Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypotheses of consciousness and spacetime


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hypotheses of consciousness and spacetime

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is almost entirely original research (a portion, at least, of which appears to be promoted by Elizabeth Rauscher whose article is also up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Rauscher). Essentially, the article as is inappropriately synthesizes a large number of standard run-of-the-mill statements about spacetime and puts on pretense that they are somehow discussing "consciousness". Let such ideas gain the notice of those in the relevant academic fields before Wikipedia has an article on it, please. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No vote The article was so far over my head that I couldn't what it was talking about. People who understand the topic should judge this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Hokum. Vague references to Einstein?  Check.  Connection between general relatively and PSYCHICS?  Check.  Onslaught of related and reasonable theories with nonsense interspersed?  Check.  Namechecking principal author?  Check.  This is WP:OR promoting an unpublished pseudoscientific connection between the "paranormal" and a theory that plenty of people talk about (general relativity) but few understand. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I dont need to understand it to see that its sources are trash. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh yeah, that is original synthesis. In addition to being wrong (see Relativity of simultaneity for just one example), I cannot find any indication that the major premise of this essay is treated in any reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is just a hocus pocus of terms, simple saying that the brain can effect the physical word and time. The problem is, as the page already says, not one of the ideas have been tested. So until there is some solid evidence that there is a way to test such a theory and a test is performed, its just a notion with out much of a following. What I object to the most is the obscurest use of terms in such a nonsensical way, its a disservice to those reading wikipedia to include nonsensical articles.  Hardyplants (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's been there four years and not marked as a stub, so one is entitled to expect a bit of maturity. There is a "References" section but nothing in the text is linked to it (no use of ), so at best it would be WP:OR. It seems to be full of unsubstantiated speculation and name-dropping. If there is anything useful to be said on this topic, it woud be better to start again from scratch, based on WP:RS. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Overhaul There may be a place for this article yet! A non-BS source came up from a google search, and it's from the University of Arizona, with plenty of relevant citations to boot. At the very least it deserves a place in Quantum consciousness. The physics of all these quantum consciousness theories is very much BS, but it's the kind of BS that a lot of respected scientists write papers in support of. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We already have Quantum mysticism, Quantum mind, Quantum brain dynamics, and doubtless several others. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * + Orch-OR, Holonomic brain theory, Implicate_and_Explicate_Order_according_to_David_Bohm, Electromagnetic theories of consciousness, etc., etc. etc. Wikipedia, where far-fringe theories of consciousness come to live long and prosper... Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. A fringe "theory" at best. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with having fringe theories listed in Wikipedia as long as they are notable and honestly represented. But this page fails to communicate any real information and the topic seems to be covered in a number of other like minded articles.  Hardyplants (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete complete bollocks that fails to rise to the standards of WP:FRINGE. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete no evidence this is a significant view. There are lots of theories out there that try to mix theoretical physics with paranormal/mystical concerns. As a group, they are notable, and some of the more well-known theories in the group would be notable as well, but then again, there are quite a few theories in that area which just have not been widely propagated enough to be notable for Wikipedia. This, as far as I can tell, is such a theory. --SJK (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We66er (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.