| Revision as of 22:41, 27 August 2020 editBuidhe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors136,032 edits →top: FAR← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:57, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,228 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{ArticleHistory | {{ArticleHistory | ||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
| |action4oldid=111124715 | |action4oldid=111124715 | ||
| |action5 = FAR | |||
| |action5date = 2020-09-26 | |||
| ⚫ | |action5link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Philosophy of mind/archive2 | ||
| |action5result = demoted | |||
| |action5oldid = 978978943 | |||
| ⚫ | |currentstatus=FFA | ||
| |maindate=May 17, 2006 | |maindate=May 17, 2006 | ||
| ⚫ | |currentstatus= |
||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= | ||
| {{WikiProject Philosophy |
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|mind=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Cognitive science |
{{WikiProject Cognitive science|importance=Top}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Neuroscience |
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=Top}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Transhumanism |
{{WikiProject Transhumanism|importance=Mid}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Psychology |
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Top}} | ||
| {{Vital article|level=4|topic=Philosophy|class=FA}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old(90d) | | algo = old(90d) | ||
| Line 46: | Line 49: | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | | minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| {{auto archiving notice |bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=90 |units=days }} | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Criticism) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Criticism","appear":{"revid":69742786,"parentid":68959673,"timestamp":"2006-08-15T05:40:01Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":420438882,"parentid":418194155,"timestamp":"2011-03-24T04:25:34Z","replaced_anchors":{"Types of zombies":"Types of zombie"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| }} | |||
| == Identity Theory criticisms unfounded == | == Identity Theory criticisms unfounded == | ||
| Line 53: | Line 58: | ||
| This section has a ton of weasel words and the citations do not support the statements made. Footnote 27 is not a source that supports the sentence "identity theory faces a strong challenge in the form of the thesis of multiple realizability"; it is a reference to Hilary Putnam's paper which attempts to dispute identity theory and—by any rational account—fails. It is not a challenge at all to identity theory, let along a "strong" one. A diverse array of organisms can all feel pain and all have different brains, there's no issue with that. A proponent of Identity theory would just say that each of those experiences would be slightly different, in the same way that all humans will have slightly different experiences of pain because we ourselves don't have ''exactly'' the same physical brains. Footnote 27 is also used at the end of the sentence "The identity theory is thus empirically unfounded." Again, the linked source does not say that. | This section has a ton of weasel words and the citations do not support the statements made. Footnote 27 is not a source that supports the sentence "identity theory faces a strong challenge in the form of the thesis of multiple realizability"; it is a reference to Hilary Putnam's paper which attempts to dispute identity theory and—by any rational account—fails. It is not a challenge at all to identity theory, let along a "strong" one. A diverse array of organisms can all feel pain and all have different brains, there's no issue with that. A proponent of Identity theory would just say that each of those experiences would be slightly different, in the same way that all humans will have slightly different experiences of pain because we ourselves don't have ''exactly'' the same physical brains. Footnote 27 is also used at the end of the sentence "The identity theory is thus empirically unfounded." Again, the linked source does not say that. | ||
| == |
== Philosophy == | ||
| Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that studies the ontology and nature of the mind and its relationship with the body. The mind–body problem is a paradigmatic issue in philosophy of mind, although a number of other issues are addressed, such as the hard problem of consciousness and the nature of particular mental states. Aspects of the mind that are studied include mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness, the ontology of the mind, the nature of thought, and the relationship of the mind to the body. ] (]) 08:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Sometimes things just "creep in" so could someone take a look at the "External links" section for possible article integrating or trimming? 10 links give rise to concerns of ]. ] (]) 09:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == External links == | |||
| == Need to take care when making claims of consensus == | |||
| :There are nine entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. | |||
| It might be true that most philosophers of mind adhere to physicalism, but the article presents no evidence of such a consensus. As such, I have edited in the need for a citation. | |||
| *] states: {{tq|Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.}} | |||
| *] states: {{tq|There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.}} | |||
| *]: {{tq|Minimize the number of links}}. | |||
| The "External links needs to be trimmed. -- ] (]) 08:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Psychology == | |||
| The section on Psychology reads thusly (italics added in the "Talk" section solely for emphasis there): | |||
| I would also err caution on making such claims in topics concerning philosophy, as a philosophical consensus is less likely to indicate the truth of a matter. Unlike science (modern natural philosophy), most branches of philosophy do not adhere to a systematic set of methods. | |||
| "''Psychology is the science that investigates mental states directly''. It uses generally empirical methods to investigate concrete mental states like joy, fear or obsessions. Psychology investigates the laws that bind these mental states to each other or with inputs and outputs to the human organism. | |||
| There's also the issue of truth by consensus; as mentioned above, a scientific consensus (a consensus of modern natural philosophy) is qualitatively different from a consensus in any other given branch of philosophy. | |||
| An example of this is the psychology of perception. Scientists working in this field have discovered general principles of the perception of forms. A law of the psychology of forms says that objects that move in the same direction are perceived as related to each other. This law describes a relation between visual input and mental perceptual states. However, it does not suggest anything about the nature of perceptual states. ''The laws discovered by psychology are compatible with all the answers to the mind–body problem already described.''" | |||
| Articles dealing with more metaphysical-esque topics should be careful when making claims that border on consensus so as not to mislead a lay reader into thinking that one position (e.g. physicalism) is inherently more correct, or likely to be correct than another (e.g. dualism). Even subtle suggestions in this direction flies in the face of the very spirit of philosophy, which is that we should not make our conclusions based on anything but the argumentative content of ones propositions. This includes deciding what we think about a topic by basing our conclusions on the positions held by experts. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Could this sort of consensus be expressed through a citation to a work that asserted something like this? Along the lines of 'according to...<physicalism consensus>.' Kraaj 00:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I understand that writing the section on psychology would be quite an undertaking, if not impossible to do well. Same with criticism of any attempt. In the least, I must say that the first sentence in these two paragraphs seems a very specific assertion, and the last sentence in these two paragraphs seems overly broad. I cannot reconcile the former and the latter. | |||
| ==FA assessment status after 10 years== | |||
| ] (]) 21:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| The original FA for this article with its gold star was granted in 2006 over 10 years ago, and the lead editor is long retired from Misplaced Pages over 5 years ago. The original 2006 FA article was well-written, coherent, and useful for persons interested in a short and clear introduction to this subject matter. The current article has had numerous scattered and non-specific edits added by numerous editors over the years since then which do not appear very well-presented or even marginally organized; this has led to the current highly complex and overly long format for the article's outline. At some point since 2006, it appears that an attempt was made by some editors to synthesize an extensive east-meets-west version of this article with possible asides made concerning the usefulness of yoga. Would the article benefit from being returned to a non-peer reviewed status for re-development, or, perhaps the original FA version of the article from 2006 could be restored which did not make recommendations for the use of yoga. ] (]) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : Considering that notice was given almost two years ago, and this article is still not at standard, it needs to go to FAR. It is 50% larger than the FA version (meaning a good amount of the text has not been vetted), has numerous lists and quote farms, and large swatches of uncited text, an enormous navbox chunked in to the lead, incorrect use of bolding, breach of naming with repeat of the title in section headings, poor use of ], cleanup needed at See also Further reading and External links, inconsistent citation formatting, in addition to the issues raised above. At FAR, the possibility of reverting to the featured version can be reviewed. ] (]) 15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Any one can submit the review; the instructions are at ]. ] (]) 16:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:57, 10 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philosophy of mind article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Philosophy of mind is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 17, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
Identity Theory criticisms unfounded
"Despite its initial plausibility, the identity theory faces a strong challenge in the form of the thesis of multiple realizability, first formulated by Hilary Putnam." This section has a ton of weasel words and the citations do not support the statements made. Footnote 27 is not a source that supports the sentence "identity theory faces a strong challenge in the form of the thesis of multiple realizability"; it is a reference to Hilary Putnam's paper which attempts to dispute identity theory and—by any rational account—fails. It is not a challenge at all to identity theory, let along a "strong" one. A diverse array of organisms can all feel pain and all have different brains, there's no issue with that. A proponent of Identity theory would just say that each of those experiences would be slightly different, in the same way that all humans will have slightly different experiences of pain because we ourselves don't have exactly the same physical brains. Footnote 27 is also used at the end of the sentence "The identity theory is thus empirically unfounded." Again, the linked source does not say that.
Philosophy
Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that studies the ontology and nature of the mind and its relationship with the body. The mind–body problem is a paradigmatic issue in philosophy of mind, although a number of other issues are addressed, such as the hard problem of consciousness and the nature of particular mental states. Aspects of the mind that are studied include mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness, the ontology of the mind, the nature of thought, and the relationship of the mind to the body. 41.48.167.100 (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
External links
- There are nine entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
- ELpoints #3) states:
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
- LINKFARM states:
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
- WP:ELMIN:
Minimize the number of links
.
The "External links needs to be trimmed. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Psychology
The section on Psychology reads thusly (italics added in the "Talk" section solely for emphasis there):
"Psychology is the science that investigates mental states directly. It uses generally empirical methods to investigate concrete mental states like joy, fear or obsessions. Psychology investigates the laws that bind these mental states to each other or with inputs and outputs to the human organism.
An example of this is the psychology of perception. Scientists working in this field have discovered general principles of the perception of forms. A law of the psychology of forms says that objects that move in the same direction are perceived as related to each other. This law describes a relation between visual input and mental perceptual states. However, it does not suggest anything about the nature of perceptual states. The laws discovered by psychology are compatible with all the answers to the mind–body problem already described."
I understand that writing the section on psychology would be quite an undertaking, if not impossible to do well. Same with criticism of any attempt. In the least, I must say that the first sentence in these two paragraphs seems a very specific assertion, and the last sentence in these two paragraphs seems overly broad. I cannot reconcile the former and the latter.
Ritten Wright (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class philosophy of mind articles
- High-importance philosophy of mind articles
- Philosophy of mind task force articles
- C-Class neuroscience articles
- Top-importance neuroscience articles
- C-Class Transhumanism articles
- Mid-importance Transhumanism articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Top-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles