Talk:Mind

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mind/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 16:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• some theorists suggest that all mental phenomena are private and directly knowable, transform information, have the ability to refer to and represent other entities, or are dispositions to engage in behavior. – I would argue that it is impossible to follow this without reading the respective section later on. It does not become clear what this list represents to start with ("some theorists" suggest that some people suggest all of these at once, but apparently they are different definitions). Maybe replace this with somethimg that is easy to follow, for the lead?

  Agreed, this sentence is hard to understand without background knowledge. I replaced it. The new version is not ideal either but I hope it's more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• are more commonly understood as features or capacities of other entities – This is very abstract, which makes it hard to understand. Could this be replaced with "understood as capacities of material brains" to be more concrete?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• encompassing consciousness, thought, perception, sensation, – What is the difference between perception and sensation?

  Roughly speaking, sensation is about detecting physical stimuli while perception involves some kind of interpretation of this information, for example, when perceiving a tree based on visual stimuli. I removed "sensation" from the list since this difference is subtle and not important for what the sentence is trying to achieve.Phlsph7 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• which correspond to different forms of perception, such as vision, sound, touch, smell, and taste. – "Sound" is the physical stimulus; the form of perception would be hearing, right?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• including the individual's past experiences, cultural background – Isn't "cultural background" part of "past experiences"? Culture is not inherited. Maybe "knowledge" would be worth mentioning here?

  It probably depends on your definitions of these terms. Part of the cultural background are the values people hold. These values are shaped by past experiences but I'm not sure that they are nothing but past experiences. I added "knowledge" to the list. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• and the manipulation of mental representations – Very difficult to understand; can this be formulated in a more accessible way? Maybe "mental representations" can be replaced with "concepts and ideas"? If not, an in-text explanation of the term would really help.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• the will has a practical orientation focused on desire, decision-making, action, and what is good– Should "will" be linked? Also, I do not really understand the sentence ("practical orientation focused on"), maybe this can be reformulated in plain language?

  I added the wikilink and tried to express the clause in more accessible terms. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would have expected an overview of mental phenomena such as personality, free will, and conciousness. These are only mentioned en-passant in various places, but aren't they quite central to the topic? The question "Is there a free will" could be briefly discussed.

  Generally speaking, the difficulty here is that we have so much to cover that many topics can only be discussed on the sidelines. I added a short passage about personality and personality psychology to the subsection "Psychology" and I did something similar for free will in the "Philosophy" subsection. Consciousness is covered in various places, particularly, in the subsection "Conscious and unconscious". In principle, the passages on these topics could be expanded, but I'm not sure that they deserve more weight. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• The mind encompasses many functions and processes, including perception, memory, thought, imagination, motivation – Motivation is a state, not a function nor a process?

  It depends on how strictly we define those terms. To avoid these difficulties, I replaced "functions and processes" with the more general term "phenomena". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Motivation is an internal state that propels individuals to initiate, continue, or terminate goal-directed behavior. – Further down you somewhere mention "will" a few times. Are "will"" and "motivation" separate concepts or is this the same thing?

  They are closely related concepts but are usually not seen as the same. Traditionally, the will was understood as a wide faculty that makes decision, initiates actions, and, depending on one's definition, may engage in various other activities. I guess you could say that motivation would be one aspect of this faculty but not the only one. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Property dualism is another form of dualism – Should this be "is another view"? The formulation "another form of" somehow implies that it exists besides "substance dualism", but it seams that both views are mutually exclusive?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• About 540 million years ago, the bilaterally organized organisms separated into invertebrates and vertebrates. – This is not accurate – "invertebrate" just means "not a vertebrate"; they are not a group that could have separated from another. Instead, you could just write that "vertebrates have evolved".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• For other aspects of mind, it is more controversial whether computers can, in principle, implement them – Not sure what "other than" refers to here. Which aspect can be implemented by computers? This was not explicitly mentioned. Maybe write "For some aspects of mind, it is controversial whether computers can, in principle, implement them"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Does it really make sense to discuss the differemt treatments of mental disorders in detail when the causes are not covered at all, and global trends are not mentioned either? Aren't causes of mental disorders more pertinent to this article than their treatments?

  I'm not sure about the global trends but I think you have a point about the causes. I add a few sentences on the causes and shortened the discussion of treatments. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Relation to other fields" – Not sure why this section has to focus on particular fields of research, rather than the respective areas (relogion, culture) themselves. Maybe a section title like "the mind in culture and society" or similar?

  Your title could also work. I just fear that, because it is formulated very broadly, editors may feel encouraged to add all kinds of references to the mind in pop culture, movies, and the like. This problem is mitigated by focusing it on fields like anthropology, sociology, and education. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• In epistemology, the problem of other minds is the challenge of explaining how it is possible to – Why isn't this being discussed under "Other fields" and not under "philosophy", since epistemology is a subfield of philosophy?

  My idea is roughly the following: the section "Fields and methods of inquiry" is about the main fields of inquiry that have the mind as one of their main topics of inquiry; the section "Relation to other fields" is about fields in which the mind plays an important role for other purposes. According to that reasoning, epistemology fits better in the 2nd section. But let me know if you think otherwise. It would also be possible to include it in the subsection "Philosophy". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  I renamed the "Philosophy" section to "Philosophy of mind". I hope that solves the problem, since epistemology is not a subfield of philosophy of mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• That's all. Impressive work! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hello Jens Lallensack and thanks a lot for your review! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, looks good! Source spot check passed too, and nothing to add. Promoting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that one obstacle in studying the mind is the complexity of the human brain, which has about 86 billion neurons, each with up to 10,000 links to other neurons?

• Source:

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sequenza XIV
• Comment:

References

Sources

• Friedenberg, Jay; Silverman, Gordon; Spivey, Michael (2022). Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Study of Mind (4 ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-5443-8015-5.
• Yukalov, V. I.; Sornette, D. (2014). "How Brains Make Decisions". In Freund, Friedemann; Langhoff, Stephanie (eds.). Universe of Scales: From Nanotechnology to Cosmology: Symposium in Honor of Minoru M. Freund. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-02207-9. Archived from the original on 2024-04-23. Retrieved 2024-04-23.
• Scanlon, Valerie C.; Sanders, Tina (2018). Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology. F. A. Davis. ISBN 978-0-8036-9006-6. Archived from the original on 2024-04-22. Retrieved 2024-04-23.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 23 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC).

Fascinating article, Good article, on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I approve the hook, but I am open for alternatives. I think this is more about brain than mind, and has too many numbers for my taste. How about speaking about the four approaches to study the mind - positively? Or something related to an image? - Looking forward to FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the review! Some more suggestions:

ALT1: ...that psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy each offer unique perspectives for studying the mind?

ALT2: ...that diverse fields study the mind, including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy?

ALT3: ...that disorders of the mind can result from factors like genetic predispositions, maladaptive beliefs, and social circumstances?

ALT1 & ALT2 are about fields of inquiry, ALT3 is about mental disorders. Any preferences? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I like ALT2 best, with the bold article in front. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The mind is responsible for phenomena like perception, thought, feeling, and action.

ALT4: ...that the mind is studied through various fields of scientific inquiry, including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy?

Would ALT4 be better? I also thought something along the lines of the mind being in pursuit of understanding itself but not sure if that would be supported by the sources. I also think this image would work well.Polyamorph (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Polyamorph and thanks for your suggestions. I think ALT4 would also work as an alternative to ALT2. We would probably have to remove the word "scientific" since it is not clear whether philosophy qualifies as a science:

ALT4a: ...that the mind is studied through various fields of inquiry, including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy?

I slightly prefer ALT2 since it uses active voice and is a little shorter, but I would also be fine with ALT4a.

I agree about the image. If there is a free image slot in the queue, it could be used. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, no worries, ALT2 is fine. I think this deserves to have the top slot! Polyamorph (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I also believe that ALT2 is fine. The image is licensed. However, I personally feel that it tries to illustrate the capacities of the mind and fails - at least for me, can't see "though" and "action" at a glance. But that may be just me. If you want to use that image, you will need some form of saying (pictured) in ALT2a to come. Good luck with that, I'll watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For the picture, we could use

ALT2a: ...that diverse fields study the mind (pictured), including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy?

You are right that it's difficult to illustrate an abstract concept such as the mind. Using a light bulb as a symbol of thought or a hammer in hand as a symbol of action is not that uncommon but how easily people understand these symbols may depend on their cultural background. The image is not essential to the hook so if there are doubts, we could also go without it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)