Talk:The Astonishing Hypothesis

Off-mission?
Delete? And if we're going to keep it, I would note some of the bad philosophy contained therein. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, here we go. A short statement and quasi-confession from the article's writer:


 * I've lurked on this site for a bit and finally created an account a few days ago. I've written two articles before this one and was quite surprised when one received only minor edits shortly after posting and the other received no edits at all. While I thought both articles where good and relevant to the site, I was expecting other editors to pounce on them immediately and begin making merciless changes/improvements. So in order to satisfy my curiosity as to whether people were actually reading and thinking about the new articles being posted, I wrote one about a book I purchased at a yard sale that I thought maybe-kinda-sorta fit what the site was looking for. And lo and behold, it was brought up for discussion rather quickly, which I'm happy about.


 * All that said, the more I consider this article the more I'm convinced that it does have a place on this site. I find many people I encounter have a rather magical, dualistic concept of human consciousness - even people without religious convictions - and even though neuroscience to date has clearly demonstrated that the physical brain is the generator of consciousness, not merely some sort of vehicle for it. So I feel it is beneficial that a work by a prominent scientist that argues this point be presented on a site like this, even if said work is inevitably flawed in some ways.


 * I do ask that if you are considering deleting this article, please consider improving it first. I also ask anyone reading this that regardless of what decisions are made, please don't ban/excommunicate me from the site for posting an article I was a little iffy about. Please. (Pretty please? I really like it here.) Thanks! Grubby grub (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "...please don't ban/excommunicate me from the site for posting an article I was a little iffy about." Even trolls have trouble getting banned here -- don't worry about it. As far as the book goes, I think these ideas are better dealt with on pages like dualism and non-materialist neuroscience. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Points taken, and thanks for the reassurance. Now it's up to the community at large to determine if this article gets the axe or not. Grubby grub (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems quite on-mission to me - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I vote "keep". May need some expansion and discussion, but seems to fit with the mission. G.D. (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not see a problem since the idea that we do not have a non- material soul has been around for at least 300 years. I would like to hear more about what the book has to say. Surely there is more? Dirk Steele (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've dusted the book off and committed myself to reading it again. If I encounter anything relevant that can be used to expand/improve the article, I will add it. If anyone who stumbles on this article has read the book and has anything they can contribute, please do so. The article in it's current form is just a brief synopsis and would benefit from expansion. Grubby grub (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)