Talk:Dual consciousness

Unnecessary exclamation

Under the header of the Gazzaniga and LeDoux's experiment section, there seems to be unnecessary exclamation and non-formality. Should I change this or wait for an account to do so? --2600:8801:2A80:5C:E125:9DEB:2052:4358 (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Informal/conversational tone in the category "4. Gazzaniga and LeDoux's experiment"

In both subsections of the category "Gazzaniga and LeDoux's experiment", there are multiple occurrences of very informal/conversational sentences that should be revised to make them sound more informational/objective.

Examples:

- "When the patient was asked why he had chosen the pictures he had chosen, the answer he gave was astonishing!"

- "Why would he say this? Wouldn't it be obvious that the shovel goes with the winter house? For people with an intact corpus callosum, yes it is obvious, but not for a split-brain patient."

- "What does the results of Gazzaniga and LeDoux’s work suggest about the existence of a dual consciousness? There are varying possibilities."

---

Additionally, the bulletted list in the second subsection is strangely formatted, with successive items referencing previous items.

Relevant parts of list:

- [First item]

- "If so, ..."

- "Or perhaps..."

Bulleted lists are for specific and discrete snippets of information, not for the steps of one's reasoning. This improper usage also contributes to the informal feel of this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.160.189 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Neuroscience

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Organizedchaos39 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MKP24, Ca$hley.

— Assignment last updated by Ca$hley (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Neurocluster Brain Model

Hi

In the section: "Models of multiple consciousnesses", there is a thing about the "Neurocluster Brain Model". I've looked at the linked page and I don't believe this has any academical value. It really feels more like a "academical" joke than anything else.

- For example; in one early section the use of "one(1)" everytime. It's only ever a one(1) and comes so often, you'd seriously ask yourself if you're getting F-ed with. Then, after the section/paragraph ends, it is rarely, if ever, used again. - Every once in a while articles are missing. (The grammatical concept: Article) At first I thought it might some kind of copy-protection/detection, but it doesn't make much sense to use it so frequently. - It links Wikipedia articles and uses them as explain things. - Heck, it actually says this at the start: "Neurocluster Brain Model is the brain model based on neuroscience which demystifies, reveals and explains all religious and occult phenomena.", non-ironically. - In another section it tries to use this sentence in a serious way: "... while he was cutting lower animals in pieces."

The "extreme abstract" of it all is somewhat interesting, but the whole thinkpiece is stupid and seems more like a joke, as I've said before.

Please look into it and decide if it really is a good idea to leave it in there.

Kind regards :) 77.22.65.142 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@77.22.65.142

Addition:

I just noticed something:

Isn't Marvin Minsky's "Society of Mind" model generally the same as the "extreme abstract" of Neurocluster Brain Model? (Which word would one instead of "extreme-abstract"?)

It says: "... suggests that mind is built up from the interactions of simple parts called agents, which are themselves mindless."

This should be a better version of this concept to use in this section. I think it makes the "jocular" NBM obsolete.

bye :) 77.22.65.142 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)