Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind uploading

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 keep. SNOW. DGG (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind uploading[edit]

80% of the article is OR, the rest is highly speculative synthesis from related research. absolutely riven with bad science. not a single research paper discussing the topic is cited. bad stylistically - wikipedia is not a place for personal essays. even the title is not widely used in scientific discussion on the topic. fictional refs and other fictional discussion has it's own page Jw2035 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! DELETE! - As others have said. A bunch of random psuedoscience and un-attributed rubbish. Simmons001 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - for reasons above. Jw2035 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy delete! After reviewing the article, I noticed that non of the cited referenced are related to the topic! All the referenced are related to other procedures. There is absolutely no manuscript or reliable, notable published paper about this topic and as it is mentioned at the beggining of this article, it is just an assumption. Not notable at all and does not have reliable or any, reference. Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Strike all the OR, and merge whatever is left over into Transhumanism or perhaps Life extension. It's a valid enough topic in a science fiction context, but it needs valid citations and reliable sourcing to qualify for its own article in any other context. Anaxial (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a confusion between articles deserving deletion and articles needing to be improved. Once the topic is relevant, the point is how the article should be written —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolpho (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The theory of mind uploading is highly relevant and timely because it is located in the domains of Strong AI (AGI), Computer Science, and Neuroscience. Another way of looking at Mind Uploading is through the concept of Whole Brain Emulation. This could become a substantial field within the decade. It ought not to be incorporated into Transhumanism (as mind uploading is not a philosophy and is not a life extension technique. It is a technological process whereby the contents of the brain could be transferred onto a non-biological platform). Because of Mind Uploading's tie-in with the fields of Computer Science and Neuroscience (including Whole Brain Emulation), it has credence. My suggestion is to give this article a few weeks and let those knowledgeable authors of this technological/scientific topic provide substantial language and references to improve its readability and authenticity. Natasha Vita-More (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-known theme in science fiction at least since Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the Stars, futuristic speculation, and philosophy of mind. Such a topic should be covered, and there's enough to say about it to justify an entire article rather than trying to merge somwhere. It's true, however, that the article in its current form needs work. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears in numerous fiction and nonfiction works, under this name. Widely recognized as an important concept in both futurism and philosophy. --EliezerYudkowsky (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very important field of research, which could have a very deep impact on the future of our species. The article must be kept on Wikipedia and, of course, maintained and improved. --Eschatoon (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this is deleted on the grounds that it is unscientific, what about articles about extraterrestrial life, interstellar travel, time travel etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.240.15 (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with others above: the topic clearly deserves an article. It currently needs a lot of work, incl sourcing; but there's plenty out there in sf, futurism, and philosophy. I coincidentally had just read it over, and was going to edit something i found esp inadequate. Edit, not delete. Re merge: transhumanism has long been viewed on its talk page as at the limit or already too large; and life extention appropriately mentions uploading and points to the main article."alyosha" (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do not merge with transhumanism, which is a larger area. Google Scholar shows that it is discussed in 21,900 research publications. Currently, brain simulation is a topical field. However, I know that some religious people do not like the idea that the soul one day could be simulated and the brain emulated in a computer. Mange01 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as separate article, per User:Wolpho, even if that means stubbing and restarting. Mange01, could you write a section on religious attitudes to the concept? I'd like to read it. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 22:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this deletion debate is in the news. See here: [1] — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - crikey, this has opened a whole bag of snakes! i try to mainly stick to sporting and hobby articles away from science and the day job, make a recomendation on one i randomly come across (and dont like the look of) and i'm being denounced in Wired! My issue is not with the subject -i agree that a topic on cognative simulation/mind uploading or whatever you call it should exist - but my problem is a technical one: that what is contained on this page is awfully presented, both scientifically and for a wikipedia article (mainly per 'Synthesis' on WP:OR). If Keep is the decision (and it's heading that way) this is going to require major rewriting. Fictional and non-fictional refs have to be separated; it considerably weakens a point or a fact, anywhere on wikipedia, if it is followed by a list of 'in (insert random anime show) this happens'. I quite agree with Mr Keim Unfortunately, the entry for mind uploading is, as user Jw2035 notes on its deletion page, almost entirely barren of scholarly or even cultural references. If it's not improved, it probably deserves to be deleted. So go to it, citizens Jw2035 (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I think that the subject area is a very important field of scientific research, I agree that the article could and should be improved. There are a lot of works on uploading from credible and respected sources, that should be added as references. I don't have enough time now, but will certainly add some references and rework some text in a few days. --Eschatoon (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe get rid of some of the bad stuff, but don't lose all the great and well referenced stuff. And notice a lot of other people are saying keep on the talk page for that article. Brent_Allsop (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be heavily edited Critics make some valid points. Legitimate references are in short supply, despite leading scientists having written about uploading and related concepts such as machine consciousness. Nevertheless, critics need to understand the purpose of this article. There is no perfect analogy but consider the history of fusion power. Scientists have understood fusion reactions for many decades and have long predicted we will be able to build a reactor for a large-scale controlled reaction. These speculative predictions remain unconfirmed but open discussion of the concept is an important part of the science and engineering process, and many legitimate mainstream scientists and engineers feel similarly about uploading and related concepts. I agree with others who suggest some time is needed for editing. I plan to provide several legit references over the next 48 hours. Pwestep (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework—the topic is notable even if the current state is undesirable. If this means that we cut out most of the article and are left with merely a high-quality stub, so be it. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update. The topic is a classic thought experiment in philosophy and common in science fiction. There is plenty of relevant information in the FHI Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap PDF(itself an example of an academic treatment of the issue) that can be used to bolster the factual content of the page. Anders Sandberg (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.