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. Big Dom 20:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Unable to verify. References provided are not on-topic. Singularity42 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax or unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References provided were referring to the processes upon which the state is postulated - other references will be applied as soon as possible. Will include footnotes and references to philosophical/psychological/neuroscientific publications, appropriate reference to moral relativism and the origin of the concept. I begin to realize that i did not fully explain the origin of the theory, which relies on both philosophical and scientific concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushkovski (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is both nonsensical and has zero hits in Google scholar, this is clearly either a hoax or a misunderstanding. Hairhorn (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rushkovski, if I follow what you are saying, than I think you are running afoul of Wikipedia's policy against original research. That is, you are using the sources to justify and provide examples of the concept, rather than sources that talk about the concept. Singularity42 (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's schrodinger's cat for ideas. I am applying an already existing concept to another.

If you can place a theoretical cat in a theoretical box, why not an idea? The concept does need to be extrapolated, but as any theory, it has to start somewhere. The core concept is that an idea can exist outside of any context, thus neither good not bad, moral or immoral until observed through normal perception. We can suspend normal human perception of morality and context in several ways, and deep meditation can break down the standard subject/object paradigm, thus creating a context-free environment for the exploration of various philosophical or moral topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushkovski (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong. This concept is something you came up with. There are no sources that specificially talk about this concept - at least, none that call it "Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum" or something similar. It is a philisophical axiom that you have conceptualized. If that's the case, then it is WP:Original Research, and cannot be on Wikipedia yet. Singularity42 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete Theoretical Conceptual Vacuum? More like Theoretical Original Research. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Slam-dunk case for WP:SNOW. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point, it could qualify as OR, though it is something that can be shown to exist, and is derived from already existing concepts. Metzinger talks about how the alteration of the perceptual paradigm in his book, by meditation or otherwise creates dramatic changes in the way the neural centers of the brain fire, and the concept applies directly to the idea that the human mind can, under some conditions, forgo the already existing matrix of patters and experience perception uninterrupted by the preconceived notions and the tunnel vision effect of the human psyche, allowing us to examine existing concepts in a new light. On a side note, is there a specific philosophical wiki I might be referred to? (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011

Sorry, but "Grinko-Hyde Paradigm"? who is Grinko? Who is Hyde? You call it a "paradigm", a "hypothesis" and a "thought experiment"; which is it? This isn't OR as much as it is completely invented. Hairhorn (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, appears to violate WP:V and WP:OR, and is possibly a hoax. If the article actually says anything that is sourceable, I'm not seeing it. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have reached the crux of the problem. Anyone out there want to start a wiki on experimental philosophy? The theory is verifiable, but it does smack of OR - the name gives that away. If this is taken down, does it all get deleted or does it stay under my page so that I can work on it? I see no reason to fight this fight until I've compiled a lot more info, and I clearly rushed into the "quick, post it on wikipedia, it's not there yet" side of things without preparing the article first. Not hoaxing though, too much <3 for wikipedia to troll it. Just take her down, until, one day, she may be ready. (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin In the above comment, the only editor of the article, Rushkovski has requested the article be deleted and to have it userified (though I understand this might have to be done in undeletion / deletion review?) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a version in userspace at User:Rushkovski/Theoretical conceptual vacuum. Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:BULLOCKS. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (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.