Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy of mind

Philosophy of mind[edit]

I think this article is the most comprehesive, factually accurate, throughly documented, non-technically written overview of the philosophy of mind that you will find anywhere. Now go ahead and rip it to shreds!!--Lacatosias 11:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment wow a slug fest this should be interesting to watch, seriously its a good article obvious potential for FAC, first read is a little difficult(heavy) yet I understood whats was being said. I do question as to why Duelism has such a large section when it refers to a main article. Plently of referrences though their frequency increases towards the end of the article. I'll be back for another read before I climb off the fence Gnangarra 11:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Short and honest answer about dualism: I was trying to keep the structure of the article as faithful as possible to the German featured article version. Since I have no previous experience with Featured Articles on Wikipedia (have only been doing this for three months or so), I looked over the German version and decided there must have been something right about this particular organization or it would not have been accepted as an FA (which is something that only .001% of articles acheive??). In any case, this was my basic reasoning. Later on, someone added the main article links (this is not included in the German version) and I didn't want to offend by taking them out. Originally, there were just links in the body of the text to dualism or other technical terms and concepts.--Lacatosias 11:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Back I had time to read again and digest definately worthy of FA. Removing the main article link and placing a link within, the text flows and doesnt detract from the article.Gnangarra 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a very interesting article, and obviously a highly abstract and technical one. That presents some reviewing challenges. To start with, I think the WP:LEAD runs long and is not truly an overview of the article. I think I would amend this by removing the third para ("within dualism itself...") which may be more detail than is necessary, and replace with details of the first paras about "Dualist solutions" and "Monist solutions." This will give the general reader some overview - (1) what philosophy of mind is, (2) what types of answers there are to it, (3) what the history of these views is. Kaisershatner 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the key areas that I tried to address in Peer Review. To start out with I had only one paragraph there, stating the nature of the questions (or something like that). It's not easy to summarize philosphy of mind in three paragraphs!! I will try to address your suggestion. Also note that in PR, I was advised that the artcile was too "popular" in style and read too much like a magazine article.--Lacatosias 15:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I qualified that by saying the Mind-body problem was to 'popular' - I changed my mind about the rest of the article.Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need some clarification on this question of technicality. I've even added some illustrative diagrams to clarify several important concepts now. What specifically is still too technical about this article, in your opinion??--Lacatosias 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no piling on. One thing at a time here. I've changed the third paragraph in the lead. Is this more along the lines of what Kaisershatner is suggesting? --Lacatosias 15:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better. See my further changes, but it's getting there. I will have further comments when I get a sec. Kaisershatner 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm basically happy with the intro, and I hope I haven't messed up the definitions. And my head hurts, or at least I think my head hurts. My brain hurts? Kaisershatner 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just needed to clarify again that while Spinoza was the first monist, his position was the very odd one called neutral monism. It is the latter that Bretrnd Russel breifly adopted and is not not very popular in modern times. Monism (physicalistic monism) is the dominant position. I just cut out the reference to Russell and left is as something like "monism originated with Spinoza". So as long as its clear to readers that Spinoza was a NEUTRAL monist, as is indicated later in the article, I think it works alright.--Lacatosias 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW.. the answer to your question, as any neurologist will tell you, is that since the brain doesn't have pain receptors, it's the nerves in your skull, skin or other tissues that hurt!! (;--Lacatosias 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I read this entire article, and all I can say is "wow." It is extremely well written, and even though the tone wanders in some places, especially towards the beginning, this article is excellent. Once a reader is familiar with the terminology used in this article, I think they would find it most enlightening. RyanG e rbil10 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Haven 't finished reading yet, but looks good. I am not that familiar with the subject matter, but does this article cover all aspects of philosophy, are there any other schools of though that we missed? BTW, the lead mentions categories of thought, but I think it should be rephrased to "schools" of thought. Temporary account 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**Response: All aspects of philosophy? Of course not. Perhaps you meant all the schools and traditions in the philosophy of mind? If so, the response is that it is undountedly very close. I could perhaps add mention of phenomenalism (a version of idealism sustained by the Bertrand Russel and some positivists at the beginning of the 20th century) and panpsychism. The first is not really a thesis about the philosophy of mind in particular though and the second is just another, more modern word for idealism (the idea that all that really exists is the mental and everything else is illusion). Those are the only things that I can think of that may be missed by some nitpicking terminologist. I agree with your second point and will change it to traditions. This is somewhere beteen schools (too narrow) and categores (perhaps too vague). --Lacatosias 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Lacatosias 08:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The writing could be improved in sections, however, I am impressed. Good job. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is indeed a great article, bound to be one of the very best and most comprehensive articles on philosophy here at Wikipedia. I think it deserves to be featured, although it can be further expanded, especially the Philosophy of mind in the continental tradition section. I also think that there should be something there about Indian philosophy of mind, Akan philosophical psychology, and mentions to other traditions. Nevertheless, superb work!
Support.Abstain. Will support if more inline citations are added. Currently there are entire sections without one, starting with the lead and going through 'Arguments for dualism', 'Behaviorism', 'Psychology' (shouldn't this link to main?) and 'The self'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- **Ok. Good observation. I think that can be addressed easily enough.--Lacatosias 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. --Lacatosias 10:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great job, the inline cits have doubled since the beginning. I still see a few places they can be added, but even so the article is much better referenced than most of our current FA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Unfortuately, there are a large number of poorly written philosophy articles in WP. This rises quite highly above the mediocrity. Excellent. --DanielNuyu 03:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - excellent article. Gandalf61 15:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support-This is a very well-written and informative article that as far as I can tell meets all requirements. --Kahlfin 20:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]