns?

Douglas Adams is part of the community, and he understands it well. This being the case, he is a superb educator.

If you are a farm animal, wanting to die will keep you alive, because if you are a trouble maker, you are automatically candidadte for early termination and you will never reach adulthood.

The genes that will be passed on to the next generation are surely those of the better Slaughterhouse dancers, even if everyone at first, and this first is before the beginning of written human history, they all danced violently out and away.

This is termed Artificial Selection, and its not like Douglas Adams didn't know. In the context of The Guide, his presentation is divine. Fiction will always rule large portions of human knowledge.

--Ohadaloni 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution Theory for Kids

A not so well defined wiki mission I will consider a huge success if I accompish: A booklet translating The Origin of Species to kids language. Supported by 150 years of extra Natural History research, this does not seem too hard, it will just take some time to organize.

Darwin's Ghost is a book aiming similarly for adults, that took a bad turn mostly due to the bear comment. I read it cover to cover. It is not as bad. Just lacks singnificant new evidence while discarding old evidence. It is in my opinion insufficient in describing the basics, and is not useful at all for kids.

If I can organize such a book so that is presented as a collection of ecyclopedic facts, and let the reader draw conclusions from the order in which the facts are presented, then the conclusions the reader draws are simply: from chapter 3, which is just some other wiki reference, not part of this work at all, it follows that chapter 4, yet another... Whereas the it follows part is left for the reader.

If I can get support for this in wiki discussions I might attempt starting this. It is tough to describe evolution in simple terms with reasoning which is collected from other disciplines of science. Said reasoning is original thought, and has no place in the wiki.

For me this presents an educational goal problem. In any case, my educational idealistic goals, especially regarding Evolution and Music, I have been trying to diseminate elsewhere for some time.

It might be easier to compose a table of content-like booklet with minor explanations, outside of the wikipedia. If there is sufficient body in the wikiperdia, I can ammend verifiable truths, leaving my external creation purly original thought, with wiki references, which might yield a very small piece of work eventually, as well as a nice reference for my read/write evolution related work as a wiki.


The 70 Cheetahs' Teritory

Not original thought, nor thought of any kind, nor fiction. It is a tool for me to easily explain fundamentals of evolution theory to the novice. I find myself often re-inventing this story for the purpose of telling a much shorter story or explaining somthing simple.

The 70 cheetah's teritory is just a teritory which is an eco-system where the teritory is supplied and is being discarded of steady and predicatable resources, say just sun, water, and minerals, and so this set of predictable resources can hold exactly 70 Cheetah's in that echo system, among all other living creatures and plants in this system, each with its own likewise stable demographic.

This model is convenient because it is easy to with it think in reverse: There are seventy today, and seventy where here 70 years ago, and also 700 years ago. Replication is geometrical in growth, and many were born and perished since, and still...70 This is just a better illustration of Darwin's more exact numerics regarding the effect of geometrical growth replication on the quantities of extinction, which is the only force driving Natural Selection.

Its a good starting point for explaining the basics.

Why 70? No clue. Ask Douglas. Maybe because genetic motion control cameras are facinating. Maybe because 70 miles across each side of a square flat desert area with Cheetahs, yields 70 square miles of habitat which the Cheetah can cross from zero to seventy in four seconds lastign an hour, albit it is actually only 60 MPH. It takes intricate knowledge of Evolution theory to understand that the Cheetah is not the only perfect animal in nature. Most are, but not all! The Orangutan isn't. it is still in development towards that goal, that will take many more years then the rest of the lifetime of the species, and as such is a good example, (originality goes to Darwin as usual), for comparison with the Cheetah. If I were to take the Orangutan for this model, it becomes incomprehensible, for reasons difficult to explain in short, but well documented in The Origin of Species.

(More of about the same with bears and whales in Talk:Almost_Like_a_Whale).

My driving force, being irritated by this injustice to evolution theory, comes from the fact that I derive many conclusions from this Cheetah/Orangutan principle difference, regarding human psychology.

These are original thought, and my adjacent research is nowhere near capicity to be able to contribute to wikipedia in this area. This is the area where I get from the wikipedia the most, for my own research and development of original thought, reading about Freud, Pavlov and the likes, juxtaposing with Evolution necessities.

--Ohadaloni 00:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


A Little Known Fact of Nature

If you made one mistake and died for it, you lived longer then the average in your species.

Most creatures born will persish before Natural Selection even begins to inspect their gene competitiveness against the rest of their kind in the vicinity.

For instance, in a global sweep of a birds nest by the wind, where one egg happened to have been left intact, it is only remotely possible that this was because this happens to be the egg quality mid process of evolution, and so one egg was just a wee bit better in some way.

In most cases, the eggs would already be as perfect as needed, all almost exactly the same in their survival qualities, with no variation big enough to make a difference in this case, and the egg which was saved was merly lucky.

It is this extreme high death rate that insures, that if the eggs were highly variant still, then the correct egg will be selected with a very high probability, because many other eggs having fine qualities too, will also perish for shear lack of luck.

Such is the case with all nweborns in nature, plants and others included, whether they are the rare cases in Nature. Like the Orangutan, in the midst of evolving its hands to the perfection it unfortunately is not likely to reach due to the earlier extinction of the entire species. And like the Cheetah, who has been perfect for its purpose for millions of years, and so is very low in variance, and all cheetahs look and act almost the same, but Natural Selection has to continue killing most of them most of the time to keep it that way.

Once a species has evolved so much it can get out of the death cycle, it reaches a stage of expansion in quantity of individuals in the discussed teritory, until it again reaches capcity.

New mutations Natural Selection will eliminate for lack of fitness the perfection of the Cheetah to its current environment.

This is an important misconception:

A species does not evolve from mutations. It evolves as a result of a change in its survival needs. Mutations are just the micro mechanism without which evolution can not occur effectively.

Evolution is very effective in exterminating mutations, and like all else, will select only the very few that are beneficial to their individual owner body.

So for the cheetah for instance, since the time we called it a Cheetah, there have been many many mutations in the Cheetah planetary community. none of which survived.

If one had survived, there would errupt a slightly better Cheetah. This new species is liekly, and in most cases will, compete more successfully with the older type Cheetahs in the area, on the resources the area provides, and with time the lesser qualified cheetahs will diminish in number and disappear, leavign the teritory with just this one new species instead. We will call this new species a Cheetah, and say the cheetah has evolved by some small finer quality of survival. Since the lesser cheetah is noe extinct, there should be no reason why we would change its name in the classification of the animals of Nature.

But if all the while, in another teritory, some other cheetahs linger, and if this territory is sufficiently separate so that the better cheetahs can not reach it, then the older species did not become extinct, and we would need to name the new species.

This is the slow process by which new species are created.

Tipycally, it starts with the migration of an individual to a new teritory, or with a gradual change in climate in one teritory but not another, or by a single abrupt change in environmental conditions, later to leave the teritories as stable as before, with a new set of condition for the contained organisms to compete over.

--Ohadaloni 00:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Microfiber

Philosophy aside, the actual event of joining the wikipedia was the lack of finding anything meaningful regarding Microfiber production processes. So far I opened up a title on the talk page with some questions. I would like to create a title for this on the Microfiber page and fill it with content with some help. By the time I gain the knowledge, it will not be lost again. The simplest classic argument for becoming a wiki, a Guide traveller, or a Harry Seldon mathematician.

Philosophy back from the cold, if I ever know about microfiber as much as I wanted to know and the content is on a wikipedia page, I will consider this project already a success, having made this single contribution.

--Ohadaloni 12:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My Wiki Mission Statement

As a new wiki slave, all you slaves are my bosses, and please be as bold as you are expected to be as a wiki, in commanding me to do my job.


My Wiki History

When Wiki first came out, I immediately upon discovery placed a new article there. I have no clue what I wrote, and it was probably some single liner like F = mA or E = mc² or some silly false original thought. It had to be done. I read Asimov's Foundation trilogy for the first time in a Hebrew translation when I was fifteen, during the course of which I already swapped to the Enlish source, and have been re-reading it since, cover to cover, roghly twice a decade. If the Wikpedia is ever to become anything remotely like the Encyclopedia Galactica, my emotions can not let me not be a part of this mission to Terminus. Today, a quick look at budget pages shows clearly that the Wikipedia is far more advanced than the Galactica, albeit it is also real, which makes this case just a wee bit stronger.

Of course at the time this would be beyond wildest dreams, and I ignored the Wikipedia for many years to come, watching its progress through time and human skull space. Over time with much experience surfing, I hardly ever leave the Google server for reasearch purposes. Pressing the Cached link always gives instantaneous results from a google server far more reliable than the source server, while the ad content and other heavy weight junk is automatically filtered to a reasonable degree. Once the Wikipedia had gained some momentum, which I was separately following for interest in the progress of Wikipedia as a minor curiousity at the time, I grew to trust its knowledge as a much more reliable and time saving tool to do about the same, and with time, a lot more of about the same, and my time at google started dropping, as my time at wikipedia started rising. None of this was guided by concious thought: Surf to search some tiny detail about whatever, the quickest way possible, and go on with whatever it is you did for which you needed the information.

I am an open sourcenik, and sharing my knowledge is not new at all. It took some confidence building to decide I can contribute in fields not my main area of expertise by profession.

But I get so much from it, that my scruples wouldn't let me not at least try and give something in return.

Early June 2007, I decided to answer three questions I saw on some pages to see what happens. I discovered two very interesting facts:

1. The folder where I kept the three Captura snapshots of my comments so I can get back to see the talk backs can not possibly be the way everyone else does it, or no one would ever in his right mind write for the Wikipedia.

2. The wikipedia community is very warm and inviting, despite the immense hardships of having to maintain jpegs of everything you wrote just so that you can keep track, and it is almost worth the effort, just for that.

3. I did also receive some honest and bold echo dups saying: will you create an account already! They were all extremly over polite. The echos are just in my head, because I have been listening to way too much music over the years. Who knows? I might still even make a evolution theory based non-original thought contributions to the knowledge of mankind regarding the average length of beetle hair in 1961, the year I was born.

The Foundation expedition is working great. I am seeking more knowledge more vigourously. A scientist at work. Most of the knowledge of have been searching to find during the first two weeks revolved around one question: Do I really want to be an active Wiki?

It came up so quickly I didn't see this one coming. Before you know it, my questions always came back with some WP:COI or WP:VANDAL related answer.

42

So I took back to my art and chemistry and started scanning the WIKI documentation in search for the correct question and it was 2.

It is on the planet.

I may not find it, but somebody would, and I am on my way to Terminus.

Oh, and...don't forget to tell me what you know about The Ceratoid Angler Fish and Microfiber Production Processes.

--Ohadaloni 23:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ohadaloni&oldid=138254941"