Talk:The Astonishing Hypothesis

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Mind Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

NPOV

In my opinion, this page violates NPOV in many places. It presents unsupported opinions and does not acknowlege there may be other points of view of The Astonishing Hypothesis.

For example the paragraph:

Few researchers care to inform the public of the implications of such research for fear of offending those who believe in non-material or eternal souls. Crick, as one of the icons of science, does not have to ask Congress for funding, so he is not afraid to confront the religious implications of modern neuroscience research.

This is the opinion of the author of the wiki article about the author of the book not a quote from the book or an established fact.

Crick's book is an heroic attempt to wrest consciousness from the hands of philosophers and place it in the hands of scientists.

This another unquoted statement that is an opinion, not a fact.
NickP 17:12, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Needs an update

Nicholas- There are other changes that should be made to this article because of the death of Crick. Feel free to jump in and provide a more neural tone. JWSchmidt 04:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Freudian slip? Neural/neutral? Paul Beardsell 09:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely written article. I hope any re-write doesn't lose that. Paul Beardsell 09:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article is biased. It's fine the way it is and hope re-writing enhances the quality of this article and not change the intended theme. 203.199.194.131 10:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Rengarajan.S.[reply]

Reverting "recent studies"

I'm going to revert the changes made by 64.236.221.6. They appear to be original research - the referenced article isn't attempting to discredit Crick's ideas. Also, the claim that people do not naturally tend to accept the Astonishing Hypothesis (regardless of the truth of this claim) does not offer evidence against Crick's claim - in fact, it's why it's called the Astonishing Hypothesis. Benandorsqueaks 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40 Hz

Shouldn't there be something here about consciousness (or awareness) and the 40 cycles per second neuronal oscillation? Myrvin (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]