Talk:Mind

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

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