Talk:Noetics

About this page
We have certainly seen athletes and others engaged in serious, stressful enterprises do things that were outside the realm of seeming possibility. We have talked about the "zone" and how people go there to extend certain abilities or skills. We have also talked about "focus" and how important it can be to anyone attempting to accomplish a task. The idea that it is not a passing fad or moment, that the human intellect contains the ability to do this is, quite refreshing. It would, of course, be extremely difficult to scientifically prove, but that should not in itself preclude further study of the phenomena. (After all, we have the accepted "science" of global warming that is based upon no proven fact, only on the greed of certain has-beens. And look at the money being wasted on this concept!) To study a philosophy that could enlighten and enliven a person and all of those around them would be beneficial to all involved, don't you think? Coop75969@yahoo.com

Examples
Okay, as far as I can tell, the word "noetic" is used in this sense mainly by the Institute of Noetic Sciences (a New Age provider of seminars and workshops similar to Esalen), and has recently gotten a big publicity boost thanks to Dan Brown's new book, The Lost Symbol. Are there *any* other examples? If not, then the article needs to get rid of all the extraneous stuff about Thomas Aquinas. I mean, it's not like "Noetic Science" is an actual discipline of science, philosophy, or theology. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not seen as a science in the traditional term of the word, but I would argue that it could absolutely be a philosphy. I do agree that a lot if not all attention to this word is thanks to Dan Brown. His fictinal work is actually touted on every site you will find that has to do with noetics that I came across. At first glance, this slights the legitimacy of it in my mind, but universalizes it - You cannot tell me that if a best-selling author managed to write a novel (a fairly good one at that) that managed to spark sudden explosion of interest in something like Wicken, Catholicism, the Republican Party, or even a new product that folks involved in it before the publicity would not acknowledge their moment in the spotlight. Anyone who leverages the internet knows its all about connections.

I really do feel that noetics is a discipline that can be studied and seen; maybe not in the sensationalized ways it is in the book, but in subtler, but still significant ways. Look at professional athletes and some of the superhuman things they do - this has just as much to do with mental focus and will as it does with their physical training. I also see it in the big name TV preachers - not in the way they would like it, but I see it. They have the ability to create a feeling of an energy and by spreading it across a large audience and creating almost a hive-mind of beleivers they can evoke a REAL feeling with a REAL physical reaction. Their thoughts and words make injured people block pain receptors through the release of chemicals in the body allowing them to walk - albeit usually very temporarily. Eventhough these are not the "concrete" changes that we want to see - they are still observations of a thought changing the physical world thru focus and intent.

PS - google or bing noetics and there are a few other mentioned besides Dan Brown and IONS.

-M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.227.74 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Weather you agree on the idea proposed by noetics, something that presents itself as science should be fact-specific. Theorems and statements should have solid background and be able able to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise they can't be considered true.

I find the statement of noetics very attractive and positive, the fact of a global consciousness and the power of thought and feelings to attract physical things, those are things i like to believe and follow. However me liking that does not make it true or a science, i have been looking all over google and bing for a real experiment or test record, with real measurable results and i was not able to find any. All claims from the IONS or any other page just mentioned that experiments were concluded with "clear results" but we never get to see which results are.

If anyone has those, I'd love to see them.

I also found that most of the articles out there are related to Dan Brown's Lost Symbol. --Netoben (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)netoben.

As far as science goes, one could probably gather more understanding (toward the evidence backing up this noosphere stuff, the notions that things are all connected by thought, etc.) by checking out quantum mechanics in depth. If anyone, like the majority of people, are too lazy to do it, check out the movie What The Bleep Do We Know? for a layman's style summary of the various findings and how they are linked together. There is evidence all over the place, both scientific and metaphysical, and it doesn't take much effort to find it if you are actually willing to find what you're looking for. (In other words, if you're not open to finding your answer you can expect to not find it. By projecting that thinking you will only bring that which you think, into your reality.)

--Jess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.217.115.53 (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing the point here - whether you believe in Noetic theory or not is irrelevant - It exists in people's consciousness (and as a separate notion from 'Nous') thus it is valid that this should be explained and hence warrants an entry in Wikepedia on the basis that one seeks knowledge on the topic. Whether the article fulfils the Wiki definition of knowledge or that it needs improving is another matter (and one which I unfortunately cannot aid)- but deleting or merging? No! 116.231.22.12 (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The proposal that this page be merged with Nous seems solid to me, given that they share a large number of references, and the phrase on the Nous page "The word nous is somewhat ambiguous, a result of being appropriated by successive philosophers to designate very different concepts." suggests the modern usage is very much in line with the ancient usage.

Sethop (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely merge. This is an inch away from Dan Brown fancruft. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm against a merge. The guy above Sethop is correct, it's not relevent if anyone believes it, Noetic Theory is not the same as Nous, and the two have separate concepts. This is like suggesting one merge an article on psychics with one about ghosts. Both may in fact be paranormal, may be real or not depending on what you believe, but that is not the same thing and they are not the same concept.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, looking at it more deeply, Nous doesn't even have THAT much in common with Noetic Theory. Who thought that merging these was a good idea, these are two separate and wildly different pages. Nous is a philosophy about thought and ideas, Noetic Theory is a paranormal based concept basically analogous to psychic/psionic abilities in X-men or something. At a glance one may see the similar basis in thought but they're drastically different concepts. I'd like to change that vote from against the merge to Strongly against the merge, because in retrospect this is more like suggesting one merge the page on spaceship propulsion with the page on bicycles because they both involve going fast.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can the merge tag be removed, then? Hepcat65 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that a merge is innapropriate, because what we are looking at here is a current [mis]appropriation of the word 'Nous' as opposed to the many historical [mis]appropriations of it. I disagree that the amount the two concepts have in common really matters here - as I indicated above, 'Nous' has never been a well defined area of thought (which is somewhat ironic really). However, since we cannot do a merge, this page needs improving. As a downpayment, I changed the wording from 'a branch of metaphysical philosophy' to 'an alternative metaphysical philosophy'. The corollary should be clear enough - Noetics is a "branch" of metaphysical philosophy in the same way that homeopathy is a "branch" of pharmacology - ie, it's not. --Sethop (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
All those who are interested in this subject, might like to visit Dowsers.org and learn about the American Society of Dowsers and or attend their annual convention. While they started out to be people interested in helping find water for others, the ability seems to be "noetic" and applies to finding other things on site and remotely- akin to "remote viewing". George Weller ASD past President has urged members to send their verified dowsing stories to ASD headquarters in Danville, VT and the file is growing. All are welcome to view and check out these "proofs". submitted by: George K. Weller- homesteadcourses.com

Multiple issues?
There are lots of unspecific complaints about the article. Let's discuss what's bothering those who tagged it, and what to do about it. Hepcat65 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since May 2009.

 * There are many references. What more is needed?

It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since September 2009.

 * What's original research here?

The notability of this article's subject is in question. Tagged since September 2009.

 * It's indeed notable both as ancient philosophy and as a modern research topic. Dan Brown fiction adds more to the notability than it degrades, I think.

Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Tagged since November 2009.

 * What's unencyclopedic here?

It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since June 2008.

 * Needs better structure, most of the references should be inline, what's more?

merge proposal
I think the subject of this article is already being handled at nous. It seems a no brainer to merge it in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I see above that there has been discussion about this before and that in fact there might be a rationale to keep this article as long as it becomes an article about noetic theory as described in Dan Brown? But then we need to add appropriate warnings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

question
Well, this is certainly a very short article. Obviously heavily edited. I deplore the tendency of wikipedia editors to eviscerate anything that does not meet their perfectionist quality standards, when a few annotations to indicate what is in doubt would be more than sufficient. IMHO it is better to have something that is not completely documented than to have nothing at all.

The way this thing is written, it sound as if "noetic theory" is something like speculation about "telekinesis." Is this correct? If not, then the article has been edited into incomprehensibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this meet the definition of a theory?
"Theory" has a specific definition in the sciences, and it's not clear to me that this set of ideas meets that definition. I'm not equipped to say, but I think it would be a good idea to look this over and add some clarification to the use of the word in the context of this article.

--96.35.163.157 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not meet the definition of a theory, and is quite patently pseudo-scientific hucksering, what is worse, it is obviously written by a PR bunny, because it isn't even a comprehensive review of the pseudo-science, but clearly is designed to create link equity for IONS. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a link farm for PR releases.

24.218.110.216 (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the article is somewhat brief. And I believe that it is quite understandable as well since there are still a lot of things that we don't understand about the topic. Unfortunately, those who are adept to it are not sharing much information. Although the article is short, it doesn't mean that we should take it out. As long as the statement is objective enough, then it warrants a place in wiki. Furthermore, the IONS link is appropriate as they are connected to the article. Just because there is a link to an organization in a brief article, I don't think it actually means that the article was written merely for the sake of the organization. After all, there is even an article in wiki dedicated to the institute. So i don't think there is ill intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.84.165 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "those who are adept"... Who? I have to say this feels a bit like the Emperor's new clothes... 217.37.166.142 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for refactoring this article
This article is clearly unsatisfactory, so I have been thinking about possible courses of action. Some possibilities:
 * Merge with nous. I don't think there is much in here that is worth merging, frankly.
 * Delete. Probably not appropriate.
 * Another approach. It is very hard to work out exactly what this article is about, I think because there are several separate topics:
 * A broad definition. This is done much better in nous.
 * The work of Richard L. Amoroso and the Noetic Advanced Studies Institute. This material would be better in that article.
 * A mention of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which in turn links to this article. This does not add anything and the institute does not seem itself to use the term Noetic theory.
 * A mention of The Lost Symbol, which again does not seem to use this exact term.
 * A discussion of Hindu scripture which I am not qualified to assess but which seems at best only tangentially relevant. If appropriate this would have a better home in Hindu texts.
 * A series of links - nothing that a normal Wiki search would not find.
 * References: mostly single issue or self-referential and could be moved to their 'parent' is necessary.

Once the above have been dealt with, this article could be be deleted or changed to a redirect to one of the above.

Any thoughts? Mcewan (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What is this?
What are the dodecahedra, blobs, and references to general relativity about? This article does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesx12345 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As is often the case, naysayers are almost hostile toward a new theory. The "hot words" used on this page are potent and potentially deadly. This is the very reason why more people don't come forward with their supporting evidence--it can completely destroy a career. How many of you have done any amount of real research on the subject? Can you even reiterate, clearly and on the spot, why so many people believe it to be real?

In all my research of scientific subjects/data, I have found that if a piece of evidence doesn't fit the "currently accepted" viewpoint, it usually gets discarded, sometimes even buried, instead of studied to see why, or if, it contains any truth...maybe something needs revised? Worse, it is not even given a good look. Just ridiculed. Ponder the phrase so often used throughout history: "We used to think, but now we know." Ask yourself, seriously, "What if the evidence supports this different idea, legitimately, by all the required criteria?" Would you ignore it anyway--just tuck it away in a closet so it doesn't upset the norm? Squelch it so you don't become the subject of ridicule--your career at stake for simply asking people to look at your evidence? Or perhaps the new evidence could ruin your career by negating all your previous years of hard work? But is disregarding the new data the scientific method? Unfortunately, and currently, this is the "scientific" MO for many topics and different ways of thinking about the world, even when science can't explain it all away, we still try to, because "...now we know."

Many "new" ideas are actually ancient ideas that mankind is starting to take another look at because the current belief system doesn't account for all the facts. Maybe it's time to really delve into quantum physics? Historically, scientists didn't call it spooky for no reason--it is spooky, but that's because our current concepts are so shallow--if I can't see it, it doesn't exist. Isn't that a little arrogant? Take your head out of the sand. Think bigger. Need I remind...history is full of new ideas that were ridiculed and even persecuted--ideas that later we found to be legitimate. A good example is electricity/lightning--people said it was amazing, but that we'd never be able to use it for anything.

Thank goodness we no longer burn people at the stake, but sadly it doesn't appear we have grown much beyond that. A person's career, their very livelihood, can be killed in the blink of an eye--killed just for having a new or different idea. The data is discarded because it's seen as "ridiculous--we know better now." By definition, a scientist performs research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, don't we? Can we ignore, even discard evidence and still claim to be a "scientist"? If any of this message applies to you, shame on you. Shame on us for placing peer pressure more important than the research. (Frankly, I am a little apprehensive about signing my name to this post for more than one reason, but I will.) Karensu (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Seriously though... Any employer who would fire you for non-conformist views isn't someone I'd want to work for. I happen to believe this whole topic is a steaming pile of wishful thinking, but that's only a personal opinion. The important thing is... Are there actually any facts or studies that can be referenced? Also, is it possible to summarise them in a way that's comprehensible? (And by that I mean forming proper sentences in English, not "is it too unusual to believe") 217.37.166.142 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * YES. I think this whole page needs modernized. It's a shame poorly supported ideas seem to come and go here, and leave the page only slightly better-off than the one on the Italian Wikipedia, which lists the entire subject as a "pseudoscience". Here is a source tying it all together in a modern computer-science-related framework: http://www.academia.edu/933668/The_Noetic_Prism 67.163.161.226 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Section added by Fallenangelius
This is the material under consideration:
 * An individual can only truly understand the concept of Noetics through personal experience. Noetics is a biological science of mind; to some a personal experience of God through revelation and therefore a developing conscious awareness of certain realities in an individual.  The personal revelation may be a first and unique to an individual (genius) but may also be shared by many individuals as time goes by.  The magic of Noetics is how the conscious awareness occurs in the mind (brain structures), through personal experience of environment and perceptual cues (man made or natural) experienced by the individual.  Ultimately experiencing Noetics (knowing) is a privilege because it would appear to bring you closer to God through pure, timeless understanding of truth and all things; achieved through bonding personal experience of the physical environment (which may be led by others) and the way the individual’s brain structures respond.

I could make no sense out of it, and it had no citations, so I removed it. It was then added back by Fallenangelius, who left this message on my talk page, which I couldn't understand either. It was then removed by other users, but each time added back by Fallenangelius. Instead of edit warring, let's discuss it here and reason it out. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. If this is in fact a good explanation of Noetics, there should be references or citations to support it, and perhaps a clearer explanation. There seems to be a contradiction between calling it a "biological science" but saying it can only be understood through personal experience and revelation. That appears to take it out of the realm of science. There are hints of New Age religion and Gnosticism. While there is perhaps an effort at explanation, there is also an element of randomness, of various thoughts about various aspects of the philosophy. The bottom line is this, however, without citations and at least one valid reference, there is no way to tell whether believers, much less anyone else, would consider this a good explanation and not just a personal opinion. Why is there a refusal to provide citations? That is all the editors who have reverted this really want and are within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to ask for. Donner60 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I must say - having read all of the above - it is extremely worrying that none of the debaters appear to understand the concept termed as "Noetics" - as I do. Compared to all of the above my "no nonsense explanation" should make sense to those critics who seek to explore the concept. Well - I thought it first, I said it first and the page clearly needs my explanation! As I said to my critics - I will be watching for any acts of plagiarism and "jealously is the sincerest form of flattery". Clearly you all have a lot of reading to do to reach my level of understanding and it is extremely selfish to deny my no nonsense explanation to those who would like to explore the concept of Noetics through Wikipedia - just because your ego(s) has been dented! Sorry no quotes, references, citations - you will need to explore Noetics for yourselves! (User: fallenangelius) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallenangelius (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The point of Wikipedia is to explain the concept in a way that readers can understand without further research. I will agree, that parts are comprehensible and probably salvageable, but it is very disorganized and not in an encyclopedic style (ex. asserts existence of God, which is not in line with the rest of the encyclopedia). To not put citations is also against Citations policy. Your contributions are welcome, but they must conform to the expectations of the encyclopedia. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The first step to take is to get a source that back up what you are saying. If you do, then we might be able to help you rewrite the section. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlike myself you are simply not equipped intellectually to edit the "Noetics" page which is why it currently has issues - your vandalism should cease immediately so that it can develop along with human consciousness - your comments merely show just how much out of your depth you are in relation to this extremely complex concept. Your interference in this area will not be seen as one of Wikipedia's proudest moments - unique thinking has no source because it is born from the incomplete thinking patterns of others whether 3,000 or 3 years earlier. As I said I have already said it and I will be watching but I am not prepared to discuss it any further with you. (User: fallenangelius)


 * If this section is what you yourself have created, then it cannot be included because of No original research. Encyclopedias are not the place for new discoveries or thoughts, they are compilations of ones that have been recognized by mainstream thought. Therefore, they must have a reliable source. You are in the wrong here. Iwilsonp (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Misleading content
This has been covered in several comments more than 12 years ago, but the current content of this article is misleading in several ways:


 * It describes noetics as a branch of metaphysics, even though this is not an academic field by any means. There are no reputable peer reviewed journals on noetics, and it is not mentioned as a branch of metaphysics anywhere I could find.


 * It relates the lines of thought of several philosophers such as Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Locke, Descartes, Hegel, and Sartre as part of noetics, even though noetics is much, much newer and there are no clear relations to their thought. The explanation given is shallow and deeply unsatisfactory, and relies on confounding noetics with the much more general (and distinct) coverage of nous by some of these authors.


 * The main claims in the article (relating to noetics itself) rely exclusively on non-academic sources which are already sympathetic to the ill-defined concept of “noetics” or “noetic science”. The only properly sourced claims in this article are those relating to the concept of nous, whereas the main source of this article is a book titled “Galilean pendulum” which is about the paranormal.

In general, my impression of this article is that it appears to construe academic backing of a pseudoscience by trying to confound it with related concepts in metaphysics. The Institute of Noetic Sciences (the only institution mentioned in the article) says on their “Science” page:

Our working hypothesis is that consciousness (awareness) is fundamental. From this perspective, consciousness is regarded as the most basic component of reality, more basic than physical concepts like matter, energy, space, and time. We investigate this hypothesis to better understand noetic experiences, like intuitive, psychic, and mystical states.

This is, clearly, an unfalsifiable hypothesis, as is the vast majority of the research they purport to do in their page. The term “noetics” as used by this organization seems distinctly different from the metaphysics of nous, consciousness research or other fields of science, and instead seems to have all the telltale signs of pseudoscience.

There seemed to have been a previous discussion defending it as a distinct academic field 8 years ago. However, the article described does not mention noetics and instead talks about the concept of “noetica” as relating to materials of computation, in the context of information science. This does not seem to be related to what is talked about in the article, rather referring to a framework for describing the relation of data, information, and knowledge.

My current action plan, based on previous editor consensus, is:


 * Transform this page to be exclusively about the pseudoscientific, paranormal or alternative philosophy field under the name of “noetics” or “noetic science”, since I believe deletion to be unlikely (though I wouldn't rule it out).
 * Remove all content relating to Nous unless directly relevant to coverage of the previous topic. I don't suggest merging, since there doesn't seem to be any content here that isn't already covered pretty well in the original Nous article.

To this end, I've started by adding NPOV and unreliable citation templates. agucova (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * made some additional changes, its just so incredibly obscure that I can't find countersources, just more and more of the IONS' publications and some religious stuff from the 10's. 206.188.225.130 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with the idea of transforming this page to be exclusively about the pseudoscientific tradition. The term "noetic" was a philosophical term before its appropriation by fringe writers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Omnipaedista Note that the page on Nous already covers that use of the word pretty well, making this page otherwise redundant in that regard. agucova (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on how light the content has become after edits by other editors, it seems like we should finally go ahead and delete this article. Insofar as this article talks about philosophy and psychology, it's much better covered by the article on Nous, and insofar as it talks about the pseudoscientific theory, it's both shallow and not really notable. agucova (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and proposed deletion. To further explain my position, I think that as it stands, the article has little content left that is not much better covered elsewhere, and what is left seems to violate WP:NFRINGE. agucova (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I agree. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)