Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness Paradox

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. Wizardman 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness Paradox[edit]

Seconded PROD contested by author ... totally unsourced, violates WP:NOR. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and very likely speedy delete as an obvious hoax: original research that seems likely to be either the original author's self-promotion or an elaborate joke at somebody's expense:

Consciousness #47 is realized first in Isaac Newton in mid-1600s and then is unsupported in 1726, his death. It is later realized then again in Albert Einstein's baby body, effectively being A.E. and living out his entire life doing the intellectually incredible things he did, before being unsupported by his death in 1955. However, Consciousness #47 being realized right now in a particular Paul O'Brien Hunter, however, said person has seemingly no way of knowing his past experiences.

Who assigns the numbers? Note also that the text includes the name of someone you've never heard of, but who apparently is heir to the minds of both Newton and Einstein. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that the author has recently edited the page of the article Consciousness to add the words that the nature of consciousness "invokes a particular paradox", not long after creating this article. This is "original research" at its worst, with no evidence from any source that anyone has ever recognized a paradox. If the author can quote from a published source that discusses this so-called paradox, I'd be interested in seeing it. I've looked this over a few times, and I'm not sure what the "paradox" would be; arguing over the logic is a moot point, however. Mandsford (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The author of this "theory" has also inserted references to it in other instances, such as in reference to reincarnation in the Afterlife article. Obviously this is self-serving, and has no notability.Wikigonish (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Dlohcierekim 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedi is an encyclopedia. If one wishes to publish a "thought experiment," one should use a webhost. If one wishes to publish one's thoughts on "self-verifiable" truths, one should use a webhost. Dloh cierekim 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, and a fringe theory. Edison (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swift and harsh delete. If original research were a CSD, this would have been gone long ago. I'd almost venture putting it up for deletion as a hoax or promotion, but I don't think personal metaphysical/psuedo-philosophical screeds qualify quite as either. But neither belongs here. The author's removal of the dated PROD template before its expiration was merely a blatant attempt to delay the inevitable rather than confront the article's shortcomings. - Vianello (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use: Merge or Keep You're at least possibly partially right about the OR claim. This is original research, but I didn't think that was important since it was easily self-verifiable. It wouldn't of taken long to see if this was a valid paradox or not, just a simple thought experimnent. Otherwise, if it wasn't an easily self-verifiable article then sure, it wouldn't have a place on a storage medium for holding valid information. This topic, like other un-conntingent truths about the world, doesn't rely on excess experimentation. If I posted a new math conjecture and articulated it well enough for anyone of requirement-meeting standing to understand, I think that this Wikipedia should welcome it's creation. Logic, Mathematics, and Consciousness among potentially other concepts, is easily self-verifiable. Therefore, I don't think sources should be a requirement for this type of page. So Smart s0 Dumb (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article creator Dloh cierekim 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Just what part of "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" do you not understand? — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counter-Comment: I'll take that implicit insult to my intellect as your bipolar disorder acting up and ignore it. I just thought that an exception could be made since this seems like an important concept that I had not fully elaborated on that was easily self-verifiable. I apologize for the inconvenience if this has wasted your time and / or caused you some slight suffering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by So Smart s0 Dumb (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment A new mathematical conjecture would be original research as well. The goal of an encyclopedia is to bring together primary and secondary sources to create a tertiary source. It is out of Wikipedia's scope to publish new primary sources. You can easily get a blog or a website to expand on your own research, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a webhost. --Phirazo (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research according to author, who doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia cannot be the primary source for articles. A ni Mate 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unsourced. it did make me lose the game though... :( Jessi1989 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. But I'm concerned about the level of sarcasm I'm reading in this AFD debate and I feel a less disrespectful tone would be appropriate.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, and also not notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with added snow as only author shows any signs of objecting. Obvious WP:OR -Hunting dog (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconding WP:SNOW. Um... nothing I can really add to that. - Vianello (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Phirazo (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research that should have been speedied. Edward321 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like it's going to be deleted, although the record of this discussion will be saved. For thee record, the author's statement was that "if the premise that consciousness can and indeed does, 'restart', is assumed... the consciousness one is experiencing now is almost surely not the original one." The premise adds that if one "agrees that consciousness can be 'restarted', the consciousness one is living now could hardly be assumed to be the first one even though all of one's instincts might incline one to think otherwise." The logical response is that if someone believes in reincarnation (such as George S. Patton or Shirley MacLaine), then they tend to have no problem in believing that they had a prior consciousness (or "past life"). If someone doesn't believe in reincarnation, they tend to take for granted that their consciousness is the original one, if they even ponder such things as all. In any event, it takes a certain belief system to make statements like "could hardly be assumed" or "almost surely not". A different type of paradox would be, if you believe in prior consciousness, why didn't any of the estimated 40 billion homo sapiens who have lived and died over the eons make the realization that you've described before 2008? Nevertheless, if it hasn't been published before, this isn't the place to unveil it for the first time. Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay. Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. While I don't want to take things too far off topic here, I think the whole thing is most easily shot down by the simple fact that one can conceive of a nearly infinite number of permutations of reincarnative systems in which one could be assured a current life is the first one. This theory seems to argue that is impossible, which is pretty readily disproven. - Vianello (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to complete lack of sources/verifiability. Wiw8 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 100% original research. Reminds me of Doomsday argument, but is rather banal in comparison. GregorB (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2008 (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.