Talk:Applied Consciousness Sciences/Archive 1

First impressions

This article needs revision, but before working on it another issue should be resolved: It seems to be highly (self-)promotional. In a first Internet search I could only find a net of sites referencing each other. Unless there is clear evidence that this field (and its name) are acknowledged by the scientific community this article may have to be removed or completely rewritten to show the true (speculative) character of its topic. Peter Schmitt 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I've rewritten the article in such a way that it's clear that ACS isn't a science as per the definition of the scientific community. It is however considered a holistic science. Something that might not be accepted by the scientific community, but there is a large group of citizens that do accept this. A good example of a holistic science approach being accepted by modern science is Mindfulness. Under 'Research & Development' I've explained what sets a holistic science orientation apart from conventional science. Additionally I've made all the links point to the local site. Could you have a look again and let me know if this is more in line with the Citizendium guidelines? --Carlo Monsanto 16:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Carlo, for your changes. However, they did not address my main concerns -- the promotional nature of the article and the lack of an external perspective. What is the view from "outside", i.e., by others other than those promoting it and offering courses on it? --Peter Schmitt 17:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will get others involved to better reflect this. Homework! --Carlo Monsanto 19:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's always baffled me that psychology has never <!> considered mental processes (i.e., consciousness) as part of their field of study. If you can't measure it, it can't be a science! Holy smokes!

This seems like a really recent phenomenon, but what about the site and situation studies of religious experience (Leary and Alpert, 1961?)? What about transpersonal psychology? Seems like there's lots of overlap there. Russell D. Jones 20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Russell, thank you for your feedback. Actually psychology does consider mental processes, but it looks at it as if it's a localized object that can be studied. Mental processes are nonlocal or intangible and thoughts may be local. But, there is so much more than only mental processes when we investigate the subjective. We choose not to look at the content of experience, which religious experience and transpersonal psychology refer to, but we guide in expanding the basis from where we perceive any experience. This can empower people, irrespective of the context in which they develop themselves. We don't offer a complete system with fixed conventions and protocols, but we offer an open system that anyone can contribute to. ACS can be seen as another basis for learning. It empowers learners to breach their own barriers and raise their own awareness by perceiving from a broader spectrum of sensitivity. For all of these reasons I'd like to remove it from the category of psychology or any other kind of therapeutic intervention and leave it in Education and Consciousness Studies. --Carlo Monsanto 12:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition

ACS guides learners towards contemplative stabilisation combined with liberating discernment or awareness.

This definition is not satisfactory. First, and most simply, it uses ACS in its definition. Aside from employing an undefined acronym, the definition should not contain the words to be defined. All that could be fixed by saying:

A guide to learners ....awareness.

That brings us to a new set of difficulties.

First, vagueness abounds. For instance, "learners" of what, exactly? Probably not learners of skateboarding or stock investing. Maybe learners of ACS? Sounds circular.

Second, "stabilization" of what, exactly? Petrifaction of one's beliefs circumventing all revisions?

And what is "contemplative" stabilization, exactly: a mental withdrawal from upsetting concerns of the material world, thus providing a dreamlike release from the impending implosion of the world economy, maybe?

Third, "liberating discernment or awareness", of what, exactly. I can get that some discernment and awareness is definitely not liberating, so I guess there are large categories of discernment and awareness that are not "not liberating", but possibly a little narrowing of the category would help the reader. Maybe discernment and awareness that one's car has started is liberating in releasing one from the worry that they will be late for work?

Perhaps it can be argued that no definition is perfect, and perusal of the article itself would answer all these questions, but that is not my experience. John R. Brews 14:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe a definition using words with simple meanings would go a long way to assure the reader that they are not looking at mumbo-jumbo. John R. Brews 15:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

The subsection Research and development contains this statement:

ACS is a holistic research method wherein the learner continually observes, senses, experiments, and systematically formulates, tests, and adjusts hypotheses.

Apart from the word "holistic", that sentence describes any science. I take it that the word "holistic" is very important in separating ACS from normal science, the "the third-person perspective assumed by modern scientific inquiry", and is meant to include the "subjective end of the spectrum of experience, the zeroth-person". In other words, are we to understand ACS to include normal science and its emphasis upon acceptance of hypothesis based upon accessibility and experiment, but to go further and include matters that are entirely individual and fundamentally inaccessible except to the individual?

Apparently not, because "The general objective is to describe and formulate general recognizable patterns and characteristics, a ‘language’, by which these patterns can be recognized."

Although my views sound harsh to me, I am afraid that this article is very poorly written. It makes statements that are vague beyond understanding, and other statements that seem to contradict each other directly.

This article should be deleted. John R. Brews 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I thoroughly agree with John Brews on this ... the article should be deleted. Milton Beychok 18:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember who said this, but I came across a rule of thumb, "Any field that includes 'science' in its name is probably not a real science." Having said that, if sufficient third party reliable sources comment on it I think an article on it could belong here. However that article would may not win the enthusiasm of this discipline's "learners". If those references exist, this article would require a gobbledygook-ectomy, and if Carlos isn't committed to that I think it should have to go...

An article on this topic was deleted from the wikipedia. [1] George Swan 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, goddledygook, delete. Ro Thorpe 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)