Talk:Consciousness

Untitled

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

• Archive 1 ( // to 21/10/05)
• Archive 2 (21/10/05 to 13/04/07)
• Archive 3 (13/04/07 to 29/11/09)

new link

http://www.sciencealert.com/human-consciousness-could-be-a-result-of-entropy-study-science

Hippocampal theory of consciousness

This article has recently seen repeated attempts by an IP editor to add material on the "hippocampal theory of consciousness", all of which have been reverted. There are two basic problems with the material: (1) it is not written neutrally (see WP:NPOV); (2) it is not notable enough to belong here. Although the sources meet our criteria for reliability, they have not received a great deal of attention, as judged by their citation counts. In an article of this breadth, only material that has received very broad attention belongs. Please do not attempt to add this material again without first discussing it here and obtaining consensus from other editors. Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Fully agree. For such a complex and much discussed topic we should cover the main approaches and not spend too much (if any) space on novel theories supported and developed by only few scientific authors. Also I agree the tone of writing is more like a persuasive pitch than a neutral presentation and for that fact alone the text would not be acceptable. Arnoutf (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The same problem is repeated in the Hippocampus entry. I think the virtually identical material needs to be removed from there, I have posted on its talk page about this.

TonyClarke (talk)

The contribution that was eventually accepted as a stand-alone entry outside major and established entries (Hippocampus, Neural correlates of consciousness, or Consciousness) had undergone several revisions in response to the feedback received. It represents a novel perspective on a scientifically and philosophically important topic of wide interest. It was previously discussed in notable, relatively high-impact peer-reviewed journals.

Proposed merge with Hippocampal theory of consciousness

This appears to be largely based on the theory and publications of one person, Ralf-Peter Behrendt. It'd probably be better covered here until and unless that theory is accepted as central to our understanding of the phenomenon. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as it is a new, not widely supported theory it should not be dealt with any detail in the overview article of such a complex, old and comphrehensive topic as consciousness. Full merger into the current article would give that undue attention, thus making the current article worse rather than better (unless could be probably be abbreviated to one line at most). So I would not applaud merger. Arnoutf (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If merger were felt to be a good idea, then the theory would be better placed within the entry Neural correlates of consciousness. Perhaps cross references suffice.

My view is exactly the opposite of this proposal. If a topic meets Wikipedia's notability criteria (which basically means the existence of proper sources), I don't have any problem with a separate article about it -- it's not as though we are short of space for new articles. To be covered in a broad article like this, though, the topic must be notable enough in the literature for WP:UNDUE not to apply. Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The main problem, as noted before, is that the article was written by, and is about a theory by, Ralf-Peter Behrendt. The other problem is that it is not widely supported within the scientific community. It should therefore be deleted per WP:PROMO and WP:FRINGE. If no one objects, I will nominate it for deletion. David.moreno72 01:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to make clear, as I should have done before, that I wasn't proposing merging all the content of that page here – I had in mind more one brief sentence or so. But deletion seems to me – who has no expertise at all in this area – a reasonable alternative, and would have my support. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of the article means that a theory that has gone through multiple peer-reviews and that has the potential for integrating data on hallucinations and other conscious phenomena with what we know about neurobiology of episodic memory processes will continue to be ignored. I would suggest that before deletion is enacted, the article is given due consideration in its own right. There is a lot of indisputable knowledge of the working of the cerebral cortex and hippocampus presented in a lucid way and illustrated with a clear diagram. The theoretical implication of CA3 in consciousness takes up only part of the article and can be further discussed, but such discussion already takes place at length in the referenced articles in what are considered reputable journals.195.226.152.202 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

that discussion is for that article and not here. Take it there please. Arnoutf (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Erroneous definition of "philosophical zombie"

The first section includes this passage:

"the philosophical zombie, which is defined as a being whose behavior and function are identical to one's own yet there is "no-one in there" experiencing it."

Philosophical zombies are not about whether or not there is "anyone in there". It is not even clear if this means anything.

A philosophical zombie is defined as a being whose behavior appears identical to a normal human being from the outside, but who has no experiences. (Not whether there is "anyone in there".)

I hope someone who is expert on the subject will fix this.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:EC07:25F3:43AA:4398 (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right, and my solution is to simply get rid of that sentence. It was added by an IP editor in 2016, and I never thought it was very helpful for explaining the concept of consciousness. In any case zombies are dealt with in other parts of the article in a way that I hope you will think is more valid. Looie496 (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)