Talk:B. Alan Wallace/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent changes

Regarding [1],

• There's no source saying that "substrate consciousness" is from "Buddhist texts". We simply use the term Wallace is using.
• The phrase "vacuum state of consciousness" is what's being criticized as pseudoscientific quantum woo by the source. We should avoid presenting pseudoscience as science. I've added the context needed for WP:PSCI.
• The source says that Wallace uses paranormal phenomenon and quantum mechanics to bolster his views. If there is another -- preferably better -- source contradicting that, then please present the source. Citing a personal opinion has no value.

Manul ~ talk 16:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ad "there's no source" - you're wrong, it's explicitly stated in the interview with Paulson that this theory of consciousness comes from Buddhism (eg. "Advanced contemplatives in the Buddhist tradition have talked about tapping into something called the substrate consciousness.") and I think it should be made clear.
• Ad "vacuum state of consciousness": I'd be grateful if you explained how using this phrase counts as "citing quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" in support of the substrate consciousness theory. I also don't know why you've changed it back to the "kind of looks like a soul" thing - it starts to look like you're doing it in bad faith.
• Ad "the source says..." - again, I don't know of any instance of Wallace using quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena to support the substrate consciousness theory - I think Novella confuses it with primordial consciousness, or his general arguments against reductive materialism. The text by Wallace that he quotes (starting with "While the full ontological and epistemological implications of modern physics...") doesn't even mention substrate consciousness!
• Ad "If there is another -- preferably better -- source contradicting that" - it's weird to demand proof for nonexistence of certain claims. There are all the texts and speeches by Wallace in which, as far as I know, no such claim shows up. It's certainly not in the texts that Novella references. Chilton (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Btw, you confuse the substrate consciousness theory with Wallace's general views on consciousness (which are more complex) - just as Novella does. Eg. you write "the source says that Wallace uses paranormal phenomenon and quantum mechanics to bolster his views", while what the Wikipedia article claims (and what our current discussion is about) is that he uses them to support the substrate consciousness view (it doesn't even mention other aspects of the theory). Chilton (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also where did the "primordial form of consciousness" thing come from? You keep inserting it in the article and it's confusing, because he also uses the term "primordial consciousness" to refer to something else. Chilton (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• The first page of hits in Google Books for "substrate consciousness" are all referencing Wallace. Without a proper source we can't say that "substrate consciousness" is from "Buddhist texts" as if it were a fact, as you wish to do. Unless there is a source for "substrate consciousness" being part of a common lexicon then we simply attribute it to Wallace.

• I explained "vacuum state of consciousness" in my comment above. Please respond to that.

• Re "I don't know of any instance of Wallace..." Again, you're giving your opinion. You would need sources to back them up. See WP:V. On Wikipedia we just go by what sources say. I'm merely reporting what the source says.

• Replacing "primordial" with something else is fine, of course.

Manul ~ talk 17:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ad "Buddhist texts" - I guess it could be rephrased (to clearly say that the concept comes from Buddhism, not the precise English term).

• Ad "I explained" - no, you certainly didn't explain how using the phrase "vacuum state of consciousness" comprises "citing quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" in support of the substrate consciousness view.

• Ad "You would need sources to back them up." - the burden of proof is on the person who proposes a positive existential claim. I already explained why Novella is confused in writing that according to Wallace, quantum mechanics supports the substrate consciousness view; that claim only shows up once in his article and he doesn't back it up in any way. I don't think one should blindly report what sources say without checking for logical errors, for example (especially when they're secondary sources and primary sources are easily available). Chilton (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see the first point at the top of the thread re "vacuum state". I haven't seen a response to that. You're still giving your opinion of why you think Novella is wrong. That's not usable on Wikipedia, sorry. Just find a source. The material regarding quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena is taken directly from the source (have you read all of it?). I think I've struck a good compromise on some other points; tell me what you think. Manul ~ talk 18:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference to Buddhism? This is getting completely absurd.

• Ad "Please see the first point at the top of the thread" - it's not even on that topic, it concerns the term "substrate consciousness". If you mean the second point, then what kind of response are you expecting from me? The first sentence is obviously true. I hope you see that it doesn't have anything to do with "citing quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception".
• "You're still giving your opinion of why you think Novella is wrong." - if he concluded from Wallace's texts that he believes in unicorns and I claimed that this doesn't follow in any way and shouldn't be on Wikipedia, would you still insist that I'm just "giving my opinion"? If you think that what Novella wrote is well-justified, then please provide the relevant quotes by Wallace - it should be very easy. Btw, I think it's very bad practice to rely on secondary sources in this way ("Novella says that Wallace says...") instead of just going to primary sources.
• Ad "Just find a source." - no, as I just wrote, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes a positive existential claim (do you seriously expect me to find a source saying that "in no text of B. Alan Wallace is there an instance of such and such argumentation"?). Could you provide just one quotation of Wallace "citing quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" as evidence for the substrate consciousness view? Chilton (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ad "You're still giving your opinion of why you think Novella is wrong. That's not usable on Wikipedia, sorry. Just find a source." - I always thought that the rule was that you can't put your own opinions in Wikipedia articles without further justification, not that you can't exercise good judgment in deciding if what a source says is reliable or argue about that. Commanding someone to find a source about a source is kinda funny. Chilton (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Also the paragraph you keep reintroducing doesn't even explain the connection between quantum mechanics/paranormal phenomena and substrate consciousness as allegedly proposed by Wallace. If you stumble upon relevant quotes, please fill in this void, because it looks like the author was first and foremost interested in discrediting what Wallace says instead of representing it accurately. Chilton (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• When I wrote Please see the first point at the top of the thread re "vacuum state", I wasn't referring to a point that wasn't regarding "vacuum state". I was talking about a point that was re "vacuum state". I said "first" to distinguish it from other points re "vacuum state". I've still seen no response to that point, specifically re WP:PSCI.
• The source directly supports the text In support of this belief Wallace cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception. You are claiming that it doesn't?
• Re your view that it's very bad practice to rely on secondary sources in this way, basing articles upon secondary sources is the central idea behind Wikipedia's no original research policy. Also see the verifiability policy about the importance of secondary sources. For fringe subjects it's even more important (WP:FRIND).
• I never asked for "a source about a source". If you have a better (necessarily secondary) source than the Novella source, then please introduce it. If it is indeed a better source, and if it conflicts with Novella, then we can throw out Novella per WP:BESTSOURCES. To be clear, the better source needn't reference Novella, obviously.

Manul ~ talk 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• The sentence you wrote could be understood in two ways (I understood it as "regarding vacuum state, see the first point at the top of the thread"). I don't understand what kind of response you expect and I already wrote it above - didn't you read it?
• It does, wrongly. Sources aren't always right, sometimes they contain glaring gaps in reasoning or logical errors, and you don't need a second source to discard them. If you think Novella is justified in claiming what he claims, it should be easy for you to provide relevant quotes from B. Alan Wallace. I find it symptomatic that you lose your time on arguing instead of doing just that, as it would provide an end to our discussion and make the article better.
• I think you don't understand something about primary and secondary sources - if you claim that X wrote Y, than it is obviously better to reference writings by X (a primary source), not Z writing that X wrote Y.
• "If it is indeed a better source, and if it conflicts with Novella" - again, do you really expect me to have a source saying that "in no text by Wallace is there an instance of such and such argumentation"? Please think about it and answer before you write something like that again. Chilton (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ad your edit summary: you're wrong, primary sources are obviously admissible and are sometimes preferred (see: Identifying and using primary and secondary sources). It's entirely reasonable to demand a primary source for something the person in question allegedly wrote. Chilton (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Also why do you keep removing the reference to Buddhism and lowering the accuracy of the article? I asked about it earlier, and you didn't even bother to answer. Chilton (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• A thought experiment for you: if Novella wrote that in one of his books, Wallace writes that unicorns exist (without providing any quote or reference to justify that), and I've seen no such claim in any of his books, should I find a better secondary source to disprove Novella, or just remove the claim for now and ask for a primary source (the name of the book and the page)? Please answer. Chilton (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• One other thing: Wallace DOES sometimes cite quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena, but not as a justification for substrate consciousness (AFAIK - I would be glad to update this view if you could provide some relevant quotes). Novella simply mixes up the two things. So if you really insist on having this information in the article (eg. to be able to discredit him), then at least find out what the proper context is. Although I think it would be a really low thing to do. Chilton (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I submitted a version of the article that doesn't contain completely unjustified claims, but still bashes Wallace two times for quantum mysticism (not just once, like my previous version). I know it's the most important thing for you, in contrast to trivial matters like factual accuracy, so I hope it makes you happy. Please don't revert it blindly, as you did with many of my edits before. Chilton (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

At root I think your dispute is with the verifiability and no original research policies, not me in particular. You believe that one of the sources in the article is "wrong". The solution is not to keep edit-warring while asserting and re-asserting your opinion. As I have said, the solution is to find a better source and cite that in the article. Please also read WP:FRIND carefully. Manul ~ talk 23:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you reply to what I wrote, especially the parts where I explicitly asked you to? It's like talking to a wall. Chilton (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You also completely ignored (again) my question on why you keep reverting my other edits. Chilton (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, please read the no original research policy. You disagree with Novella's view and wish to synthesize your own interpretation for inclusion in the article. You wish me to participate with you in the synthesizing. No, Wikipedia requires citing a secondary source for any interpretive statement.

You continue to avoid addressing the second bullet point at the top of the thread, the one about WP:PSCI, despite repeated requests to do so. It is absurd to characterize "vacuum state of consciousness" as "a concept originating in Buddhism". That's the phrase being identified as pseduoscience / quantum woo by the source. I expect it's insulting to Buddhists who don't want Buddhism being painted as pseudoscience. "Vacuum state of consciousness" belongs to Wallace. It's not "a concept originating in Buddhism". Don't add unsourced nonsense to Wikipedia, please.

Lastly, you're still misunderstanding what is meant by finding a better source that conflicts with Novella. It does not mean finding a source that specifically mentions Novella. Nor does it mean finding a source that specifically says the opposite of what Novella says. Two things may conflict without one being the negation of the other. Source A can say that widgets are green while source B can say that widgets are purple. We needn't find a source that says "widgets are not green". Manul ~ talk 20:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please try to respond to my questions this time. I want to notify you that I put this on the dispute resolution noticeboard here.

The current version of the paragraph is fully supported by the Novella blog post IMO, even though it doesn't use the exact same phrasing.

"You continue to avoid addressing the second bullet point at the top of the thread, the one about WP:PSCI, despite repeated requests to do so." - I have no idea what kind of answer you expect and I said it at least two times already. I will gladly provide it if you explain.

"It is absurd to characterize "vacuum state of consciousness" as "a concept originating in Buddhism"" - substrate consciousness certainly is such a concept (it also goes by other names, such as bhavanga and store-consciousness). If you still have doubts, this information appears in the interview Paulson conducted with Wallace (who is a renowned expert on Tibetan Buddhism, a student of the Dalai Lama and was a monk for 10 years IIRC). It's also in his books on the topic of Buddhism. If you have doubts even then, here's a video of Wallace presenting this theory of consciousness in front of the Dalai Lama, who confirms that it accords with Tibetan Buddhism (around the 20:30 mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL9QBCwti1s If you want, you can move this fragment to before "vacuum state of consciousness" (a particular description of substrate consciousness due to Wallace), so there's no more room for confusion of any kind.

"It does not mean finding a source that specifically mentions Novella." - I'm not sure if deleting a claim needs to always be supported by a source which contradicts this claim (and not any other type of justification) - can you point out what Wikipedia rule states that? If not, then why do you insist on that? In practice it would be next to impossible to find a source that conflicted with Novella on this and didn't mention him, as he makes an extremely specific claim that probably didn't occur to anyone else. "Source A can say that widgets are green while source B can say that widgets are purple. We needn't find a source that says "widgets are not green"." - source B still must at least imply that widgets are not green to conflict with A. To contradict Novella, one would need to find a source which implied that Wallace never used this specific form of argumentation for this specific hypothesis, which will almost certainly never happen (unless someone writes a polemic with Novella, which is unlikely) - just as no one ever wrote that "Wallace never said unicorns exist". Chilton (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The level of misunderstanding here is incredible, perhaps unprecedented. You are the one who thought that a better source meant a source that specifically mentions Novella. I said that this is not necessary. You are the one who thought that a better source meant a source that specifically contradicts what Novella says. I said that this is not necessary. Did you miss the "not" when I said, "It does not mean finding a source that specifically mentions Novella"? Did you miss the "nor" when I said, "Nor does it mean finding a source that specifically says the opposite of what Novella says"?

I keep answering your questions but you're not accepting the answers. I'm not going to participate in original research with you. We have a suitable source; we reflect the source. If you have a better source -- necessarily a secondary and independent source -- then we can use that instead. I don't want to repeat this again. The Salon interview is in line with the Novella source, so I don't see any problem with Novella, but I'm open to using another source.

Please read WP:PSCI. When a pseudoscientific terminology is in use, we don't present it uncritically. Rather, we provide the context. That's the WP:NPOV policy. We can't introduce "vacuum state of consciousness" uncritically as if it is actual thing corresponding to modern physics. That's why I moved it to later in the section, adjacent to the proper context that Novella provides. What is wrong with just saying "substrate consciousness" at the beginning, without jumping headlong into the pseudoscience? Would you please assent to removing "vacuum state of consciousness" at the top of the section? It adds nothing but confusion, and I don't see how it could possibly be necessary. Manul ~ talk 14:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer this: I'm not sure if deleting a claim needs to always be supported by a source which contradicts this claim (and not any other type of justification) - can you point out what Wikipedia rule states that? If not, then why do you insist on that? Despite that, you again require a source for my deletion.

• "The level of misunderstanding here is incredible, perhaps unprecedented. You are the one..." etc. - statements of this sort don't make your position look more valid, I think it's to the contrary.
• "You are the one who thought that a better source meant a source that specifically mentions Novella." - where did I write that? I think you just read too much in my use of the phrase "source about a source".
• "You are the one who thought that a better source meant a source that specifically contradicts what Novella says." - then what kind of source were you expecting, if it didn't have to contradict Novella's specific claim in any way (explicitly or implicitly)? You wrote: "The source says that Wallace uses paranormal phenomenon and quantum mechanics to bolster his views. If there is another -- preferably better -- source contradicting that, then please present the source.". Another quote: "If it is indeed a better source, and if it conflicts with Novella, then we can throw out Novella".
• "The Salon interview is in line with the Novella source, so I don't see any problem with Novella" - I already pointed out a few times what the problem is with Novella's claim. You didn't try to argue with this in any way, only saying it's just my opinion and that I have to provide a source to contradict him.
• "I keep answering your questions but you're not accepting the answers." - you left some of my questions without answer a few times and I had to ask them repeatedly (for example the question on why you kept deleting the reference to Buddhism).
• "It adds nothing but confusion" - it fleshes out the idea of substrate consciousness, conveying the properties that it is ongoing and empty of percepts. This is how Wallace describes it and I see nothing wrong with representing his ideas accurately, even if you think it's pseudoscience. I left Novella's critique of the term intact. If you want, you can replace it with another description by Wallace which carries the same meaning. Chilton (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BLPREMOVE says "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP", which seems to justify my deletion. Chilton (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You avoided the key WP:PSCI point yet again. Discussion cannot continue until you understand and address that. The NPOV policy non-negotiable. Manul ~ talk 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You avoided explaining what kind of answer you're expecting from me on that point, despite the fact that I asked for it a few times already. Chilton (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have given several concise explanations of the WP:PSCI violation, which I am now moving forward to correct due to a WP:CIR problem I see here. Manul ~ talk 15:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you now point them out and finally say what kind of answer you are expecting from me? I ask you to not do this until you give me a chance to answer. Chilton (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wallace's view of consciousness is in opposition to that of neuroscientists

There is no such thing as THE view of consciousness of neuroscientists. Neuroscientists have differing opinions on the topic, ranging from eliminative materialism as expressed by Daniel Dennett, to integrated information theory of Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi, to various forms of panpsychism. Chilton (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Interviewer: So your hypothesis is just the reverse from what all the neuroscientists think.
Wallace: Precisely.[2]

Manul ~ talk 22:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I read it. These are Paulson's and Wallace's words (in an interview, where people usually don't have the time or space to assure that everything they say is perfectly right). Do you imply that they are an unquestionable source of truth for statements on Wikipedia? Chilton (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Also before that, you demanded secondary sources - I understand that this doesn't pertain to this particular statement for some reason? Chilton (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

July 21 changes

Regarding these changes,

• It's not dubious to report what Wallace says.
• The neutral point of view policy, specifically the section on fringe theories and pseudoscience, requires that mainstream context must be included whenever a fringe theory is discussed in an article.
• An independent source is needed to describe and give context to a fringe theory (WP:FRIND). This is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a tool for the promotion of fringe theories (WP:FRINGE).
• Because Novella is an expert, the Novella source is suitable per WP:PARITY as long as it is used to critique the hypothesis only.

These points are supported in the recent BLPN thread. To the objection that Novella is "wrong", we have no evidence of this, and no better source has been offered. The Salon interview and his recent books are in line with what Novella describes. Manul ~ talk 22:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If they are in line, then please provide quotes to back up the claim that Wallace "cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" as support for the substrate consciousness view. I asked for this several times already and you couldn't do it. If you still can't do it then, well, you are using untruths to support your position. Also the BLPN thread definitely didn't support the claim that the Novella blog post is a suitable source, nor is it used only to critique Wallace's hypothesis (it is the source given for the paragraph starting with "The evidence cited for this hypothesis includes...", which is a claim ascribed to Wallace). I already pointed out the latter in the BLPN thread and you even admitted it (the bullet point starting with "correct") - what made you change your mind? Chilton (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This revert you made goes against your own position. We both agree that Novella shouldn't be used for criticism that is not directly related to Wallace's hypothesis, but there you are restoring the material. We've been over the primary-source-is-not-required issue too many times now -- if you just look at the Salon interview and Google Books you'll see Wallace invoking quantum physics and paranormal. However this is moot since I expect there is consensus for removal anyway. Manul ~ talk 14:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"We both agree that Novella shouldn't be used for criticism that is not directly related to Wallace's hypothesis" - I never wrote such a thing (and I'm not sure if the material I restored really goes against it).

"if you just look at the Salon interview and Google Books you'll see Wallace invoking quantum physics and paranormal" - do you see the not-so-subtle difference between saying he invokes quantum physics or paranormal phenomena and the claim that he considers them to be evidence for substrate consciousness? If not, then maybe you should take a break from this. Chilton (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been arguing that Novella shouldn't be used per WP:BLPSPS. You even posted to BLPN about it. I agree insofar as material that is not directly related to the hypothesis is concerned. We both agree Novella shouldn't be used with respect to non-directly-hypothesis-related material. I therefore removed the relevant text, where Novella meanders with an Intelligent Design analogy. But you reverted, restoring the very source that you've been arguing against.

I proposed just removing Wallace's view of consciousness from the article. That should resolve the dispute. But you opposed, saying Novella source is OK. So which is it? Novella is out per WP:BLPSPS, or Novella is OK? You've been arguing both sides, and it's very confusing.

You believe that Novella gets something wrong. But from what I've read of Wallace, it seems to me that Novella gets it right. Fortunately that debate is irrelevant, as I have been saying. We don't impose our own interpretations on sources; we simply reflect what the source says. That is the essence of the no original research policy. As I have been saying, you are welcome to offer a better source.

The source directly supports the text In support of this belief Wallace cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception. I thought you agreed that this text is supported by the Novella source. But you've tagged it as dubious, saying "One editor's summary of the dispute". That is contradictory with your agreement that the text is supported by the Novella source. Manul ~ talk 00:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what the dubious tag is for: Add {{Dubious}} after a specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced but which nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely. You wrote that the Salon interview and Wallace's books support the statement (not only Novella) - you are not doing anything to substantiate this claim by constantly referencing Novella. Your other points are simply a result of your misunderstanding of my position - I won't address them, as it should suffice to just read what I wrote up to this point with some attention. Chilton (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

But you've tagged it as dubious, saying "One editor's summary of the dispute" - you very well know that this is the title of the section of the talk page where I explain why I think the statement is dubious. Chilton (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You haven't explained why you are reverting to include material sourced by the very source that you have been arguing against. I don't know what to make of this.

"One editor's summary of the dispute" suggests original research, but it's not. It's properly sourced to Novella. You are questioning Novella, not me, right? I see no indication that Novella is wrong, as you claim. For good measure I looked at Wallace's writings and didn't find anything wrong with what Novella says. There's no sense discussing your opinion if there's no source to back it up. Again, I am not going to engage in that debate because it's irrelevant. Just find sources and use them. Manul ~ talk 11:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to provide some quotes to back up your claim that Wallace's books and the Salon interview support the statement - why are you unable to do that? "You haven't explained why you are reverting to include material sourced by the very source that you have been arguing against." - again, please read carefully what my position is on the suitability of using Novella as a source. Chilton (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"One editor's summary of the dispute" suggests original research, - no, I explicitly wrote that it is sourced to Novella. Chilton (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You said, I think WP:BLPSPS makes it clear that Novella's blog post is not a valid source for this article.[3] But then you reverted to include that very source.[4] Which is it? Is Novella valid or not? Do you mean that Novella is invalid only for the parts that you personally disagree with?

Re "I asked you to provide" -- you have been quite insistent on seeking to misuse this talk page to host a debate about our personal opinions of Wallace's views. For the umpteenth time, I'm not going to participate because it's irrelevant. The only relevant discussion is one that involves sources. Manul ~ talk 12:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You said a few times that you checked Wallace's books and they are in line with the statement under discussion, so I'm just politely asking for some relevant quotes. What's the problem with that? It's not a matter of anyone's personal opinion, but of simple facts.

Ad the first paragraph - I also wrote "please correct me if I am mistaken"[5]. Later, in the noticeboard thread, I wrote: "In my humble opinion, Novella is fine as long as we don't have a better source and use him mainly to provide context, not as an infallible authority on what are Wallace's own statements." It was under your proposal - I understand that you didn't read it? Of course this is just my opinion and I have no problem with throwing out Novella if WP:BLPSPS really obliges us to do that (in your reply, you suggested that it does not). Chilton (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

One editor's summary of the dispute

The article claims that B. Alan Wallace "cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" as evidence for a certain aspect of his proposed theory of consciousness, namely what he calls substrate consciousness. I haven't found any such statement in any of his writings or speeches, although he does sometimes reference quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena, eg. when criticizing reductive materialism* or discussing other aspects of this theory (such as primordial consciousness). Unfortunately, the source given in the article (a blog post by Steven Novella, the use of which in this character is at least strongly disencouraged by WP:BLPSPS) also mixes these things up and makes this claim, without providing anything to back it up. I pointed it out to the other editor involved and asked for a primary source (eg. an interview or book by Wallace), but he insists that it is my obligation to supply a source to contradict Novella. This is pretty much impossible, as it would have to imply that Wallace never stated what Novella says he did, which is a very specific claim. I also don't think Wikipedia requires providing contradicting sources as the only possible justification for deletions.

I replaced the controversial claim with another (In his critique of scientific materialism and reductive accounts of consciousness, Wallace cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception), which is also supported by sources in my opinion, but the other editor disagrees with that.

*Note: criticizing reductive materialism doesn't count as supporting this particular theory of consciousness IMHO, as there are many nonreductive accounts of consciousness. It would be extremely imprecise for the article to claim that. Chilton (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article uses a blog post as the sole secondary source for Wallace's views and statements (which is at least discouraged by WP:BLPSPS as I understand it). I asked for a primary source for the statement "in support of this view Wallace cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception", as it seems dubious (I give my justification for that here). The other editor involved didn't provide it and reintroduced the claim, despite no one else expressing assent to it after a long discussion on the talk page. The issue is also being discussed here. Chilton (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is a malformed RfC: it does not ask a clear question.
• Because the editor who created this RfC had also created the BLPN thread, which is still open, this looks a lot like forum shopping.
• As explained several times, a primary source is not required to back up a secondary source. The editor expresses the opinion that Novella is "wrong", but we have no evidence of this, and Wallace's Salon interview and books are in line with what Novella is saying.
• I would welcome a better source than Novella, but none has been offered.
• See here for an overview regarding the Novella source and the state of the article, with the underlying reasons being WP:PSCI, WP:FRIND, and WP:PARITY.

Manul ~ talk 22:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"Wallace's Salon interview and books are in line with what Novella is saying." - please provide relevant quotes. I asked for it several times already (even before the RFC or the BLPN discussion). Chilton (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I was called her by the feedback request service, and haven't seen this article before. It seems to me that it's more important to find independent, reliable published sources to show notability before worrying about supporting particular details. If blog posts, primary sources, profiles and information from Wallace's website and organizations with which he is connected are all that's to be found, the article could be considered for deletion at any time. Aren't there any independent book reviews, news reports of his talks, or discussions of his in other non-affiliated philosophers' books?—Anne Delong (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anne, thanks for answering the call. In the now-archived BLPN thread there was support for removing the parts that lack independent coverage. If you concur then I think there would be enough consensus for removal (if there wasn't before). Of course, if better sources are found then it could be reconsidered. The article went through AfD once. Manul ~ talk 14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Manul, I looked at the AfD, and one of the reasons for the keep was that apparently many of his books were reviewed in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, and that his material was cited by others as indicated in Google Scholar Citations. Why aren't any of these review and cites referenced in the article? Maybe they would support some of the text about his beliefs and opinions.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the article may be expanded; it's just the material on Wallace's view of consciousness that poses a problem, currently. Since Wallace is putting forth an hypothesis that is at odds with scientific understanding, we need to include reception by mainstream experts per WP:PSCI. Novella is the only source I've seen that seriously examines Wallace's hypothesis. If use of the source is confined to address the hypothesis only, then that is OK considering WP:PARITY and that Novella is an expert. However the Novella source alone does not establish weight, and for that reason I proposed just removing the material. But perhaps other sources can establish weight for the hypothesis while Novella is retained for WP:PSCI. Manul ~ talk 17:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Manul, I see three paragraphs in the section about his beliefs. The first and third paragraphs appear to be correctly written so as to explain his views, but not give the impression that Wikipedia endorses them. Much of the second paragraph, though, is not, IMO, appropriately phrased, but needs to be rewritten rather than deleted:

• The first sentence is confusing; if Wallace, specifically, declares that paranormal phenomena exist and thereby demonstrate the truth of his beliefs, then the sentence should be rewritten to say that.
• The second sentence is essay-like and contains unsupported opinion; it should be rewritten to say something like: "A number of scientists, including (name several here who discuss his ideas specifically and provide references) have criticized his argument, pointing to the lack of evidence for the existence of these phenomena".
• The next part should begin "Wallace employs the phrase "vacuum state of consciousness" to describe "substrate consciousness"; neurologist Steven Novella...." to make it clear that the two items are connected.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'll start by echoing Anne Delong's comment that this RfC is not properly formatted, and that the author will hopefully review the guidelines more closely before he opens the next one. As to Manul's view that there may be some forum shopping here, I don't want to endorse it outright, as I have not looked into the details, but if the BLPN thread was going against Chilton's stance, it is indeed highly problematic that he would then open this discussion.

Now, getting the substantive content issues, I do tend to agree that blog postings are usually not strong sourcing for any claim that has been challenged. In this instance though, the blog post seems to support other sources which converge on the same point, so it may be a permissible supplemental source, as an opinion piece by a researcher, if those other sources are valid--and I have not yet reviewed them in detail. It is also feasible, but potentially problematic, to use the the blog in this instance because it is not being used to WP:verify a controversial claim; it is only being used to express the opinion of the author of the blog, who happens to be an expert qualified to parse the consistency of Wallace's claims with consensus science (vs. pseudoscience). In that sense, being self-published actually support the strength of the source to verify this claim; and this is exactly one of the exceptions in which WP:Primary sources are allowed. It's a rare instance where such a primary and self-published source is actually completely consistent with policy, which does happen once in a blue moon.

I will say this: I came here via RfC, but as it happens, I have a deep background in the cognitive sciences, including particular history with consciousness studies and there are elements of this article that smell like absolute whitewashing to me as a consequence. If the sources are accurately portraying Wallace's views when they say he believes in dualism (and, indeed, it sounds like a strict, traditional form of dualism), then he may well be a Buddhist who seeks to bridge Buddhism and science, but he would be failing miserably; dualism (at least the kind of dualism being discussed here) is pretty much expressly and completely rejected by every researcher who studies the mind using the scientific method--and indeed even the vast majority of thinkers who study philosophy of mind broadly. It's pure spiritualism--indeed, about as pure a form of spiritualism and rejection of evidence-based procedure as exists anywhere in human inquiry.

And indeed, if the sources are being accurately depicted, Wallace recognizes this fact and embraces--though I doubt he'd choose pseudoscience as the first term to describe his beliefs, I can fairly well guarantee you that any respected neuro- or cognitive scientist would. You can swap out "soul" for "consciousness substrate", but the idea remains exactly the same, other than the buzz words: something non-physical integrates with the organism (in this case, the developing fetus), but it is something that is said separate from the physical world, as it is understood to operate by the physical sciences. Again, that's absolute traditional spiritual dualism, with just a few "scientific sounding" quantum mysticism buzzwords swapped in for the traditional religious words, but otherwise conceptually identical to the model proposed by theists from most of the world's major religions for thousands of years.

Now, I'm not saying my above observations should supplant our reliable sources, or be used to reinforce weak sources. What I'm saying is that what the scientific sources utilized here are saying is exactly what you would expect scientists in this field to say concerning Wallace's notion. There's nothing controversial in those comments--and indeed, even Wallace seems to state himself that his view is contrary to the scientific consensus. Personally, I think the article as it stands now does a pretty admirable job of expressing both Wallace's apparent views and the (largely inevitable) responses from actual scientists, whose positions are almost by-definition going to be juxtaposed, given the nature Wallace's outlook. And Wallace himself seems very honest about this: many pseudo-scientists would attempt to camouflage the fact that their beliefs do not carry weight in the scientific community, arguing that they are just a nuanced and "corrective" version of the consensus view. Wallace makes no bones that he is diametrically opposed to the common scientific view. Silly as I think his notions are, I have to say I respect that kind of integrity; he knows where he sits on a continuum of beliefs and he represents that position accurately. So I don't see any reason why we should mask where he falls on these issues just because credentialed scientists (predictably) view his views as pseudo-scientific.

Indeed, the only thing that calls out to be changed immediately here is the Salon.com quote taking center stage in the lead; that seems like a significant WP:Weight issue. Again, Wallace may indeed be very interested in closing the gap between science and Buddhism, but that quote, placed where it is, feels suggestive of the idea that the scientific community largely views him as successful in this regard, and I can pretty solidly assure you that most scientists working on the complexities of the mind (even the particularly vexing hard questions of consciousnesses would not view his ideas as resolving the science to Buddhist spiritualism; rather they are pretty much guaranteed to view it as a matter of co-opting scientific sounding words to slightly repackage conventional Buddhist dogma on the nature of the soul.

Again, I think the editors here have actually done a very good job of parsing these issues to explore the contrasting beliefs well. I think some additional content and internal links might go a long way to elucidating some of the relevant underlying scientific, philosophical, and spiritual concepts, but I recognize that it can be a difficult line to walk between doing that and avoiding any hint of synthesis/OR. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please address the main point I made in the RFC description (the veracity of the statement "Wallace cites as evidence for this hypothesis references to quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception", as it is currently phrased). Chilton (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

As to that, if all we had to go on was the Boston Globe article, I'd say that phrasing might be undue. But the section on Quantum Buddhist Wonders of the Universe pretty clearly supports that Wallace believes these phenomena exist and that this existence gives support to his model of consciousness. Smetham's own claims in that (self-published?) book are so fringe and out-of-proportion with reality (and so inclined to either demonize hard scientists who reject his brand of mysticism or else misrepresent their findings) that I wouldn't consider this a very reliable source for any original claim or detailed analysis of another's work. But, he does directly quote Wallace's own work, and his observations are completely consistent with that quoted material, insofar as I've seen.

So, what we seem to have is three sources, each of which is sort of underwhelming in some way, but probably alright in the context it is being used in: we have 1) a book review from a major newspaper, which is a fine source, except it only tangentially supports the statement being made, 2) we have Wallace's own quoted work, which is primary but used only to support his own beliefs (and those beliefs are being faithfully represented in the content here) so that's ok, and 3) we have another secondary source which (although written by someone whose views are vastly more fringe than even Wallace's) is only being used here to reiterate the record of what Wallace has said. Now, do I want better sourcing to support this like chunk of content? Yeah, but I'm satisfied that these three are being utilized in a policy-consistent manner, insofar as they are only supporting what Walace has very clearly said about his own beliefs and the "evidence" that can be provided to support that framework. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

B. Alan Wallace and sources

Manul: you restored the other two sources - can you point out what they say about Wallace arguing for substrate consciousness? Chilton (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Using independent secondary sources

My edit comment was: "restoring material based upon independent secondary sources; its replacement with WP:PROFRINGE content citing primary sources is inappropriate; please see WP:SOURCES, WP:PSCI, and WP:FRINGE (particularly WP:FRIND)". Would you please respond to this in a substantial manner. Thanks, Manul ~ talk 10:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to B. Alan Wallace

Manul: from the Salon interview: There’s another dimension of consciousness, which is called the substrate consciousness. This is not mystical. You introduce text about a "mystical" dimension of consciousness, and then there's a description of substrate consciousness, as if it pertained to the "mystical" dimension - this is synthesis. Chilton (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't introduce statements and sources on primordial consciousness as if they pertained to substrate consciousness, which is completely different. Chilton (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Already removed "mystical". It's not a big deal -- as I said, I was just rephrasing, since according to Wallace it "kind of looks like a soul".

As I said in the edit summary, we are being more general now. Wallace believes that individual consciousness emerges from deeper levels of consciousness, which is correct without going into the nitty gritty of substrate/primordial. That's an appropriate level of description for an encyclopedia. Manul ~ talk 14:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"Mystical" is hardly a rephrasing of "kind of looks like a soul", especially when later he explicitly says that it is NOT something mystical. Did you even read the interview? You reintroduce texts which talk about primordial consciousness as sources for a statement about substrate consciousness (namely the one mentioning quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena). Please try to get at least a preliminary understanding of the matter before you make any further edits. Chilton (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And here comes another revert, without addressing the above. Chilton (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why are you arguing about "mystical"? It's gone from the article. As I said, we don't have the sources to go into the intricate detail that you demand, and I don't believe that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia anyway. We summarize. Characterizing primordial and substrate consciousness as deeper levels of consciousness is fine and appropriate. Feel free to suggest other wording (not "mystical"!). Manul ~ talk 14:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not introducing utter and complete confusion (eg. by using texts that talk about primordial consciousness to source statements about substrate consciousness) is not the same as "going into intricate detail". Chilton (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No, we can talk about lower levels of consciousness -- that covers both substrate and primordial. I thought you would be happy with this new solution. In fact there is more clarity in this, not confusion. In the material that you reverted, there are more sources and the text better reflects those sources. Is this another case of you conceding that the article is correctly sourced but disagreeing with the sources themselves? Manul ~ talk 14:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute

My understanding of the dispute is that it revolves around the precise use of terms. To Chilton, Novella made a fatal mistake in tying paranormal phenomena to substrate consciousness, when in fact it is primordial consciousness acting through substrate consciousness that evokes paranormal abilities. Thus Chilton removes any such information sourced to Novella, even while conceding that the article faithfully reflects what Novella says. To Chilton, Novella is just wrong, and Wikipedia must not repeat that wrongness.

Well to me, there is no all-important distinction to be made between substrate consciousness and primordial consciousness acting through substrate consciousness. To me, Novella is appropriately summarizing in order to focus on more important points, and that he glosses over that distinction doesn't detract from those points in the least.

I recently had the idea that we could resolve the dispute by simply referring to "deeper levels of consciousness". That way, we needn't fuss about the details of primordial vs substrate. That seemed like a really good solution. Considering that secondary sources are required (WP:SOURCES), it is hard to imagine any secondary source that matches the detail that Chilton requires. Necessarily, a secondary source will summarize, and Chilton seems destined to disagree with any such summary. To Chilton, it seems that any reference to "deeper levels of consciousness" without explicitly stating whether it is substrate or primordial consciousness is "utter and complete confusion".

The same applies to quantum mysticism / quantum mechanics. To me it is beside the point to focus on whether this is part of substrate consciousness, primordial consciousness, some combination thereof, or some other level of consciousness. The most appropriate level of detail for an encyclopedia -- the level of detail that matches the secondary sources we have -- is to simply say deeper levels of consciousness. That hits the main point, and does so concisely. Manul ~ talk 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the situation in this article is worse than Manul says, especially on the last point. Ending the article with criticism of misuse of quantum physics terms (as it recently had)is unfair. It gives the sense of a final conclusion and judgement. Wallace is not making serious claims about the specific details of quantum physics. Firstly the basis of his theories is studies of Tibetan Buddhism (on site in Tibet, no less). This should not be implicitly or explicitly challenged without solid citations. In the talks I've heard, he will use dozens of Buddhist terms (mainly in Sanskrit) and very rarely physics terms. So Stephan Wallace dismisses it all as pseudoscience on the basis of these terms. There is no context presented, but use of "vacuum state" can easily be interpreted as an analogy rather than a claim of support from physics. But yet, this is presented as a serious challenge to the hypothesis (which again he presents as Buddhist, not his own. This should easily be researched). Why would he make fundamental appeals to science when he is questioning that very science from a perspective of Buddhist dualism? Be fair and present his own words on the subject and not just the critics'. Cuvtixo (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Wallace counters..."

These edits are the embodiment of original research. Wallace wasn't responding to Novella, and neither Novella nor pseudoscience are even mentioned in the Salon article. In addition, discussing fringe views requires independent sources. And the {{citation needed}} is misplaced because the citation is already there at the end of the sentence. Manul ~ talk 13:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit Manul. It's a quote from the Salon article, not "original research". So he did not literally counter the previous quote, obviously the main idea is there. By ending with Novella, you are presenting his statement as the final word, and I think you just want to promote a Materialist viewpoint. It's not fringe views WHEN IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT WALLACE AND HIS OWN VIEWS. You present the tags orginal research and fringe views without apparently reading what they mean. Do you want to start an edit war about this? Cuvtixo (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me explain a little further, now that I'm a little less angry. If this was an article about consciousness or neurology, FRINGE would apply. It does not apply in biographies, which should contain the subject's views and statements. Novella and pseudoscience are not mentioned in the Salon article, instead SCIENCE is mentioned, and Novella's essay and argument are based on defending scientific materialism. Again, if this was an article about Novella or Scientific Materialism, you'd have a point. It's not, it's about Wallace, and you are including an attack on Wallace (and indeed that article is an attack on him and not just the views that Wallace presents) If anything, the Novella quote should be removed, because it is not essential to the subject. A direct, cited quote from Wallace certainly does. I'm willing to escalate this for those reasons. I appreciate that you want to defend scientific materialism, many modern people do, but this is about Wallace and what Wallace thinks and does. It's not even narrowly about Wallace's books or audio publications. IF you don't like these ideas, why don't you go edit Tibetan Buddhism instead? Cuvtixo (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Eliminating or at least moving second paragraph

"Wallace promotes a dualist hypothesis about consciousness that lies in opposition to the traditional neuroscientific understanding of consciousness. He has been criticized for referencing paranormal phenomena and employing pseudoscientific terminology characteristic of quantum mysticism"

This is presented as if it summarizes Wallace's career. Read the list of his publications again. The main theme is supporting Tibetan Buddhist ideas, the "dualist hypothesis" is a tiny detail of his extensive work and it is an idea directly from Tibetan Buddhism, he does not take credit for it as his own invention. Likewise, the "criticism" of this seems to be solely from one article in a blog by an assistant professor, Novella(real name?)on the Neurologica Blog. There are hundreds of book reviews on his books that address so much more of his work. It seems very unfair to me. Because of this one point of contention, there is ideological bickering breaking out on this Wikipedia article. Wallace very specifically represent himself as an ambassador for Tibetan Buddhism in the West. He lectures on Meditation, Tibetan Buddhism, Tibetan Dream Yoga, and the very similar Lucid Dreaming, often quoting and referencing the work of his friend Stephen LaBerge. He is not a notable philosopher of science, he is not a Western scientist and does not present himself as such. If anything, his views should be countered with criticism of the practice of lucid dreaming or how Tibetan Buddhism is presented in the West, not a single point brought up by a blogger who interviewed him once (interestingly the blogger does not even report or transcribe or even quote the interview) I'm tempted to get rid of these un-notable references and only leave the minimum of information on his books and lecturing. If you don't like his philosophy, write about it on your own blog. Write your own book review. Don't poison this article with a controversy that is in no way notable. Cuvtixo (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Focusing on a typo?

The first quote in the Novella source is from Wallace who mentions "vacuum state of consciousness". Later Novella says,

Notice in the first quote above he refers to the “vaccum state of consciousness.”

Of course "vaccum" is just a typo. Novella is referring to "vacuum state of consciousness", obviously. I am at a loss to understand attaching any significance at all to "vaccum" apart from denoting "vacuum", as this edit comment does (wherein "vaccuum" isn't even the right typo). The edit may not even be meant seriously. Novella refers to "vacuum state of consciousness" being pseudoscience (even if he does so imperfectly with a typo), and we reflect the source by reporting that. Manul ~ talk 15:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Insisting that by putting "ongoing" there we stop reflecting the source accurately (when in fact this is what Wallace said) is on the same level as attaching significance to a typo. I'm not sure how you could manage to misunderstand my meaning, given the "let's not be completely moronic" part and the fact that the edit did nothing about "vacuum"/"vaccum". Chilton (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what Wallace said; it's about what Novella said. Novella didn't say "ongoing" when making the connection to pseudoscience, so neither do we. It's just a small mistake that I corrected, but it's a mistake nonetheless. It is not "moronic" to ensure that the article reports only what the source says. This is the third time I have explained the issue; do you understand it now? Manul ~ talk 17:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you very well from the beginning and I find your question very patronizing. It doesn't make any difference whether or not Novella included the word "ongoing" in the relevant sentence. If he writes that by employing the phrase "vacuum state of consciousness" (which appears in the bigger phrase "ongoing vacuum state of consciousness" in the specific text Novella is discussing) Wallace is "using the language of quantum mechanics without applying its meaning", then clearly Wallace is doing the same thing when we add the missing "ongoing" in front (and I think there's no room for confusion as to whether Novella specifically means the "ongoing" part). On the other hand, by deleting "ongoing" we slightly misrepresent what Wallace said - which I would say is important to avoid in an article about Wallace. Chilton (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

But it does make a difference. By saying that "ongoing vacuum state of consciousness" is identified as pseudoscientific, (1) we imply that "ongoing" may be a necessary part of the pseudoscientificness, and (2) we misrepresent what Novella said, which incidentally is against policy. It seems absurd to suggest that Wallace is misrepresented without the "ongoing", especially considering that he doesn't say "ongoing vacuum state" in any of his books (of the many that are in Google, anyway). Above you are making inferences that boil down to original research. Let's just WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, OK? It's policy, and it's the way editors steer clear of needless disputes like this one. Manul ~ talk 21:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ad 1 - I don't think most people would be confused as to which one of "ongoing", "vacuum state" (or "consciousness" for that matter - are you uneasy about that also?) is identified as a term borrowed from quantum mechanics. Still, they can always check - it is not the point of the article. Ad 2 - we do not, as Novella was writing in the context of Wallace's statements and about them. It is not original research, this is simply the logic of the language. The change I introduced doesn't go against WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE.

Also, is the article about Wallace or is it a painstaking presentation of a Novella blog post with an almost autistic attention to unimportant detail? It's really strange that you had no problem with reintroducing claims about Wallace's statements on substrate consciousness while sourcing them with statements about something else (primordial consciousness), but you have a problem with something as trivial as that.

You can always rephrase the sentence to pedantically mention both Wallace's original phrasing and the exact statement by Novella, but of course it would add nothing. Chilton (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Enough, please. Novella identifies "vacuum state of consciousness" as pseudoscience, and that's what Wikipedia has to report. I have explained why your addition is against Wikipedia policies. Manul ~ talk 22:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Enough, please"? Really? That's not the way one should conduct discussions. But I am happy that you at least stopped reintroducing the BS about substrate consciousness. Chilton (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Chilton is absolutely right, Manul. Read Wikipedia:COATRACK Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.  !!!! I'm willing to report this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard if you continue. Cuvtixo (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)