Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Philosophy of mind' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism
Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
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.
"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.
External links
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 link farming. Otr500 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Need to take care when making claims of consensus
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.
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.
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.
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.86.27 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
FA assessment status after 10 years
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. CodexJustin (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
