Talk:Mind/Archive 1

Archive 1

Relationship between "mind" and "soul"

The mind article starts out with this statement about the mind: "it is often considered alongside such related notions as soul and spirit" which seems to put some distance between mind and soul.

That is soon followed by: "the mind, or soul (if you will)" which seems to remove any distinction between mind and soul.

The soul article says, "the boundaries between "soul" and "mind" can vary in different interpretations."

Is there a key distinction to be made between mind and soul or is it acceptable for the mind page to blur the boundary between mind and soul? Maybe there is a distinction to be made between the material and the immaterial. We now have philosophers like Churchland and neuroscientists like Crick who propose to use the methods of science to define the material basis of mind. As the mind article says about "mind", "Some people think it is synonymous with the brain," which I think is close to the truth. People like Crick would say that mind is produced by the activity of a brain (music is produced by a speaker system, music is not a speaker system). The key point is, there is the chance that we can rationally explain mind in terms of the workings of the material brain.

How do we rationally explain the idea of a "soul"? The soul is a memetic construct produced by human brains. Most conceptualizations of soul include the idea of the soul existing beyond anything material. Maybe we can best distinguish "soul" from "mind" by emphasizing the fact that it is natural for humans to imagine that an immaterial soul accompanies the material body, thus the "soul concept" is one of the universal human cultural elements. JWSchmidt 14:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In intro I clarified the statement about mind as a program. Some, notatbly, John Searle, argue that the mind is not a program....and not "best thought of" as such. icut4u 17:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Substantial and functional views

I'm thinking of doing an edit of this page and have a question about the "substantial" view and the "functional" view. I've never heard of the former. Regarding the latter, there is a position in the philosophy of mind called functionalism, but it doesn't seem to correspond with the "functional" view. I'm not saying these terms don't exist, just that I've never heard them before. Does anyone have a reference or know which field these terms come from? Many thanks, Slim 05:12, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Psychology is not my field but the previous article was such rubbish I felt impelled to write a new one. It is based mainly on Collier's Encyclopedia plus my general knowledge. It may be a bit out of date so feel free to improve it. But please don't drag it back into the metaphysical tosh that was here before. Adam 08:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Adam, yes I saw the previous version and was glad to see you'd rewritten it. I was thinking of adding some material from philosophy of mind. I won't do anything too complex or weird, but I thought I might lay out a couple of the approaches, which can generally be split into two main categories: those who believe mind/consciousness exists (however so described) i.e. that there is something over and above brain and body; and those who think there is no such thing as mind/consciousness e.g. Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained, who argues that there are simply neurological events and that we are our brains, which are nothing more than complex computers i.e. consciousness is a myth. I may not put it up straightaway though; it'll depend on available time. Best, Slim 08:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that those are the two views which I have described as "substantial" and "functional" views respectively. One described the mind as having a "substance" of its own while the other describes it purely in terms of its functions. Those terms come from Colliers. If you know of better ones then by all means use them. Adam 08:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An earlier version of the mind article linked to substance theory . "Substance Theory of Mind: The conception of the individual mind as a permanent, self-identical substance" [1]. I have also seen people like Georges Rey talk about substance dualism and "property dualism" as is done at the Objectivist philosophy page. JWSchmidt 23:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi JW, thank you for that. I'm not sure what might be meant by a "permanent, self-identical substance." Self-identity is a Hegelian term meaning, roughly, pure, containing nothing that is not itself i.e. containing no contradictions. So I suppose a permanent, self-identical mind would be a soul? I'm going to try to steer clear of anything confusing like this, or anything spiritual, and stick to the very basic philosophy of mind concepts. I'll do my editing on a subpage then bring it here for discussion. I'll also have a look at George Rey. Thanks for the information. Slim 23:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Directing mind's job

It's will that controlls us. Everything you do (think, eat, move) you want it. Humans have ability to direct all one's mind's job (thoughts, feelings, wills) to another one. That means you can make another soul to do(think) what you want (to want what you want). Than means you can controll another human body(brain, his muscles will do what you want). You must want it. We do what we want (we want what we do actually). You can think to another one, who will feel his own and the sender's thoughts at same time (those words of thinking). You can make it to another soul when he sleeps - you can guess what that means :). That's life, soul. Joakim 21:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Berkeley Misrepresented

The following sentence appears in the "History of the Philosophy of the Mind" section. Berkeley argued that there is no such thing as matter and what humans see as the material world is nothing but an idea in God's mind, and that therefore the human mind is purely a manifestation of the soul. It is my intention to radically change this explanation. I think that it seriously misrepresents Berkeley.

Berkeley wrote that we can only directly know the ideas or mental pictures that are in our minds. We cannot directly and immediately know objects that are external to our minds. Everything that we know must be mediated through our minds. He said that we can't know abstractions such as "matter." We can only know particular ideas in our minds.

"The material world" is an abstraction. We can't know such abstractions. Since we can't know it, it is nothing to us.

He also asserted that, if something exists as an idea in a mind, and no human is perceiving it, then something non-human is perceiving it. Thus, it must be an idea in God's mind. His religious faith was evident in this way of thinking. The basic premise is that, if something exists as an idea in a mind, there must be a mind in which it exists; if not a human mind, then God's mind.

To say in the article that "the human mind is purely a manifestation of the soul" is to make a nonsense statement. Berkeley never made that claim.

It is important to remember that Berkeley only discussed what humans can know. His book was titled The Principles of Human Knowledge. He did not make statements about what exists or has being apart from what is known by human minds. This is because he stated that we can't know such things.

If anyone objects to my proposed edit, please scream at me now. Thanks.

205.188.116.195 00:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Toby Shandy

1

Thought

"No-one else can read our thoughts or 'know our mind'." This sentence is very wrong. People are 'reading' each others thoughts for ages, and do that all the time, it's called telepathy. This kind of false statements are allowed and my essentially importart, regarding proper understanding of the subject of thought, was removed :

"Brain is generating and using countless abstract forms/objects. The elemental abstract forms are thoughts, the most complex are skills, sciences, languages etc. Abstract forms/objects are energetically real, as material forms are real (telekinesis, moving material objects/forms with thoughts, is a direct proof of that). Quantum physicist David Bohm among many others, also realized this, and dedicated many of his efforts bringing up the importance of thoughts to humankind: "Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us..."

The last citation is actually from Wikipedia's entry for David Bohm, under section Thought as a System. So I need to put this removed text back, since it is surely more relevant that the text stating 'noone else can read our thoughts'...

greetings, Ndru01

Could you plrease pay attention to the content of the article instead of thoughtlessly inserting content? You have now inserted your off-topic inappropriate personal essay into the article twice. What do you think? Should we leave it like that or is one copy of your personal meanderings and speculations enough? — goethean ॐ 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

_______________________________________

It wasn't thoughtlessly insterted. The text saying 'noone else can read our thoughts' was thoughtlessly inserted.

greetings, Ndru01

ps. I agree that my text (that I pasted in quotes above) is unnecessary, if the part 'No-one else can read our thoughts' (which is simply wrong) of the sentence "No-one else can read our thoughts or "know our mind." is omitted. So although I agree editing others peoples text isn't really acceptable and wouldn't do, I believe, in order to have my text removed (which actually comes as an explanation necessary because of that part 'No-one else can read our thoughts'), and which I'll remove myself, I should however rightfully then change that erroneous sentence "No-one else can read our thoughts or "know our mind." into a much more acceptable shorter one: "No-one else can 'know our mind'." I hope you agree with that.

Buddhism concept of the mind

What is the buddhist concept of the mind? How does it differ from the western concept?

169.229.54.88 06:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)In original Buddhism, the mind is considered one of the six places/means whereby we contact outside stimulus and process the information perceived. The mind is placed on par with the eyes, nose, tongue, ear and body, each catering to a different set of 'universe of stimulis'; but the mind also aggregates the information from the other five senses. For example, the eye caters to perception of 'light' (see Scientific American, July 2006 Issue 'What birds see'), while the mind processes 'concepts & theories'.

Furthermore, original buddhism does not believe in 'soul' and hence does not correlate 'mind' with 'soul'. The existence of 'mind' and its subsequent 'thoughts' are considered one of the five major 'veils' to understanding the 'truth'. One fallacy of conventional wisdom is to consider our thoughts as 'us' and hence be affected by external stimulis in commiting deeds (cravings/anger etc) that in turn causes Karma.

In essence, the buddhism concept treats 'mind' as only an organ that processes information, much like how our eyes do it. And the ultimate goal of buddhism is definitely not to merely refine our mind, but rather to overcome it. This is why in true meditation, or when we reach one of the four stages of meditation, we are rid of the 'sounds in our mind'.

Origin of Mind

Would like contribution on theories of origin of Mind. We know from various texts, such as Indian Hindu Texts, that the Aryans in India were considered those with developed minds. Thus this also suggests that there were those with no mind.

in "On Brain-Mind" the statement "In the ‘fertile crescent’ of northwest Africa (Mesopotamia)" is self-contradictory. Is this to be "northeast"? Zaiken 18:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Huxley and Epiphenomenalism

In the 'History of Philosophy of Mind' section, shouldn't it be included that Thomas Huxley was the first epiphenomnenalist? That is, the view that the mind is causally inefficacious, and a mere by-product of physical events? It also seems a bit odd to say he created the 'modern materialist' view when he favored a dualist philosophy.--Laplace's Demon 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Mid Being located

According to the preface in teh article: "The Mind is a function of the brain. It is now possible with modern technology to actually see which parts of the brain related to certain thoughts i.e., the mind".

If this is truly the case not only does this require a citation, but then we'd know the answer to the mind-body problem, consciousness, and memory (their locations and nature). This is not the case, all said topics are still open to wide debate in the scientific community. Thus, I can concluded that the text in question needed deletion until a source could be found.

• The Ultimate Answer: As verified by researchers at

Princeton University:

http://www.webspawner.com/users/cosmic/

"It is now possible with modern technology to actually see which parts of the brain related to certain thoughts i.e., the mind".

It's called Fmri.

See [2],[3] [4],[5]

1Z 23:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I think the whole article needs a considerable rewrite. There are too many highly debatable claims left uncited and simply presented as fact. The section "On Brain-Mind" starts off with a whistle-stop world history tour (with a peculiar itinerary) and doesn't even say anything about the Mind, or the Brain, until the last few lines. The section on the history of Philosophy of Mind, on the other hand, leaves out a number of important contributers - no mention of Descartes for instance.Davkal 13:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Or Freud! I agree. There is no need for a (very) potted history of physics in the middle of this section. The title is bad too: it should be something like "The mind-brain relationship".1Z 16:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)1Z

The article should be completely re-written. It should consist of a number of major sections, e.g

• Mental Faculties (thought, memory, imagination)
• Philosophy of Mind (Eastern+Western)
• Science of Mind (=psychology)
• Social Psychology and Group Behaviour
• Brain
• Mental Health (psychoanalysis, psychotherapy).
• Developmental History of the Human Mind (evolutionary perspectives).
• Animal Intelligence
• Artificial Intelligence (cognitive science).
• Religious Perspectives
• New-Age and Alternative Perspectives (Parapsychology).

..each with a fairly brief (~200 words) overview and lots of links to other pages.1Z 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well? 1Z 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. This is the most biased, poorly researched tittle-tattle I have read in a long time.89.243.220.82 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous statement

"At birth our brain is almost not there." This is an absurd statement, whatever the intended meaning.

Agreed. 1Z 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one:

"One of the key attributes of the mind in this sense is that it is a private sphere with unlimited power".

1Z 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole "Meditative control of thought and memory" section smacks of New Age hokum. --217.205.110.55 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think New Age stuff can be entirely excluded from this article as it is not "philosophy of mind" or "psychology".1Z 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate this is not an empirical article, but New Age dogma seems totally out of place. Do you think a Christian or Muslim (for example) view on the subject would be accepted? It's more a scientific article than a religious/spiritual one. You'll have to excuse me if my comments are not formatted correctly, I'm not yet used to wiki format :) - 217.205.110.55 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As it stands the article is a hodge-podge. See Rewrite". 1Z 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This needs a lot of work

This article needs a lot of work and seems to be full of nonsense - I'm not sure I have the time to fix it.

--Myscience 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed

Ok, I fixed up the article. I didn't write anything; I simply used the table of contents that User:Peterdjones/1Z outlined above, and then took the introduction from each of the sub-articles and added it to the appropriate section. I also removed some of the personal essay material. Undoubtedly it can be improved upon, so please jump right in. — goethean ॐ 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for undertaking this daunting task! 1Z 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some attempt to tie the sub articles back to the topic. In this form it is unclear why some of these sub articles are included DRFWarner —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Internally contradictory introduction

The introduction states that the mind is conscious thought, and then goes on to state that the mind includes subconscious thought. Consulting several references, the word is sometimes used in the first sense and sometimes in the second sense. The article should say so. Rick Norwood 14:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sankhya, vedanta, yoga, etc...

The article doesn't represent correctly the position of vedanta and other Hindu philosophies on mind. For instance, in sankhya (and yoga and vedanta which are based on it) there is a strict separation between consciousness sometimes termed as soul (ātman, brahman, puruṣa) and substance (prakṛti). Substance exists in various 'phases' and mind (manas - thoughts, emotions) is just one of the phase of matter (others being physical matter (anna) and prana). Higher feelings like love and compassion and higher processes of cognition (above the usual thinking process like in a moment of recognition or discovery) in this view don't belong to mind, but to higher 'phase' of matter above mind (vijñāna).

So in Indian philosophies there is no body-mind duality that is usual in western thought. Instead there is a consciousness-substance (subject-object) duality, where substance manifests itself (in Vedanta: from consciousness) in a large number of different forms with progressively greater rigidity (vijñāna/mahat/buddhi, manas, prana, anna). AFAIK this is the classical division of matter according to Vedanta, but there can also be other divisions by other authors. Maybe it could be said that matter is similar to the electromagnetic spectrum where there are no rigid boundaries, but is continous movement from one phase to the other. Body, life, thoughts, emotions, intelect, etc... they are all the 'same' matter of 'different wavelength'.

AFAI can see Aurobindo moves completely within this Hindu model - he only uses different terminology (supramental (supermind), mental, vital, physical), and also to him all these are just modes of substance, and soul is completely separated from them. NikNovi 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Physicalism ISN'T the dominant viewpoint

This article inaccurately portrays physicalism as being the dominant viewpoint in modern philosophy of the mind. Physicalism is rarely adopted by members of any religion. Considering the fact that most people in the world are religious, dualism and idealism are far more common than physicalism. Here are some of the statements that should be corrected:

It includes all of the brain's conscious processes.

The most common monisms in the 20th and 21st centuries have all been variations of physicalism; these positions include behaviorism, the type identity theory, anomalous monism and functionalism

(unsigned)

This article discusses "mind" from a philosophical and scientific viewpoint. You might want to start an article on "religious views of the mind", but I think you will discover that, while a majority of people are religious, the majority of religious people don't have any real opinion on philosophical topics, while those who do have an opinion disagree with one another to such an extent that there is no consensus view. An article on the Hindu view of "mind" might be interesting, but more likely the article on "Hinduism" already covers that. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Very confusing/confused article

The first sentence sets the tone for the confusion to follow: "Mind collectively refers to the aspects of intellect and consciousness manifested as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination; mind is the stream of consciousness." I'd have thought that perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination are all mostly peripheral to intellect and consciousness.

"It includes all of the brain's conscious processes." -- that's one way of defining mind but it starts from a premise that mind is immanent in the brain and bounded within that organ, a proposition hardly has consensus status.

It "sometimes includes ... the working of the human unconscious" -- contradiction of previous sentences. This may be valid but it's an entirely different definition of mind.

"...is often used to refer especially to the thought processes of reason" -- an entirely different proposition again, now closely related to language, since reason is conducted in language.

"mind is a model of the universe built up from insights" -- no. If mind is something then it is not a model. It might be able to provide or use models but cannot be one.

And so it goes on. Horrible. A dreadful mess.

If our purpose is to show that there is no consensus on what is mind, what qualifies as a mental characteristic, whether it is transcendental or immanent in matter, whether it is co-incident with the consciousness or with the soul, whether it is constrained by an individual organim's body, CNS or brain or a property of a system of which an organism may be a part, etc. -- and such an article would be useful -- then this article is not suitable because it doesn't spell out the differences.

An alternative approach would be to select one or more specific theories of mind and summarize those while being specific about the spectrum of theories from which the selections were made.

But as it is, attempting to conflate so many contradictory ideas, the article is confused, confusing and misleading enough to warrant deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nono1234 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, I think, inherent in the fact that there is no general agreement about what constitutes "mind". The current lede tries to give a general impression of the various subjects that one or more authorities subsume under the broad heading "mind" without taking sides in the controversy. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick: The more immediate problem is, I think, the article. The lack of consensus on what this word means doesn't excuse sloppiness in a reference encyclopedia. I suggested a couple of other ways to approach the topic already. Another possibility is decide that attempting an article under the simple title "Mind" isn't desirable. The article "Philosophy of Mind", while not great, at least stands a chance of being defensible. "Mind" could redirect there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.20.20 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Researching for Rewrite

As part of a University assignment for a History of Psychology class, I am attempting to create a new and improved page regarding the mind. I believe I will only have the time within the contraints of the assignment to alter one or two main ideas here. I'm hoping to aleviate some of the confusion about this page by showing how concepts of mind have changed and varied on a time based scale. (ie the ideas the Greeks and Romans had are different than those from the 19c. and different still from the concepts we have at present day) I would also like to explore why these shifts in mind concept have occurred. This is a work in progress but wondering if anyone has any sources they would like to share that I can work to encorporate into the new mind page. Please post here with any recommendations, sources, or general support. Thanks in advance. --Mindgames101 (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Body-mind

Every observer, as a unit, is the duality of mind and body. Each of the two parts is in a different space time. Body is in the material space time and it is organised matter motivated by electromagnetism. Mind is in the immaterial space time and it is the duality of the 'self', as the observer, and memory which is a limited plurality of truths created in the past by the observer's 'self' under motivation from the perfect centre or from the material world. Each of the two parts of the mind is again a duality. The 'self' is the standing time 'now' limited by the NOthingness of the observer's 'I'. The interval 'now' is the container of the truths in the memory. It also contains the 'self' and the consciousness of existence. Magnitude of the 'now' is specific for a particular observer. Memory is the duality of the existing part of the memory present in the observers consciousness, leaving the remaining part in the non-existence and outside of the consciousness. The interval of time 'now' consists of unlimited plurality of 'units' of Nothingness, organised by the observer's limit of 'I' into plurality of truths interdependent using logic. By observing a truth located in the material space time, or in the memory within the immaterial space time, the 'self'causes 'emotions' which motivate the limit of 'I' and make it dynamic within the memory. The 'self' can change position in the memory within 'now' and it can cause logical or illogical interactions between truths. The interactions can create new or different truths. The 'self' also called 'the soul', has no contact with the material space time other than through the electromagnetism which is on the border between the material and the immaterial worlds and it can be observed from either side. Organised electromagnetism is a plurality of 'symbols' created by the 'senses' of the observer's atomic body. The 'soul' cannot observe electromagnetism but it can observe 'meanings' of the electromagnetic symbols. Contact between mind and the material world is two directional. The 'self' can interpret incoming symbols and it can create them and through them the material body. KK (78.146.210.137 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia talk pages are only intended to be used for discussion related to improving the article they are attached to, and any changes to an article need to be based on published sources. In other words, the passage above doesn't belong here. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvements to the encyclopedias are made all the time. What is more important the Truth or the Lie? KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

Mind (Buddhism)

'Mind' needs a page specifically for Buddhist usage of this term. I'm considering constructing such a page, but before I do so, is there anything that I am missing on Wikipedia (such as a page on Mind that already exists!), or any suggestions from anyone before I begin? makeswell (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of "mind" as corresponding to a particular Buddhist term? If so, which one? We already have articles on many terms from Buddhism, so it might be useful to check first. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I don't see how it is off topic. It is undoubtedly about the mind even if it is stuff and nonsense, just as flat-earth theory is on the topic off the earth. 1Z (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greek

The article could do with a discussion of Greek thought on the mind, and the terms psyche, nous etc.1Z (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mind/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Core Topic I believe the topic 'brain-mind phenomena' which emphasizes 'science" rather than spiritual beliefs should be listed under Neurosciences rather than under Biology or Mind.

Last edited at 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of the human mind

Two main things:

1: "From about 5 million years ago, the hominid brain began to develop rapidly. Some say this was because an evolutionary loop had been established between the hominid hand and brain." I don't believe that is true. I believe that it was sheer unintended slips that lead to the evolution of modern man. A genetic mutation so to say. and that proto human passed his genes and eventualy began to grasp the possibility to utilize the environment around him. Eventually the more advanced proto humans wiped out the others whos brains where developing and evolving normally. The new spicies inbred and more severe advancements to the brain.

2:it looks like someone took a stamp and posted all over the article. -SŁäsh8784

The point is that statements in articles ought to be based on reliable sources. Not a single statement in that section is attributed to any source at all. Do you have anything you can point to to back up what you are saying? Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

redirects and disambiguations affecting the term "intellect" and related terms

A discussion has started elsewhere which editors of this article are invited to comment about. But please respond here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

resource in NYT

• In African Cave, Signs of an Ancient Paint Factory by John Noble Wilford, published October 13, 2011, excerpt ...

  “But the Blombos discovery, not only of elaborate ocher processing but also of its mixture with marrow fat to produce a paint, rather than with plant resin to produce a mastic, argues strongly for its symbolic function,” Dr. Brooks said in an interview. The assumed symbolic role of red ocher, Dr. Henshilwood said, it comes from the large amounts of the predominantly red material found at a number of African sites as old as 160,000 years.

99.190.85.250 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you intend Symbol, Symbolism, Symbolism (arts), ... ? 99.112.215.8 (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories: Cognitive Science

There has been some back and forth on how the categories of Cognitive Science and Mind relate to one another. My contention is that they overlap a great deal, but there is not a subordinate-superordinate relationship in either direction.

Philosophy of mind includes ontological / conceptual questions which may be independent of empirical methods and data of cognitive science. E.g. Could intelligence arise if the laws of physics were different?

Likewise, there are aspects of cognitive science, including particular branches of artificial intelligence, which could be logically independent of human minds. E.g. In principle, an artificially evolved (or fabricated) program or machine might exhibit behavior categorized as intelligent, but lack other defining attributes of mentality, such as conscious experience. If intelligence and consciousness dissociate, it is open for debate whether mind and cognition must always hang together. Machine "intelligence" might relate to cognition but not to mind. Jj1236 (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Says who? The possibility of artificial intelligence is bviously one of the topics that need to be discussed on this page. This page is about "mind" not about a particular approach to it - it should include all the scientific approaches to and definitions of "mind" that are notable from philosophical and psychological debates to neuroscience and cognitive sciences. Bateson's definition of mind for example includes all living things as well as artificially constructed infrmation processing devices.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you guys seem a little over passionate about this. This is how it is: Category:Mind has as a sub-category Category:Philosophy of mind; Category:Philosophy of mind and Category:Cognitive science have each other as sub-categories. (Chicken or the egg anyone?) WP:SUBCAT mentions diffused and non-diffused categories. If a sub-category is diffused then the topic shouldn't be in both; if it is non-diffused then is can be in both. The purpose is to break down overly large categories. However the whole thing is a guidline and we can do whatever seems least astonishing. None of those categories look too large to me. How about we put all the categories back and call it a day? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't really worrying about the categories - more about the overall focus of the article which I don't think can be tunneled into on particular disciplinary approach. Sorry if I came across as overly invested. :)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that machine intelligence should be discussed on this page. The point I was making was about categories (a meta-structure behind the pages). The line of reasoning was intended to justify partial logical dissociation (of mind and cognitive science), despite a great degree of overlap. To reiterate; I was referring to the categories behind the page, not content on the page. Some editors were "cleaning up" behind the scenes (in good faith!), and making choices that did not appropriately reflect conceptual relations to other subjects. I also tend to think that erring on the side of more categorical links, when it doubt, is preferred. In short, I agree with all the comments that followed my post above, and apologize for any confusion. Jj1236 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• Merle B. Turner 2008. The Mind-Body Problem: Knot Or Not? "Alas, mind is not an object. Mind is the collective of individual awareness. Being a collection of many things it may not be a thing itself. Hence it is not surprising that definitions of mind are found wanting in clarity and precision. Philosophers otherwise garrulous on the subject of mind and body, often prove hesitant and equivocal about the meaning of mind. For example in a recent and well received work about the mind-body problem the author is reluctant to define mind (Churchland, 1984)"p. 24 and "I propose that we define mind as the collective of mental experience. Mind is the collective of our awareness. Two things need be emphasized. One, mind, the collective, is not an entity, no more than the forest as a collection of trees is an entity in and of itself. And two the mind is a collection of mental activities or processes not of static events. or as William James so aptly stressed: Consciousness is a stream, a flow of mental happenings."
• Ben Goertzel. The Hidden Pattern: A Patternist Philosophy of Mind. "A mind, in my vocabulary, is a fuzzy set of patterns - in particular the patterns associated with the intelligent behaviors of some system. By "associated with" the intelligent behaviors of some system, I mean patterns that are in that system when it is carrying out intelligent behaviors, or patterns emergent between that system and something else at it is carrying out intelligent behaviors." p. 45.
• Steven Pinker. 1997. How the mind Works. "The mind is what the brain does". p. 21.
• Christina E. Erneling, David Martel Johnson. The Mind As a Scientific Object: Between Brain and Culture. "Mind is the functions of thinking and feeling" (p. 138) "The mistake of philosophers of mind, psychologists and neurophysiologists, and others, is to assume that only one of these ontologically distinct parts or aspects of the mind is the mind. They assume that the mind is either the brain, computational or dynamic processes, behavior, or socially constructed linguistic practices. The truth is that the mind is all of these things - a multiple of ontological kinds." (p. 454) (also from this volume "The mind is a set of linguistic entities" (p. 400), "The mind is the brain." (p 147). "What we call the mind is a set of representations and their processing in the brain, that allows us to explain and predict behavior." (p. 249), "The mind is a set of models or structures that this causal machine, the brain, has constructed for the management of action and interaction in a social world" (p. 163), "'Mind' is a mythological object fated to be replaced by science"(p. 55)(Note that this is a large edited volume and some of these are authors quoting earlier authors - I just present them to give a glimkpse of the scope of different definitions)
• Rene Descartes. 1641. "Meditations" "Mind is a thing that thinks."

Thanks for copying these down. Note that Turner says "mind is not an object," while Erneling and Johnson refer to the mind as a "scientific object" and a "mythological object." "Mind is a thing that thinks" and "the mind is what the brain does" remind me of "time is what clocks read" - not a suitable definition. I agree its not easy to assert a definition if these are the only sources. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

They are by no means the only sources, but finding more sources will widen the scope of definitions not narrow it. Of course you realize that when they talk about "scientific object" and "mythological object" they mean object not in the sense of "thing with substance" but in the sense of "topic of inquiry". These are all great minds who have spent years thinking about this and this is what they come up with. Do you see now why I object to your bold definition of the concept as if it were simply an oversight that no one had already done it? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

They are by no means the only sources, but finding more sources will widen the scope of definitions not narrow it. - And yet the merit of being definitive is that we can provide actual definitions to our readers. Being inclusive doesn't mean being non-definitive, does it? Of course you realize that when they talk about [object] they mean object not in the sense of "thing with substance" - Did you think that when I used the word "object" I meant "thing with substance" such as a 'material thing?' Of course I did not mean such. I meant that, in language, we refer to things as objects, and that the mind is in that sense an object, even though its made up of various different and immaterial components. You seem to promote an expert view, but an expert on for example buildings might define a skyscraper as an assortment of parts - an assembly of steel supports and concrete divisions - or a conglomerate of separate rooms. Still we ordinary humans will refer to the skyscraper as an object, regardless of what its parts are. Are the experts more correct? Perhaps, but we must start with the ordinary. Hence though concepts like "mind" (and "being") seem to baffle experts ("being is always the being of a being"), we ordinary people regardless use these words exactly and clearly. Starting an article with a clear definition does not prevent us from in the second paragraph including a explanation of how baffled the experts on the subject are. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a guide to usage (that would be the job of a dictionary) but a guide to what experts have thought and written about the subject. Providing readers with what they already think they know does not make them any wiser. Also I am quite convinced that what you think of as "using the concept clearly" is in fact merely naive and muddled misuse of concepts if analyzed closely. There is no merit in being definitive or conclusive in order to provide a definition if such a definition is poorly thought out, poorly worded and reflect only a minimal part of what experts have uncovered on the subject. Again the idea that every concept that exists in language is an object has been refuted by thinkers since Plato - it is quite simply incorrect.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a guide to usage (that would be the job of a dictionary) but a guide to what experts have thought and written about the subject. - And yet, an article must start with some definitive treatment of its subject - if we start articles off with vague language like "philosophers disagree on the issue.." how is that being definitive and how is it helpful to the reader? We must start with definitive introductions, and Im not saying these introductions should be dictionary definitions - dictionaries define, in an organized way, the various uses of a word - Wiki articles need only define one such usage, and perhaps two if these usages are related - "being" is an example of the latter.

Providing readers with what they already think they know does not make them any wiser. - Much of our readership is young people - don't assume they already know the elementary definition, and don't assume that the elementary definition is too simplistic to start an article with. Also I am quite convinced that what you think of as "using the concept clearly" is in fact merely naive and muddled misuse of concepts if analyzed closely. - "The mind is the cognitive essence of a being or creature" is not muddled is it? We can examine each part of that sentence and I think you will find its far from being a muddled expression. Of course Im willing to address any specific criticism and deal with each - remember that your first criticism was that my language referred to the word "being," and I completely dismantled your critique on that point. Next you took issue with "cognition" but relented on that issue when I added it to the current lede. Finally you griped about the word "essence" but you failed to respond to my defenses, in particular that the Google dicdef used the word "element," which is similar to "essence." There is no merit in being definitive or conclusive in order to provide a definition if such a definition is poorly thought out, poorly worded and reflect only a minimal part of what experts have uncovered on the subject. - And yet we are intelligent people, who have varied degrees of scholarship on the issue, and can, if we use or minds, conjure up something definitive that does in fact agree with these "expert" sources. Consider though that the experts are themselves baffled by these concepts, and unnecessarily so - does it serve our readership to start off by stating that the concept is baffling to experts, and that these baffled experts have provided little in the way of definitive writing on the topic? Again its disappointing that someone like Descartes, who you referred to as "the single most influential philosopher of Mind to this day" never bothered to come up with a definition. Perhaps my definition is not so naive after all. Again the idea that every concept that exists in language is an object has been refuted by thinkers since Plato - it is quite simply incorrect. - I did not say that "every concept that exists in language is an object" - I said that in language we treat the concept as an object, because its logical to do so. Logic is the basis of language, isn't it? -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• No Steve. We mustn't make a definition if such a definition is incorrect or mischaracterizes the topic of the article. "Mind" is not a thing it is a word and what the word means is an open question. You cannot pretend that the question is answered without misrepresenting actuality. There is nothing similar between essence and element except they both have the vowel e. They are two entireely different things. Essence suggest that soemthing can be defined in terms of sufficient and necessary components. Element suggest that something can be isolated form other things. Both are patently false regarding mind. Your entire quest to define abstract concepts by other abstract concepts is essentially misguided. You dissapointment in Descartes or any other published thinker is utterly irrelevant - what is relevant is that you have not shown that your proposed definition has any currency, or that there is any other reason whatsoever that we should prefer it as a definition to all the other possible definitions that we have sources for.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No Maunus. You are incorrect. For example you say that element is a "patently false" concept when used in regard to the mind. This term "element" is actually found in four dictionary sources: "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc."[6] and "the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons," [7] and "the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel.." [8] and "the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought" [9]. So, if it is used in four such dicdefs the idea that its "patently false" itself must be just like... your opinion man. Full disclaimer, Im of course not putting a whole lot of faith in the dicdefs, Im just pointing out where exactly you are being wrong. And "essence" while apparently vauge, somewhat, is a common enough concept when we are referring to immaterial things. The mind is an immaterial thing.

You opined: Your entire quest to define abstract concepts by other abstract concepts is essentially misguided. - You still have yet to give a good refutation for using the word "being," so you can't stand on your high horse and claim that terms like "essence" and "being" are unusably abstract. Essence Ive dealt with above, and again, "being" (in its objective sense) is a rather precise term: It means 'a living thing with a certain minimum capacity of mind.'

OK, that all said, I will admit that Im not too unhappy with the lede as it stands: It deals with cognition. It refers to thinking and stuff. It links directly to consciousness. Its referenced as a capacity of human beings, but also leaves the door open for other living things like God, and lets not forget the animals, who may not be exactly "beings" in sense we normally use it, but nevertheless have minds to some degree or other. So, Im more or less happy with the lede as it is, as you and I both have contributed to its construction. And finally, in spite of our jousts, I'm not unhappy to see that you have similar editorial interests, and that you have strong and good-natured opinions about the way Wiki articles are developed and written. So I think we are done here for now. I will keep this page on my watchlist (which I've never really used much until just recently), and check in to see how the article stands. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying the mind is this and the mind is that - but sources says that you're wrong. I am not going to keep discussing with you unless you a start talking sources as your startign point. I am utterly uninterested in what you think mind is. I am very interested in what experts say it is. They don't say "essence", they don't say "element"(dictionaries are not experts, and wikipedia is not a dictionary), they don't say "being". If the sources agreed on using those words I would have no problem in doing so. So yes I think we are done here too. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

New lede

Ive written a new lede paragraph, that instead of meandering around talking vaguely about all that the subject is not, rather than what it is, states in clear and simple terms what the word actually means and what the thing actually is:

The mind /ˈmaɪnd/ is the cognitive essence of a being. In human beings, the mind is sustained by a brain, which acts as an interface between the mind and the body. The mind enables a being to have awareness of their environment, to respond to stimuli, and to have a consciousness wherein they may think and feel.

However the former introductory paragraph makes a decent second paragraph I suppose, and so its not all a complete loss. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not like your definition and i also don't think it accurately represents the source you use for it which doesn't say anything about "cognitive essence" - which in any case is not necessarily helpful as a definition for people who don't know what mind is. Also there "being" is usually reserved for biological entities - and so it raises the question of non-biological minds, a distinction possibility in most traditions. I don't think there is a good way getting around the fact that there isn't a single agreed upon definition of mind. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry Maunus. But the previous version lacked any definition whatsoever. Cognition is sourced by the dicdef, which lists 'thought and intellectual processes' - the exact meaning of cognition. The first sentence leaves open the possibility of minds without biological brains, as it uses the proper term "being." Hence in this context, God, who is not biological, can have a mind. Note the next sentence confines itself to human beings, so I don't see your point. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"cognition" is not just "thought and intellectual processes" - cognition is also memory perception etc. that is not generally considered "intellectual processes". "being" is not a proper term itself but another fuzzy concept that doesn't really add meaning to the definition. You are basically taking one fuzzy/abstract concept and defining it in terms of two other ones - that really isn't very informative. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

People who use English know what "being" is. We say "human being" all the time. (And we don't say "dog being" or "cat being" too much either). And for the last hundred years give or take we have had science fiction, which often creates other types of "beings" not found in our common reality. And of course there is God, whom most people have some concept of as a being of some kind, albeit omnipotent and alien in certain ways. So "being" is not the fuzzy word you think it is. Its in fact quite a clear word to indicate a living thing with some degree of mental capacity.

At one time IIRC the "thought" article simply redirected to "cognition." Naturally in order to think something, there has to be a capacity for memory - can't have a computer without RAM. So I fail to grasp your point.

Now, Ive made this criticism in your presence before - I called the previous lede vague. Do you agree it was vague? Lets put it another way, do you agree with the concepts in my essay at WP:VAI? -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes English speakers say Human being, but Mind is not exclusive to human beings. Nor is being exclusive to human beings - but to everything that is. Being is a highly abstract and broad concept explored by philosophers for millennia. It dooes not make sense to define anything at al in terms of being (except perhaps to define something as "not being" in which case it doesn't exist). Yes the lead was vague - you made it vaguer with your abstract fuzzy concepts, not more concrete.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Fuzzy concept? You can't be serious. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: A mind is not a fuzzy concept, or a concept period. What is it? Can you explain it? -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes mind is a concept. It is not something that has any independent or defineable existence. It is also can certainly not be shown to be a "part of something". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again Stevertigo, I will ask you to read literature about the topic of this article before you distill a highly abstract definition from a dictionary source. Find sources about mind and see how they define them. Read a couple of them and you will realize that there is no single definition of the concept, but that different philosophical traditions and different psychologists and neurologists define mind in very different ways. Probably very few would agree to define it as "the cognitive essence of being" (whatever that is supposed to mean) or "the part of being that thinks..". Please don't keep doing this redefinition/conceptualization stuff, but write about topics for which you have actual literature.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if this helps, but instead of calling it a part of something, mind is traditionally referred to as a "faculty" in older types of philosophy. Steve, just also a small point on your logic about memory: if you can not have smoke without fire does this mean the definition of smoke must include fire? Anyway I agree with Maunus that the proposed definition was not really workable as a non-controversial first sentence in a WP article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• EB definition[10]: "mind, in the Western tradition, the complex of faculties involved in perceiving, remembering, considering, evaluating, and deciding. Mind is in some sense reflected in such occurrences as sensations, perceptions, emotions, memory, desires, various types of reasoning, motives, choices, traits of personality, and the unconscious."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I came here to improve the article, by replacing a wishy-washy say-nothing lede that didn't actually say what the subject is, with a clear definition:

"The mind is the cognitive essence of a being."

I know Maunus that you work on lots of philosophy articles and that your writing is generally good. But even you couldn't defend the previous lede, and at least now your current version is better in that it tries to say what the concept is in clear language.

"A mind (/ˈmaɪnd/) is the faculty that enables conciousness, thinking, reasoning, perception, and judgement.[1]"

..However a mind is not a "faculty." Do you see that? The mind is an object, an immaterial one, without which a being would not be a being. I see you kept my three dicdefs but are spinning the writing in a way the dicdefs don't support.

PS: "Yes mind is a concept. It is not something that has any independent or defineable existence." - This is completely and utterly wrong. So your mind does not actually exist? Is it just a concept? What then enables your conscious faculties? This is an example of where you just don't understand the concept.

Yes English speakers say Human being, but Mind is not exclusive to human beings - I said just as much when I mentioned God and science fiction. Please read. Nor is being exclusive to human beings - but to everything that is. - Did I limit my usage of being to just human beings? I did not. Please read it again. Being is a highly abstract and broad concept explored by philosophers for millennia. - Since its been explored for so long, one might think we can now say what it actually is. As I said above, its not all that abstract not all that vague. We English speakers use "being" in language (in two distict ways) all the time, with no problem.

"Other theories do not see a brain as necessary precondition for mental faculties.[2]" - This is sourced to a dicdef, but the dicdef does not support this. Please find a genuine source that says that the mind is sustained by something other than the brain. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Bateson and other system theorists (and biosemioticians) defines mind as any system capable of recursive information processing. Many idealist (Plato, Fichte, Schelling, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Leibniz and many others), dualist (Descartes found Mind in the pineal gland!) and religious theories do not consider a brain to be necessary to have all the mental operations we associate with a mind. Do you dispute this? You say I don't understand the concept "mind" - reality is that you donø't understand that "mind" is many different concepts, probably because you are so entrenched in the particular theory of mind implicit in cognitive science (which it nonetheless doesn't seem to me that you completely understand). This however is only one conceptualization of mind that has evolved only over the last three decades. I do not dispute that the original definition was bad - if yours had been worse I would have reverted, which I didn't do. What we should do here is to continue improving based on good (tertiary) sources about the topic, not on your original research based on dictionary definitions. Whether or not my mind exists depends on your definition of "mind" and "exist"none of which are easily defineable concepts. It is a distinct possibility that minds only exist in the same way angels do. What is nonsensical is your expecting me to take seriously the idea of "immaterial objects" and that the mind should be such a thing. Please do try to read and comprehend basic literature about the topics you intend to write definitions of. No single philosopher or cognitive scientist I have ever read would suggest that the mind is an object. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Where have I proposed original research? With the use of "being?" The first dicdef explicitly states the context: "in a human or other conscious being"! And Im not using being in the abstract sense, I'm using it in the literal sense to refer to 'a living thing with some mental capacity.' It is a distinct possibility that minds only exist in the same way angels do. - I agree with this. And if angels exist then they are real - they exist in some way. What you appear to be suggesting here is the issue of the soul as it relates to the mind. I agree that the soul needs to be mentioned here in this article lede. No single philosopher or cognitive scientist I have ever read would suggest that the mind is an object. In language we point to the mind as an object. Keep in mind I don't mean "material object," I simply mean 'something that is real', which your mind is. Descartes found mind in the pineal gland! Obviously Descartes was wrong, and we don't need to refer to his primitive ideas. Regards -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be obvious to anyone who has read about the topic of mind that your comment on Descartes the single most influential philosopher of Mind to this day disqualifies you entirely from further having say on the topic untill you take the chance to actually read a basic textbook on the topic. And no the lead absolutely does not need a mention of soul, and I do not confuse the two topics. And you are also committing a first class logical fallacy, the reification fallacy, by proposing that because we have a word "mind" that word points to an object that exists. Honestly, this discussion is not worth my time. Go read, present the sources and we can talk.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

your comment on Descartes.. ..disqualifies you entirely from further having say on the topic Allow me to retract my comment about Descartes. I was not talking about Descartes in general nor his other ideas, just the one which you mentioned, Descartes found mind in the pineal gland!, which according to a more modern understanding is a primitive idea - we know that glands produce hormones and have in themselves nothing to do with cognition. According to a modern view, the brain is the central thinking organ, and Im sure I can find some well written dictionaries that will back me up on that, even if Descartes, PBUH, will not. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't read dictionaries, and don't base article definitions on dictionaries. Read books. What is primitive is being arrogant enough to waltz in to a topic without the most basic preparation and pretend to be able to swiftly produce simple definitions, based on one's own commonsense concepts, of topics so complex that the greatest thinkers of the past couple of millennia have been unable to agree on any such a definition. Making it appear to the reader of this encyclopedia as if a gargantuan concepts such as "mind", "person" or "being" are simple and straightforward to define would be so misleading that it would actually make the reader more ignorant for having read it. That is not what I expect of an encyclopedia. If a concept does not have a clearcut definition then an encyclopedia should say so and then outline the most prominent trajectories of thinking about the topic. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't read dictionaries, and don't base article definitions on dictionaries. - Shall this and other related articles simply vacillate between non-definitive or otherwise arcane definitions? Just as with being, "mind" has a clear-enough definition, as is evident in the valid dictionary definitions I cited. What you are arguing is that we should start articles without clear-cut definitions, even when such definitions, such that Ive cited, exist. I disagree with this approach, as Ive outlined at WP:VAI, because what I expect from an encyclopedia is that it get to the point, not simply beat around the bush about what can be defined quite plainly and clearly.

Gregory Bateson and other system theorists (and biosemioticians) defines[sic] mind as any system capable of recursive information processing. - This is interesting, as its more inclusive, such as to regard anything with a brain as having a mind. But isn't it too inclusive, such that a computer, which we know is not in itself a mind, might qualify? -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: What is primitive is being arrogant enough to waltz in to a topic without the most basic preparation and pretend to be able to swiftly produce simple definitions, based on one's own commonsense concepts, of topics so complex that the greatest thinkers of the past couple of millennia have been unable to agree on any such a definition. - What exactly is wrong with writing succinctly and in a commonsense way? Even you can do it, and Ive seen you do it before, for example at the language article, which actually turned out quite nicely, via collaboration. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Too inclusive" in terms of what? In terms of the goodness of fit with our commonsense definition of the concept probably yes. And the "plan and clear" definition that you present is exactly that, a commonsense definition (a folk definition if you will) - and it is contradicted or refined by a wealth of other definitions - begging the question why we should accept your preferred clear cut definition over the hundreds of other possibilities. In anycase an encyclopedia isn't here to provide commonsense folk definitions, but to summarize what specialists in the matter have thought and written. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In anycase an encyclopedia isn't here to provide commonsense folk definitions, but to summarize what specialists in the matter have thought and written. The encyclopedia must start with something - typically that something is a definitive statement of some kind. Common sense makes for a great starting point on any subject, because its what people can connect with. If you reject common sense, people will simply not accept what you write. We agree that the previous version was too vague, and we seem to have agreed to move past that point into the realm of being somewhat definitive. Agreed? In that spirit, can you print here a definition of "mind" by Descartes that we can work with? Certainly the "single most influential philosopher of Mind[sic] to this day" must have taken a crack at writing a definition of "mind." What was it? "Too inclusive" in terms of what? In terms of the goodness of fit with our commonsense definition of the concept probably yes. - Well thats the point - not every philosophers definition is going to be a valid definition. If Bateson's definition includes the minds of insects, then I agree maybe my language is too narrow. ("Being" seems to have a minimum intelligence requirement). If Bateson's definition includes computers, maybe his definition is too broad. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

SV, if low quality sources like online dictionaries disagree with high quality ones then we use the high quality ones. That said, I took your recent edits seriously and tried to reword them based on the sources you quoted, coming much closer to the wording of the sources than what you had written.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I should add: Maunus' consequent edits have made the lead more complex. Arguably this makes the article more rich and therefore better. OTOH, arguably it is too complex for a lead. But I think no one would be opposed to discussing whether the balance is right in terms of how detailed a lead should be. My point here is that we should avoid continuing to argue about which older versions were more "vague". Let's try to improve what we have. I think a critical point of concern in the above discussion is how to make a definition which covers all definitions, but also which points us to the most common definitions. This is a really common problem in such articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Ive made a couple of changes to the lede sentence which I think are clearer, while still inline with Maunus' intent. I await his return, whereby he shall deliver us Descartes' most definitive statements on the subject. He still hasn't responded to any of my most recent points about usage of the word "being" - it should be clear that mind and being (in the literal sense) have something to do with each other, as does cognition. -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to your insertion of "cognitive" before faculties although I think it is technically incorrect - the mind is the complex of faculties that enable cognition so saying "the cognitive faculties that enable (cognition)" is circular as it presupposes that which it tries to explain. This is a lesser evil though as most people probably won't notice that, and it does provide a useful link to cognition. I don't think it is useful to base a definition on the writings of Descartes - his importance is not due to his definitions and explanations still being current, but because he started the mind-body dualist tradition of thinking about the Mind that we are still struggling to get rid of today. The debate about "being" is neither here nor there we don't need to refer to being or beings at all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been reading and catching up on the ongoing discussion, and I think it is a good one. Unfortunately my reading and knowledge of philosophy is not as good as Maunus's. If I understand the discussion so far, what Maunus is saying is that "Mind" is a concept that is not easily defineable. I.e., a simple and straightforward definition, or, may I say, a "positivistic" definition, as the one being attempted by Stevertigo, will not work. There may not be ways around defining such a highly abstact concept, and one with so many basic ontological implications, by some negative assertions of what it is not. warshy^talk 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

some comments on latest version(s)

A few things. Most of these are not strong positions, just discussion promotion...

• A "complex". Does this perhaps come into conflict with anyone who might say that a mind is a single entity which makes no sense as parts? And does the extra verbiage help in any way. For example, we could also describe a human body as a complex instead of writing about it as one thing, but why do that when opening an article about "the human body"? I tend to like simple, especially in leads, so I suggest just writing about the mind in a simple way. That would not seem to imply saying that the mind is not a complex.
• In some theories the brain and mind are identical. Looking at your source, can we better say, perhaps "according to the Mind/Brain theory..."? But secondly, is this whole brain thing needing to be in the lead? I guess the original point of earlier versions was to help readers see the difference there can be between the two words, but now we are suddenly jumping to saying that the two words might mean the same thing. Pointing to theories which do NOT believe they are same seems a bad solution, because it would be a complicated distraction. What about just being a bit more refined in the word and saying that the mind is proposed to be an activity of said brain, or something like that? This may or may not be in line with the source you choose?
• The mind enables awareness and consciousness. It strikes me that both these words have two meanings. "Dumb animals" are conscious and aware, and increasingly that is all most people mean by these words. Your sources on the other hand seem to be emphasizing that they are talking about the specifically more human type of awareness and consciousness?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The choice of "complex of faculties" was made to align as closely as possible with the EB source. I think simply "faculty" may be fine. Also the body is not a good analogy because part of the question about mind is whether it in fact can be seen as "one thing" or whether it is just a label that we apply to a group of neural processes. I don't think it is a good idea to make a lead that does not show the complexities of the issue such as the question of whether mind is reducible to the physical brain, to its activities or not reducible to physical phenomena at all. That is the main question anyone who wants to know about "mind" should be aware of. Likewise with the question of whether (some?) animals and non biological entities have minds - it is not smply possible to limit mind to be only "human mind" because that bypasses one of the main discussions in the field if studies. Complexity is not just good when describing a complex topic it is required, because the alternative is misinformation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the body might be a good analogy because in fact more refined discussion about it would also question whether it is better to see it as a unity. Different parts of the body fight each other and work their own ways. But my point is that you would not open an article with all that. I do not see that would be misinformation, because if the mind can not be described a single entity then there should be no article on it. Of course it might be true that there are good arguments against it being a single entity, but we would be taking sides if we decided to forbid WP from having any article which treated it as a single entity. Instead we try to balance all the different positions that are out there, and concerning the most radical and complex, we have to ease the reader into it. Another example is perhaps the term species, which is something a lot of biologists would love to dump. We still need an article with it, and that article will not start with a sentence explaining why the word should be perhaps be dumped.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course it "can" be described as a single entity - but the question of which the reader should be aware is whether that is an adequate description. The body doesn't have a millennial history of philosophical discussion about how to define it - mind does. This is what the article on Species (which has a much shorter and less complex history of definition than "mind") says in the first paragraph: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. " Even with Species that has a well established definition that one can accept or reject according to circumstances the first paragraph gives an overview of other possibilities. "Mind" is much more complex to define and has many more possible caveat's than species - and it has no broadly accepted definition such as Ernst Mayr's definition of species which i think most biologists consider generally adequate for most uses (perhaps with some exceptions and refinements).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I guess my biggest concern here is that over recent days the lead seems to be trying to fit too much in. Perhaps this is something that will naturally settle back down, but this is of course a typical danger on many such WP articles. The danger of trying to fit too much into every sentence of the lead needs to be constantly kept in mind during a lead re-write like this I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It also has some repetition and redundancy that can doubtlessly be condensed. I think it is a worthy goal to work towards a greater degree of concision. But the lead should also summarise the article body which is itself a meandering mess, so there's only so much we can do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maunus wrote: I don't object to your insertion of "cognitive" before faculties although I think it... ..is circular as it presupposes that which it tries to explain. - I agree. This is a lesser evil though as most people probably won't notice that - I think people are smart, and will notice it. and it does provide a useful link to cognition. - Bingo! Now you understand. A good lede is an interwoven complex of links to related topics, of which cognition and being and soul no doubt are related. I don't think it is useful to base a definition on the writings of Descartes - his importance is not due to his definitions and explanations still being current, but because he started the mind-body dualist tradition of thinking about the Mind - So you value his explanations for being influential, but regard them as otherwise arcane, or lacking in currency? I admit Im disappointed. I would have liked to see something definitive from Descartes. But alas he lived almost 500 years ago, its only natural that his ideas should be regarded as arcane, though I read somewhere that it was Descartes' focus on the pineal gland that led philosophers thereafter to focus on the brain as the thinking organ. The debate about "being" is neither here nor there we don't need to refer to being or beings at all. - This is where you are being unreasonable. The first dictdef in fact makes it clear that the context is "conscious beings"! Your attempted rewrites have not brought the lede closer to the dicdef.-Stevertigo (t | c) 21:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: The lede as it stands isn't too terrible, but there is a fundamental flaw in it, namely the language "especially in humans", which is simply Maunus' way of getting around the word "being." Can anyone think of a better way to point to something like "a being" without using language "especially in humans?" This brings up the issue of animal minds, and its an issue we should probably deal with: Animals which are known to have cognitive function appear themselves to have minds of some sort. At the other end of the spectrum there is a God, and we will have to mention Him somewhere too. -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to point to something like a being - in humans or in human beings is fine. We shouldn't mention God unless you can find a suitable source on "mind" that does so. It is enough to describe that in religious worldviews also non living things and imaginary beings may be attributed minds.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Most religions don't hold the view that non-living things have minds. It would be unfortunate if we gave that impression. In discussing religion, of course, we are starting to enter into the domain of the soul - probably best dealt with "in religious context". Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you have your statistical knowledge about what is characteristic of most religions? Animism has likely been the single most ubiquitous type of religion before the rise of scripture based religions (i.e. for 95% of human history). I even know many Catholics who consider saint images to have properties of mind.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the world's people (3.4b) belong to Abrahamic religions - Abrahamic religions reject the idea that rocks are alive. More importantly, Abrahamic religions reject the idea that non-humans are 'made in God's image,' hence they reject the notion that animals have souls, though they may accept the idea that animals have 'minds'. Im not sure about how Dharmic religions come down on this issue, though there are significant differences between Buddhist and Hindu beliefs. I don't know any Catholics who cross the line from using idols as symbolic representations, to using idols as actual objects of worship, and I certainly have never heard of anyone regarding idols as having actual properties of mind. I would be interested in reading any such info, if you have it available. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Most people belongs to Abrahamic religions != Most of the worlds religions are Abrahamic. Most of the world's religions are and have always been non-Abrahamic. It is quite common in syncretic Catholic forms such as are common in South-America (where most of the world's Catholics reside) to consider Images to have divine powers, to be able to perceive and respond to requests and to have a volition of their own. The text is not saying that most religions don't consider non-living things to have minds - it merely says that some do (which I presume you do not dispute). If you want to introduce a distinction of quantity it is you who would have to produce a source for that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I got the impression you were saying something qualitative about Animism, such that you would include Catholicism in the category of Animism. That would be a highly controversial assertion, and WEIGHT would not support such an assertion made out of context - the context of what the Catholic leadership and (presumably) what most Catholics themselves believe. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, thank you for your interest in this article. Your definition is an improvement over what was there previously. But my wording is a substantial improvement over yours. My version "mind is the cognitive essence of a being" works because its entirely immaterial - mind, cognition, essence, and being are all immaterial concepts. Sticking a material concept in there like "especially in humans," doesn't work, because its overly specific (according to your very own critique regarding non-human minds), inexactly written ("especially"), and negates a proper understanding of mind as an immaterial concept. Furthermore my version is closer to the actual sources, which refer to mind as an "element" of "conscious beings." I appreciate that you and I have similar editorial interests, but it would be sheer arrogance to assert that you are always right when it comes to how articles should be written. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree more than strongly. It is in itself preposterous to claim that beings have essences, to claim that cognition is an essence is outright laughable, and on par with claiming that it is located in the pineal gland. I will remove all mentions of "cognitive essences" untill such a time that you can show me that it is not phrase you yourself made up and that any serious scholar has used it (which I more than doubt). I am not claiming that I am always right about how to write articles, but based on experience I would have to say that you are quite consistently wrong. Especially based on the fact that you seem to have a phobia for reading sources that actually treat the topics you write about. If you want to advance along the "cognitive essence" route I would suggest an RfC. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I will remove all mentions of "cognitive essences" untill such a time that you can show me that it is not phrase you yourself made up and that any serious scholar has used it - This is sheer arrogance. Plus I did not write "cognitive essences," I wrote "cognitive essence," singular. You are twisting my words rather than responding to them accurately. But alas you finally condense your arguments to specific concerns, which we can deal with one by one: I am willing to accept that "essence" may be difficult to use, even if its accurate. The dicdef, like I said, uses the word "element." Are you opposed to using the word "element?"

Note that I respect you, and I regard you as a competent editor, but I have dealt with your issues with regard to "being" several times now, and you consistently fail to respond on that point. Even if we agree to avoid "essence," we cannot avoid the word "being," for the simple reason that "being" is as precise a word as can be. Mind and being are interdependent.

I accept that some of your recent edits have been on-point and well written. But your pattern of shadowing me on various articles, and negating everything I write has got to stop. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not shadowing you. I have articles such and mind and language on my watchlist when you pop in and try to rewrite the leads according to your "conceptualization" nonsense. Arrogance is refusing to educate oneself while nonetheless continuuing to argue.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense eh? This was the state of the article when I found it. You agreed with me (above) that the article lede as it was was not up to par. This was my initial contribution. Hence its been my energy that drove these last few waves of changes, upon which you have been riding. Hence there is an outstanding question: If you had this article under your wing, and kept watch of this article via your watchlist, why had you left it in such a poor state[11], such that needed someone like me to come along and write an actual introduction - one that wasn't simply vague handwaving? I suppose you may have had this article under your watch for months or even years. Why did you neglect it for so long, and leave it in such a state? It took me two seconds of looking at the lede to know it was wishy washy nonsense, and you in an above comment agreed. Give me a little credit then, for knowing a little something about editing that you do not. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your energy. It improved the article. Now go read a book. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading Sein und Zeit right now. Have you read this book? What did you think of it? Did it improve your life in some quantifiable way? Did your editing actually get any better as a result? -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There are other defining processes

The opening definition states, “enables consciousness, perception, thinking, and judgement.” There are other defining processes that make the mind what it is. I'm not saying that the lead section should now be altered to account for them, but they should at least be mentioned here on the talk page. The major ones that are missing are memory, emotion and navigation (in the broader sense, including speech). If you acquaint yourself with basic neurophysiology and derive a list of brain functions from a list of all the regions of the human brain, you'll wind up with a pretty interesting list, as I have about a year ago. This qualifies as original research, so it shouldn't enter the article, at least not in this manner, but it's a useful reference point. I'll probably post the list here sometime later. That will not be a problem, will it? EIN (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I hesitate to kick a dead discussion, but I agree with you: there are more qualities that could go in the lead sentence. Maybe some elements of a dictionary definition. EIN, when you "acquainted yourself" and compiled your list, did you read any neuroscience textbooks? If there's a text which lists some basic functions of the mind, we can include them and cite it. Also I've never heard the mind called "a complex" in literature, so I'm changing to "set". —wing gundam 11:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What I used for that particular venture was the List of regions in the human brain article, wherefrom I went on to inquire individually about the functions of each major brain region, relying for that purpose on Wikipedia articles, which do of course cite the kind of sources you are talking about. However, as previously mentioned, a synthesis of those sources would qualify as original research.

The interesting part is that if we build on the premise that all aspects of the mind are functions of the brain, it follows by inferrence that one can acquire a comprehensive idea of the mind by analyzing neurophysiology alone. That's a pretty good bargain, considering that it's just one, albeit the most complicated, organ that we're dealing with. EIN (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As promised, a comprehensive list of mental processes vis-a-vis brain functions

**Sigh** I should have gone to bed some three hours ago.

The opening definition states, “enables consciousness, perception, thinking, and judgement.” There are other defining processes that make the mind what it is. I'm not saying that the lead section should now be altered to account for them, but they should at least be mentioned here on the talk page. The major ones that are missing are memory, emotion and navigation (in the broader sense, including speech). If you acquaint yourself with basic neurophysiology and derive a list of brain functions from a list of all the regions of the human brain, you'll wind up with a pretty interesting list, as I have about a year ago. This qualifies as original research, so it shouldn't enter the article, at least not in this manner, but it's a useful reference point. I'll probably post the list here sometime later. That will not be a problem, will it? EIN (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

EIN (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind

Below is the deleted comment to the first paragraph of Mind#Philosophy_of_mind by an unknown editor Lova Falk talk 16:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This subsection has the potential to say so much, but as of October 2010 it says absolutely nothing about the nature of the mind. Instead, it talks about the nature of psychology. Perhaps a better approach would be to allow this subsection to have subsections of its own. Pull Freud and Jung out of the "see also" template, and give each his own paragraph or two. Then take unconscious mind to the Freud subsection, and take the empty template away. Furthermore, add sections about constructivism (Piaget), behaviourism (e.g., Watson and/versus Skinner), and cognitivism.

The Pali word "sathi"

The Pali word "sathi" that is used in this article is spelled "sati" in the Wikipedia entry dealing with Sati (reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(Buddhism)). The first 5 pages after Googling "sathi" does not return any results relevant to Buddhism. Keeping the spelling consistent will make the finding of similar entries that much easier for the reader and provides a feeling of consistency that just makes everything a little more credible. WinWessels (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done If you know about Buddhism and the mind, please re-write that section. Richard-of-Earth (talk)

Psyche

I notice that the term psyche is only used once in this article, and its use is under the subject heading of pseudoscience. I'm not sure this appropriately contextualizes the term psyche as a possible synonym for "the mind". My feeling is that the article would benefit from some minor discussion of this point. That is, I would like to see the nature of the term "psyche" clarified with respect to the term "mind". Are they actually synonyms? Are there subtle connotations? For example, is psyche intended only to be used as a scientific model?

To put the point a little more bluntly--why not merge this article with the one on psyche? It seems like the article must distinguish these terms if these are in fact conceptually distinct, and not worthy of a merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Psyche is a disambiguation page, Psyche (psychology) is an article on the mind, but only psychologists and philosophers use "psyche", every one else uses "mind". The Psyche article covers how the word is used in particular disciplines. This article is broader. I do not see a reason to merge. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good observations. My focus was on Psyche (psychology). I feel my point still stands, however, as the article here doesn't make these distinctions with respect to psyche, and seems to relegate it by this omission to pseudoscience. Is there a sensible way to integrate this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well in this article under the section "Scientific study" and its sub-section "Psychology" we could add a see also link or add it to the "See also" section at the bottom. We could also change the line in Parapsychology from "The term is based on the Greek para (beside/beyond), psyche (soul/mind), and logos (account/explanation) and . . ." to "The term is based on the Greek para (beside/beyond) and psychology and . . ." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Energy and Matter

This article needs help. The Mind = Energy, The Brain = Matter. The kind of energy in the mind is Thought Energy. The kind of matter in the brain is Grey Matter. Why are we talking about philosophers from thousands of years ago? What did they know about energy? This article is way off track. What is the Mind? It is visualization. What is the Brain? It is neurons. Talk about not understanding your own mind :). This article should almost be deleted, it is so poorly thought out :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.30.193 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, mind does not equal energy nor does it use it. The brain consists of matter/energy (E=Mc2). Matter and Energy are different ways of looking at the same thing.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 13:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515215340/http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Sankhya/id/23117 to http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Sankhya/id/23117

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

History of mental faculties schemes

I'd like to suggest that somebody write on the history of the main schemes of mental faculties / divisions of the mind (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, St. Paul, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Kant, Freud). Some sources can be found on: Trichotomy (philosophy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.19.96.193 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824232035/http://parapsych.org/glossary_l_r.html to http://parapsych.org/glossary_l_r.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713121559/http://www.liv.ac.uk/evolpsyc/Evol_Anthrop_6.pdfThe to http://www.liv.ac.uk/evolpsyc/Evol_Anthrop_6.pdfThe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Beyond Presuming the Brain to be the Center

Traditional Chinese medicine as the ancients understand that the heart is a significant core of mind as science is beginning to understand by potential. The region generalized as "the gut" also is said to be a center to relate for concentration of mental energy from the root. The head where the brain is merely has the capacity to observe, one mental base of reference holistically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.66.29 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond the typical materialist assumption

This article is just full of typical anglo analytic materialism and It does not mention idealism in full detail in any meaningful way, not even mentioning Kant that the trascendental ego/soul/mind is not something like an empiric object (which is in space and time) and therefore impossible to apply our intellectual categories, or Eeven Berkeley, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, FH Bradley, Timothy Sprigge

cosmogonic mindocracy = (in some cases its different because cosmogony is something specific and metaphysics is wider) metaphysical mindocracy

Metaphysical and cosmogonic mindocracy = "dominance of the mind" is a form of creationism based on weak personhood (see: gradient theory of personhood). A mind (thinking organ; here not a material and biological brain) doesn't have to meet all the criteria of personhood (see: Mary Anne Warren). (The "cosmogonic mindocracy" = "thought itself being the first cause of everything" is not a form of emanationism [conscious control of cosmogony isn't an emanation; but philosophers have different standards from non-philosophers.] We have to create a page on cosmogonic mindocracy = metaphysical mindocracy = the claim that thought preexisted, created and defines everything being the only true nature. We have to create that page because its the "weakest form of metaphysical personocracy" (according to cosmogonic mindocracy the first reality isn't a person, but at least one criterion of personhood [thinking ability, but abstract] is met [Mary Anne Warren's criteria of personhood aren't analytical enough; we need to introduce ideas from neuroscientists who are also philosophers.]) We need to mention the full spectrum of cosmogonies. Some might claim: "metaphysical mindocracy is rare. Why bother to mention it?". But exactly because it is a very subtle idea (the weakest possible form of metaphysical personocracy [very few or only one criterion of personhood is met]), it helps define borderline ideas in metaphysics. (unsigned edit by 2a02:2149:8439:4600:40d2:8f7f:20bf:767)

You can give it a try yourself but before you get started, make sure that the topic meets notability guidelines to merit its own article. The article itself should be well-sourced. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Mental Health

The mental health section in this text is lacking a lot of factual research. There are a couple of opinions in this section that are not supported by any information. There needs to be some viable sources added.98.97.35.16 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)98.97.35.16 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Can't we find a better intro?

The mind is "that which thinks?" Isn't that a tautology? 2A01:E11:17:40B0:E1D6:1CF4:350F:D7AC (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence states: The mind (adjective form: mental) is that which thinks, imagines, remembers, wills, and senses, or is the set of faculties responsible for such phenomena. I don't think this falls under the definition of "tautology". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)