Talk:artificial consciousness

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Artificial consciousness. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=789847720 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5659666.PN.&OS=PN%2F5659666&RS=PN%2F5659666
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/research/neural/publications/iwann.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721234802/http://www.conscious-robots.com/raul/papers/Arrabales_ICCI09_preprint.pdf to http://www.conscious-robots.com/raul/papers/Arrabales_ICCI09_preprint.pdf
• Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/baars/BaarsConsciousnessBook1988
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215095351/http://www.conscious-robots.com/en/conscious-machines/theories-of-consciousness/pentti-haikonens-architecture-for-conscious-mac.html to http://www.conscious-robots.com/en/conscious-machines/theories-of-consciousness/pentti-haikonens-architecture-for-conscious-mac.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223105456/http://j-cs.org/gnuboard/bbs/download.php?bo_table=__vol012i4&wr_id=1&no=0 to http://j-cs.org/gnuboard/bbs/download.php?bo_table=__vol012i4&wr_id=1&no=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, "self-simulation" is a concept and methode advocated by Hod Lipson as pre-stage to self-awareness of robots.{{cite web|url=https://www.quantamagazine.org/hod-lipson-is-building-self-aware-robots-201907-11/|title=Curious About Consciousness? Ask the Self-Aware Machines|access-date=2019-10-21|date=2019-07-09|author=John Pavlus|website=Quanta Magazine}}

Now I do not know where that could fit, if it is even this article or worth an own article? Nsae Comp (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Nsae Comp}} I started writing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_consciousness&diff=935654956&oldid=935653716 a description] of this "self-modeling" concept, but it's far from complete. Jarble (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Hi, if anyone hasn't seen this it appears that Orch-OR may indeed be correct and verifiable.

Its actually a very accurate model from certain points of view, such as the action of xenon and

other anaesthetics on consciousness.

Its entirely possible that the technology to make a conscious machine already exists but what is

lacking is the specific program and model to run in limited hardware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.156.140 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This article feels like it is written for a technical audience, it's really hard to understand for newcomers. I understand the endeavor to be technically accurate, and maybe it's also a complicated subject in itself. For example, the definition "Define that which would have to be synthesized were consciousness to be found in an engineered artifact" feels very convoluted to me, and I didn't understand the paragraph on the Computational Foundation argument. Alenoach (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

:This means, what has to be made, to have a computer software (for example), that is conscious. It is that the more we know what has to be made for that, and then make it, the closer we come to have such software. This is what the research is about. We don't necessarily get anything conscious, but we can go closer.

:It is not necessarily about computer software, may be something else engineered. I hope that this explains what Igor Aleksander wanted to say. His definition is maybe not easy to understand, but it defines what is necessary to be defined, and there are really not much better ones. Unless one goes to a greedy simplification, omitting something essential, that is. Tkorrovi (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:I very much want to write such easier and better to understand explanations, as that above. But because of using the Wikipedia rules to the extreme, at some times if you didn't write it directly from a peer-reviewed paper, then it was deleted. And these texts are always technical, almost never easy to understand for most people. This is also one reason why i wanted a link to the Everything2 wiki about the topic, where the rules are less restrictive, and it is possible to write such explanations there. Yes there also is a link to my software project, some people like it, and i cannot change that. If some say that this taints everything, that's an easy way to prevent all good efforts. My aim has always been to understand these things, and help people to understand, this is also why i, almost alone, once a long time ago started this article. That i also wrote some software for research purposes for the same reason, i'm so sorry for the sin, though i don't really understand why it is considered to be so great sin. Tkorrovi (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the integrated information theory is a major aspect of the topic, and should be discussed in the article. Alenoach (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

:Perhaps also Attention schema theory and Global workspace theory. Alenoach (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel confident removing a lot of content without discussion, but in my opinion, the section "Implementation proposals" still contains old and non-essential content that has historical value but that isn't so useful for readers. For example the part on "Intelligent Distribution Agent". Perhaps some of it can be moved to other articles like Cognitive architecture. Alenoach (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

:Maybe it is true about something particular. But in general, you say "Old and non-essential content that has historical value but that isn't so useful for readers". Would you please explain why is old necessarily bad? Is true only that which is said at any particular time? One old thing that you seem to accept, is the Daniel Dennett's multiple drafts model, this may just happen to remain true, in spite of being old. Tkorrovi (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The statement, "many chatbots like ChatGPT or Bard have been trained to say they are not conscious." is referenced to this article:

https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here/

But that article provides no evidence to support this statement. It merely states the same - "ChatGPT and Bard are both trained to respond that they are not conscious."

Therefore I removed the following statement and it's reference:

Additionally, many chatbots like ChatGPT or Bard have been trained to say they are not conscious.{{Cite news |last=Agüera y Arcas |first=Blaise |last2=Norvig |first2=Peter |date=October 10, 2023 |title=Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here |url=https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here/ |work=Noema}}

Tyler keys (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:It's not something that companies openly declare. But one of the two authors (Blaise Agüera y Arcas) is well-placed to make a statement about Bard, since he works at Google. Asking to ChatGPT if it is conscious returns an unusually short and categorical negative response. But indeed, the authors don't work at OpenAI and may not have insider knowledge about how ChatGPT was trained. I replaced the sentence with "Additionally, some chatbots have been trained to say they are not conscious." Let me know if it's still not ok. Alenoach (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks - I neglected to take note of the author's credentials. Tyler keys (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

::No problem, it's good that you verify the sources. Alenoach (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Several external links were recently removed. They don't agree with WP:NOT or WP:EL, and in many cases were out of date. One in particular ('everything2') is just a couple of user generated posts, which is clearly inappropriate. None of these should be restored without demonstrated consensus on this talk page, see WP:ONUS. MrOllie (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:The following external links were removed, i have to write them here, otherwise there can be no discussion and no consensus.

:== External links ==

:* [http://www.slideserve.com/astro/artefactual-consciousness-depiction-and-an-example-in-robot-usable-models-of-visual-consciousness-igor-aleksander-intelligent-and-interactive-systems-group Artefactual consciousness depiction by Professor Igor Aleksander] -- A classical article about the view of Professor Igor Aleksander.

:* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110719195048/http://www.aco.gatech.edu/conference/focs-aco/abstracts.html FOCS 2009: Manuel Blum – Can (Theoretical Computer) Science come to grips with Consciousness?] -- An important question.

:* [http://www.Conscious-Robots.com www.Conscious-Robots.com], Machine Consciousness and Conscious Robots Portal. -- Classical site, in a way historic, from the beginning of artificial consciousness

:* [https://everything2.com/title/artificial+consciousness Artificial consciousness], artificial consciousness article in [https://everything2.com everything2]. -- Everything2 is an important site, it was created by the owner of Slashdot, as next to Slashdot, a site about everything, different view and different approach, based on somewhat different principles than Wikipedia

:* [http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/generality/generality.html Generality in Artificial Intelligence], Generality in Artificial Intelligence by John McCarthy. -- Very important first description of the problem of generality in Artificial Intelligence that is important for artificial consciousness, though there was not yet that field when John McCarthy wrote it

:The first reason said was that these are "outdated and not relevant", but most of them are theoretically important today, and things like this don't go out of date. The next reason was WP:NOT that forbids a list of links that is only listing, contextual descriptions were added, so this reason is no longer valid. These links contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, so WP:EL does not apply. And in spite of that, now the reason is that having that content now requires consensus. That is not Wikipedia policy, but all i could do was to copy the removed content here, hoping now anyone voicing to restore it. Thank you for your attention. Tkorrovi (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{Tq|contextual descriptions were added}} - That is completely irrelevant. Changing the format slightly does not mean that policy somehow no longer applies.

::I'll also note that edit warring to try to force in an external link to a user generated posting you've made on another website is deeply inappropriate. MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't agree, adding descriptions is not changing format, these are not mere links any more. "Force in an external link to a user generated posting you've made on another website" -- This is not what i did, none of these links are to my posting. Tkorrovi (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I started this article, made it from nothing to serious article very long time ago, i started it alone with a lot of opposition. I think i deserve a bit of respect. Tkorrovi (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Tq|none of these links are to my posting}} <--- I simply do not believe that. But even giving the benefit of the doubt, the posting includes a link to software you've written (as you've already stated elsewhere on Wikipedia). That's a clear problem. Your previous work on this article does not mean you own it (WP:OWN) and does not entitle you to force in links or content. MrOllie (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please stop talking about the reasons that you guess but that are not true. Link to another Wiki with the same topic is just that, link to another Wiki where people can also read about this topic. Whatever was ever written elsewhere in the Wikipedia has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Please stop bothering with it. Furthermore, even if what you guess is correct, which is not, this breaks no rules and i'm sorry to say it but, no reason to tell it other than being against me. Tkorrovi (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Linking to another Wiki that hosts content and links about a project of yours that has been deleted from Wikipedia is not just a 'Link to another Wiki'. It is borderline spam, and yes, it is absolutely a violation of Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Whatever you say by your guess and your interpretation, this doesn't make it true, there is no "borderline spam" or any other sin from the list that may be many times longer than list of sins in the bible. Please stop it, and please stop bothering me, i want peace, i don't want to be continuously bothered, everyone should understand this. Thank you. Tkorrovi (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Stop targeting me please, you have no right to do this. And i'm for humanity, that's all i am and all i do, no matter how bad it may sound. Tkorrovi (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Everyone has a right to discuss on Wikipedia article talk pages. Commenting on this public article talk page is not 'bothering' you, and I completely reject any suggestion that I should stop posting here. MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Did i talk about you talking on the talk page, or did i talk about what you talk? I never said that you should stop posting here, now you start to put words into my mouth. I said please stop bothering me, you don't stop. Tkorrovi (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You don't get to control what I say, so stop trying to order me around. MrOllie (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Please stop. I don't want to control you. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You are welcome to drop this at any point, but you make that decision for yourself, not for me. MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Thank you if you stop it. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Here is a copy of the reply I made on my talk page to explain why I removed content:

::: I believed that edit wouldn't be particularly controversial. The list of the types of external links that should generally be avoided (WP:LINKSTOAVOID) is quite extensive, and includes "Blogs, personal web pages, and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority" and "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."

::: There is also the fact that today, there are many more online articles on the topic than 10 or 20 years ago. Nowadays, even The New York Times sometimes makes articles specifically on artificial consciousness. Which reduces the reasons for singling out these old sources in particular.

::: Here are more details for why I removed each link:

::: - [https://www.slideserve.com/astro/artefactual-consciousness-depiction-and-an-example-in-robot-usable-models-of-visual-consciousness-igor-aleksander-intelligent-and-interactive-systems-group Artefactual consciousness depiction by Professor Igor Aleksander]: old presentation from Igor Aleksander that isn't so easy to make sense of without the accompanying speech.

::: - [https://web.archive.org/web/20110719195048/http://www.aco.gatech.edu/conference/focs-aco/abstracts.html FOCS 2009: Manuel Blum – Can (Theoretical Computer) Science come to grips with Consciousness?]: mentions four abstracts of conference articles, but only one is about artificial consciousness, and it doesn't directly enable to read the article.

::: - [https://www.conscious-robots.com/ www.Conscious-Robots.com], Machine Consciousness and Conscious Robots Portal: looks like a personal blog (perhaps it's great, but I removed it because of WP:NOBLOGS).

::::I may agree with that one, it's not so important site, though can as well be there. --Tkorrovi (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::: - [https://everything2.com/title/artificial+consciousness Artificial consciousness], artificial consciousness article in [https://everything2.com everything2]: dead link, and if you search it on web archive, it looks like a self-published post.

::::It is not a dead link, works for me, there may be some issues with too much traffic sometimes in Everything2. I don't know what you see and what seems to you in the web archive. Everything2 is a collective effort like Wikipedia, there are contributions by different people. But even more so, there are admins who decide what is inappropriate, what is submitted there is accepted, and furthermore has to have more people supporting it, than are against. This is more strict than in Wikipedia, but also some things are allowed, like original research, though only when the admins approve it and users support it. Also different from Wikipedia, the articles by the editors can only be edited by these editors themselves, not by other editors. The main reason why i consider that there should be reference to Everything2, are some less strict rules, that for example enable to explain that written in the papers, while by extensively applying Wikipedia rules, such explanations can just be deleted, and the content remains extremely technical, copied from the peer-reviewed articles, that is often too difficult to understand by the most users. There was no reason at all for removing it. --Tkorrovi (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There are no workarounds here. If Wikipedia doesn't permit content that doesn't mean you just upload to some other user generated site and link to it there. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The link is not to my project, the link is to the artificial consciousness topic in Everything2. This is allowed, and if my project is also mentioned and accepted there under this topic, this doesn't mean that it is not allowed to refer to the whole topic because of that from Wikipedia. This is absurd. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You keep saying that is 'allowed', but you are wrong. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What in Wikipedia forbids a link to a topic in another wiki? Nothing, so no, i'm not wrong. By WP:EL what can be included in the external links is "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy", and i explained the relevance, explanations making it easier to understand by people, can be added to Everything2, that cannot be added to Wikipedia because of strict rules. This is additional information that may help, not primary information, external links are not for primary information. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This has already been explained above. WP:EL is very clear about not linking to this user generated stuff. And trying to force in a link to a user generated post elsewhere that promotes your software is doubly inappropriate. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It is not "user generated stuff" as you call it, but an organized wiki, where edits are moderated and reviewed. And WP:EL does not forbid that, there is nothing "clear" there that says it. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You are making a distinction without a difference. We're not going to link to this, no matter what you try to call it - it plainly is covered by WP:ELNO points 4, 10 and 11. This is not a way for you to promote your thoughts or your software. MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::(WP:ELNO (4) Everything2 is not for promoting any websites, (10) Everything2 is not a social network cite or discussion forum, it is a moderated wiki that contains encyclopedic articles ("artificial consciousness" is one), (11) Everything2 is not a blog or personal website, the submitted content is reviewed and moderated, and voted by users)

::::::::::::You are not right, and i already explained why, i'm not going to go into all the details of the Wikipedia rules again, or this discussion will never end. And you have no justification to remove the important content (external links). You just seem to have some agenda to do what you do, that is not justified. But you are not an owner of this article, neither an authority here. Neither am i. You say "we", who are you referring to, when the only one saying it is you. And you have no right of accusing me without a real reason, only your wrong interpretation Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::That you disagree with my justification does not mean it does not exist. MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::If you did say anything convincing, then i agree, but you have not. The only thing i may agree with is Conscious Robots, this may indeed fall into one of the categories you mentioned in WP:ELNO, but Everything2 does not, neither do i see anything else convincing. You wrote it here, i say it's not correct, i explained why, but it is here and everyone can read it, so can everyone read what i wrote, so leave it there. Tkorrovi (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::: - [https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/generality/generality.html Generality in Artificial Intelligence], Generality in Artificial Intelligence by John McCarthy.: primarily about AGI (intelligence rather than consciousness). And it is quite outdated, because AI has progressed a lot since 1971.

::: - [http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Multiple_drafts_model Multiple drafts model], Daniel Dennett's multiple drafts model.: moved that remaining link as an inline reference.

::Alenoach (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It is absolutely wrong to remove old historical sources because they are old. And that it is sometimes written about them elsewhere, does not mean that it must not be written in Wikipedia, to the contrary, the more they must be in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is to give people the general knowledge, it's not a mere addition to other material. That's a completely wrong logic. There was no reason to remove these links. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like two against one, but in Wikipedia you never know. May be the same person, or the same interest group, this is just what Wikipedia is. --Tkorrovi (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Do not baselessly accuse others of being the 'same person'. MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::I didn't accuse, i said i don't know. Tkorrovi (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Would anyone voice against this unreasonable removal of content? Important historical links were removed, and the rest can also be there, if it doesn't take much space, this is after all the content. Wikipedia is not just about what some people want it to be, Wikipedia must include multiple points of view. And in this case there was no valid reason for removing the content, neither is there a consensus of many people, so the content must be restored. Arbitrarily removing content means WP:OWN by one, maybe two people, with common interests. Wanting some valid content not to be removed, is not, no one is against editing it, but deleting important content is destructive. But ok, i want others to agree, after all it's a common effort, by no means do i want to dictate anything, but also any other person or small group should not dictate. --Tkorrovi (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Tq|neither is there a consensus of many people, so the content must be restored.}} - That is the opposite of how Wikipedia editing works. Read WP:ONUS. MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::You turn it to the opposite, WP:ONUS talks about consensus for removing content, Read from there "consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article...", means consensus is necessary for removing something from the article. it cannot be said that there is such consensus here. It doesn't require consensus for restoring when there was no consensus for removing. But as Wikipedia is a collective effort, then yes it needs more than one person involved. I don't dictate anything, but neither should anyone else dictate what must be deleted. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, that is the opposite of what the whole passage says. Your quotation cuts off just before the relevant part, which I will quote here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's about a content disputed by consensus, as i said this consensus is not likely here. What i see here is only two people talking, this is not enough to justify removing content. Solving this issue should though be a common effort, as i said. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, that is the opposite of what the policy says. You do not get to add something to the article and then force it to remain there by claiming other people need consensus to revert you. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I didn't claim that. You supposed to imply of having some kind of consensus for removing all the external links, i also didn't add all these, what matters is that there was important content. And this consensus is not there, no matter whether you needed it or not. Tkorrovi (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You need consensus support to keep material in the article. You do not get to reverse that burden onto others. MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." What about multiple points of view WP:MULTIPOV, as they are different, then likely none of them has consensus. Thus deciding that any of these doesn't improve the article, that is disputing it, requires consensus. Tkorrovi (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That's an essay, not a policy. It has no weight. And besides that it is plainly inapplicable here. You're not going to find any loopholes here. You need support from others to put these links into the article. You will not be able to claim that others need consensus to revert you, that is simply not how Wikipedia works. Since you clearly don't believe what I am telling you, I suggest you go to WP:TEAHOUSE and ask the folks there, they will tell you the same thing I am. MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm sorry, you take "disputed" out of context, of that said before it, though i admit that it's badly written. I explained why it doesn't make sense otherwise. No i'm not ignoring parts of the policies, i exactly look at them as a whole. And this certainly doesn't mean what you seem to imply, that anything in the article that has no consensus, must be removed. It requires consensus to decide that something doesn't improve the article, just as is said in WP:ONUS, and this disputes some of the content, imho it cannot be seen in any other way. Tkorrovi (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Wikilawyer, well, in Wikipedia i feel like in a court of law, facing accusations, and having to prove my innocence, otherwise i'm always assumed guilty. I have even participated in an arbitration, and had partial success, now they keep inviting me to the elections of the arbitration committee. But still, this is not what i like, i don't think that this is how it should be. Tkorrovi (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You are trying to use definitions for terms like 'disputed' that simply do not exist. The policies mean exactly what they say: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Again, feel free to seek clarification from others. But you will not get anywhere trying to argue that the policies actually mean the opposite of what the words actually say. MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::There is nothing i can do when you don't understand. The policy means exactly what it says, the question is what it says. If you suggest that everything in the article needs a consensus, and can be deleted if it doesn't have it, you go to absurd, and this is because you don't understand. And you are right, i will not get anywhere, because it's difficult to find competent people who are capable to understand this. Very unlikely any in WP:TEAHOUSE, please stop suggesting me that. I may talk with some in the arbitration committee, but this rule is clearly so badly written, that it may be difficult to get any clear response even from there. Tkorrovi (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You can find Wikipedia's policies to be absurd, but I assure you that is what they are. MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Sorry, you cannot assure anything, as you evidently don't understand. There is no way to understand such things, without analytical thinking. But you sure don't believe that i'm capable of such thinking, because of what you think about me. I asked on your talk page whether you think that i'm dirt, unless you answer no, i assume that the answer is yes. You did not answer, but instead deleted what i wrote, which means that this is what you think about me. Tkorrovi (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus cannot be reached by only two people talking. Consensus in the Wikipedia sense is basically consent of a majority of the people that edit the article. I in essence oppose two reasons why all external links were removed -- that historical old sources cannot be in the article because they are old, and that a link to relevant article in Everything2 wiki cannot be in the external links of the article in Wikipedia. --Tkorrovi (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Three users have commented here, not two. MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Who is the third? I just now thoroughly looked through all the comments under the topic, and there are only you and me, no one third. I want to hear from others. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Alenoach. You replied directly to their comment. Scroll up. MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::First, he didn't comment under this topic. Second, i don't know whether you and Alenoach are the same person or not, i don't say that this is the case, but then i cannot be sure and cannot know. Third, it is not known what the point of view by Alenoach is now, he didn't comment about removing external links either. What matters is the consensus of the editors that edit the article now, if Alenoach is not here, we cannot discuss with him, to make decisions. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Tq|First, he didn't comment under this topic.}} That is an obviously false statement. {{Tq|i don't know whether you and Alenoach are the same person or not}} Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. {{tq|Third, it is not known what the point of view by Alenoach is now. What matters is the consensus of the editors that edit the article now, if Alenoach is not here, we cannot discuss with him to make decisions.}} Comments do not expire, you don't get to ignore someone because they don't comment on your timetable. MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::FYI, you should stop editing your comments after someone replies, see WP:TALK#REVISE. But to address what you added: {{Tq|he didn't comment about removing external links either}} - That is also obviously false. MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Sorry, i didn't notice that you answered. And no it's not false, what did Alenoach say on this talk page about removing external links? Tkorrovi (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::What comment? Alenoach didn't comment about removing external links, so what comment are you talking about? No the statement is not false, this is a lie, everyone can see who commented under this topic, and Alenoach didn't. For making decisions is important the consensus of the people who edit the article now, because the circumstances, the explanations, etc, change. And please don't use colored or otherwise emphasized text, this is sometimes in the internet discussions considered yelling. Tkorrovi (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Scroll up and look for Alenoach's username. Or here is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_consciousness&diff=prev&oldid=1288243440 diff]. Again, you replied directly to that comment. Indeed, everyone can see who commented here. The green text is used specifically for talk page quotations on Wikipedia, see {{tl|tq}}. I will use it whenever I consider it appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Right, i didn't notice and about the article in Everything2 he says "dead link, and if you search it on web archive, it looks like a self-published post". Which is not true, the link is not dead, and what he could see in the web archive is obscure. He may not know about Everything2 either, this is not a self-publishing site. But it's not at all the same what you argue. And again, important is consensus now, please stop this endless talk trying to claim that it's already clear, and never ends. But just see what other people say. Tkorrovi (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You are welcome to stop replying to me at any time - what you are not welcome to do is to tell me to stop talking. MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::And you are welcome to stop your comments at any time as well. But i didn't say that you must, i just said that imho this endless discussion makes no sense. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• The proposed ELs are inappropriate; the removal is good. Consensus would need to be establish to include them. That won't happen because the WP:PAGs say what ELs should and should not be. Bon courage (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :And they are none of these that WP:EL says they should not be. But thank you for your opinion, important. This is likely an external comment asked by MrOllie, but anyway, all the comments by other people are important. I started this article, against many who thought that there should not be such field, i have been all for artificial consciousness, i think it is important for people. But i have been now beaten well, so maybe one person is out. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Look at WP:NPOV, you keep emphasizing that something was done wrong and violated Wikipedia rules, that gives you a right to use consensus, not right and there is no agreement with that, thus NPOV applies and content cannot be removed by consensus. You ignore that, but there is nothing i can do as there are more of you and you enforce your goal.--Tkorrovi (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:We get it, you're unhappy that you couldn't add a link. That's not a reason to slap a POV tag on the article. That's an irrelevant tag. - MrOllie (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::The reason is not that i'm unhappy but that i don't agree, and you have not proven that NPOV is not relevant and the content that was removed somehow violated Wikipedia rules. You put words into my mouth, trying to assume silent agreement. Yes the tag is relevant because NPOV applies, one cannot proceed only from one's view, in Wikipedia is NPOV, that i have always respected when editing this article for almost 20 years, with no disputes until now. Please don't continue, i don't agree, and you cannot force me to agree, no matter how much you write here, this is useless. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::One person cannot force a POV tag to remain on an article because a decision about an external link did not go their way, this is a blatant misuse of a POV tag. That you disagree is not a reason to place a tag. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Wrong, what i said applies. Tkorrovi (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Artificial_consciousness_and_external_links. I suspect I know that the outcome will be, but apparently you refuse to listen to me. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Came here from WP:NPOV I have WP:PROMO concerns about this external link and would also generally concur that it should not be included since it points to WP:UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No it doesn't, i explained in the noticeboard, but if you ignore everything, then again there is nothing i can do. And it is not promotion, the aim was that people can write alternative explanations about the same subject in another wiki, the rules of which differ, but which may complement Wikipedia content. Again, all i want to say, is that i don't agree, i know that it didn't violate Wikipedia rules, and i cannot be forced to agree with no matter how much talk, and you may continue talking whatever. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There's lots of stuff that happens on Wikipedia I don't agree with. The important thing is to recognize when digging in your heels is just going to cause yourself and everyone else a big headache. Nobody is demanding you like this nor that you change your mind, just that you respect the obvious consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't agree, NPOV issues are not solved by consensus. And this headache was caused to me anyway, it didn't depend on what i do, or rather, if i didn't do anything, more headache were caused. Thus sorry if it caused you trouble, there was nothing that i could do. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)