Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness Singularity

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Consciousness Singularity.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Original research based on by Shawn Mikula (whose personal page is on Vfd). Andris 17:16, May 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd vote we delete it. Private speculations. Martijn faassen 17:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Please, sign your opinions with ~ . Andris 17:16, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Done now, I forgot. My apologies. Martijn faassen 17:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

If you talk with ppl in the Transhumanist movement, many of them should be familiar with this alternative notion of the Singularity. This notion of Consciousness Singularity is not the same as Vernor Vinge's Technological Singularity, which most ppl associate with the term 'Singularity'. Note that Vernor Vinge's definition and work over the technological singularity can also be regarded as speculative, albeit not private since he shared his speculations with others. In a similar manner, the consciousness singularity should not be regarded as private speculations because many ppl are already familiar with it, though admittedly, not as many as are familiar with Vinge's definition. But this fact does not undermine the importance of the concept and definition, nor does it undermine it encyclopedic relevance, in my opinion. Try google searching for consciousness singularity and see what you come up with. Regardless, I do know for a fact that many ppl in the Transhumanist movement are aware of the concept, in part because I have given talks over it to them and am aware of much that goes on in that community. 128.220.29.140 17:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC).
 * An excellent argument, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is not a repository for original research. - Lucky 6.9 18:02, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me how the consciousness singularity article is different from the vernor vinge technological singularity article, why one merits inclusion but the other doesn't. If it's a question of original research, I think the same could be said about vinge's singularity.  Is there no other original research that's included in the wikipedia?  I would think that all scientific discoveries are original research and would be surprised if none of them were listed in the wikipedia.  Are you applying a criterion for widespread acceptance of an idea? 128.220.29.140 18:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. To be precise, the criterion is that ideas must be widely known. Andris 18:18, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok.  I don't have much else to add. I have slightly modified the article to make it more readable. I understand the article and concept is not as widely known as the technological singularity, but I also understand that individual perception plays a large role in it (determining how important one concept is relative to another) as does the extent of the public awareness.  I guess all we can do is wait for the votes to come in and hear other ppl's opinions.  128.220.29.140 18:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not a research, rather a speculation. Unlike Technological singularity (which is also a prognostical speculation), this one cites no facts that may be interpreted as an evidence that this may happen, only describes what may happen if it happens. Mikkalai 20:13, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Cool idea, but not encyclopedic yet, speculation. As has been mentioned wiki is not the place for one persons personal reaserch.  Plus the article isn't written particularly well. --Starx 21:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - original work - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 22:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: personal research, speculation. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Research/speculation. Andrewa 01:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.