User talk:SusanneWisdom

August 2024

Hello, I'm Myrealnamm. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 00:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Artificial consciousness, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 17:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a referemce. Ill add it now, thank you! SusanneWisdom (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Jalen, Kindly note that I added the reference. I own the book Consciousness Beyond Life by Dr. Pim van Lommel and have read it and others by him. Thank you for drawing to my attention this very critical addition of the reference. It certainly strengthens the piece, and I hope you accept this edit as sufficient. Thank you! SusanneWisdom (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pim van Lommel's opinions are not accepted by mainstream science - and at any rate we would need to base such coverage on Wikipedia on secondary sources, to establish proper weight and context. MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pim van Lommel's research is the largest longitudinal study of its kind. SusanneWisdom (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Largest' is not a synonym for 'reliable' or 'accepted by mainstream science'. MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Pim van Lommel's research was also cited in the Lancet, an academic publication, indicating the research has greater acceptance than suggested.

van Lommel, P., Wees, R. V., Meyers, V., & Elfferich, I. (2001). Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands. The Lancet, 358(9298), 2039-2045. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)07100-8

SusanneWisdom (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the secondary sources are highly critical and that is what matters. MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chalmers might also provide merit to the view of consciousness extending beyond the material. SusanneWisdom (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MrOllie, for your advice. Please provide any other indicators of what may need to be addressed in your view so that this piece, which I believe is important to be relayed at this time of AI development, may be published. And then I'll return to the drawing boards. SusanneWisdom (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing this to my attention, MrOllie, and much appreciated! I'm currently reviewing the policies for fringe or undue weight that you've kindly provided, and I believe these will help strengthen my argumentation and/or my process for having such views more widely accepted. As I'm new to Wikipedia, the rigour you outline is greatly appreciated. I'd thank you through the Wikipedia formal medium, but I'm unclear on how to do so at this stage, so this will need to suffice. Have a great day! SusanneWisdom (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Pim van Lommel's research was also cited in the Lancet, an academic publication, indicating the research has greater acceptance than suggested.

van Lommel, P., Wees, R. V., Meyers, V., & Elfferich, I. (2001). Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands. The Lancet, 358(9298), 2039-2045. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)07100-8 SusanneWisdom (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, being published in the Lancet isn't proof against criticism. See for example Lancet MMR autism fraud. MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to consider the long-term merit of a platform that builds on knowledge without advancing ideas that don't conform to the "common" view. SusanneWisdom (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative would be giving free rein to fad diets, astrologers, flat earthers and the like. MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a diet that could prevent autoiummune conditions, and it's certainly not the ones propogated by mainstream media. SusanneWisdom (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discrediting of academic magazine, theories, and research can be entertained against any valid research, especially from opposing interests, notably ones with funding. Sometimes minor details can be attributed to the discrediting of otherwise meritorious research. This sustains the lack of proliferation of new knowledge, especially when it goes against particular biases, commercial interests, or mere resistance to change. SusanneWisdom (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is expressly not a platform for the 'proliferation of new knowledge' (see WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR). Wikipedia is a place to summarize what is boring, old, accepted information in mainstream sources. If your goal is to spread the latest and greatest, you're on the wrong site. MrOllie (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a role for a Wiki that entertains original ideas, especially from those censored by the mainstream. SusanneWisdom (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yes, agreed, MrOllie! Thanks, and point well taken. SusanneWisdom (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've deleted my exerpt on unconditional love on a technicality, too, MrOllie. It's great to have academic debate, but when it comes with the omission of ideas that can truly help people, I question whether the intent is based on the right motives. SusanneWisdom (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance with Wikipedia's core content policies is not 'a technicality.' MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]