Talk:Mind

Changes to the article
As part of the Core Contest, I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. There is still a lot to do since many paragraphs and several sections lack sources and the article has various maintenance tags (5x More citations needed, 1x need quotation to verify, 2x citation needed). The article has some WP:DUEWEIGHT issues, like having 7 paragraphs on Buddhism while a single paragraph is used to cover all the remaining religions together. This also applies to the focus on pseudoscience, like the lead image from phrenology and a main section on parapsychology.

Another problem to address is overlaps where different sections restate the same ideas, such as the sections "Relation to the brain" and "Relation to the body". The term "mental faculties" was common in early psychology but not today and our corresponding subsection not only lacks sources but does not mention various key topics, like perception, emotion, motivation, learning, and attention. The more recent idea of modularity and mental modules should also be discussed rather than just providing a wikilink. We currently have a section on the evolution of mind in the course of history but the article does not discuss how the mind of individuals develops from childhood to old age. The fields studying the mind are discussed but there is little on the great variety of research methodologies employed. Since different fields have different methods, this could be included in the section "Scientific study" while renaming it to "Fields and methods of inquiry". It will be a challenge to include these ideas without increasing the article's length too much so some existing sections may need to be summarized to keep the article concise.

Various smaller adjustments are needed but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. I still have to do some research to work out the details. After that, I would start implementing them one at a time but it will probably take a while to address all the points. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I will say that in my opinion, the lead image would need to be replaced for any GA or FA. We should not put that much emphasis on a discredited theory. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the phrenology image has to go, I removed it. I'm not sure that there is a good representative depiction of the mind as an alternative. I had a look at and  but they are also far from ideal. Lead images are not required so having no image may be better than having a problematic or non-representative image. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Order of links in the lede
Below is why I reverted the switching of links in the lede.

Thought is the most fundamental property of the mind. We know the mind thinks, although perception can be an illusion (see cogito ergo sum). Besides, “thinks” first was the stable version and the editor who switched the links didn’t provide a reason. I suspect the sole reason was the philosophy effect, which is not a valid reason. Closetside (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that thinking should come first, mainly because it is the psychological process most typically associated with mind. If we had to reduce the list to a single item, it would probably be thinking, not perceiving. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Turing Test
“For other aspects of mind, it is more controversial whether computers can, in principle, implement them, such as desires, feelings, consciousness, and free will.” Turing’s personal motivation for developing such a criteria would provide valuable context to the problem. 2600:1700:77A1:6170:A529:1D45:8CE7:4B45 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)