Wikipedia:Peer review/Philosophy of mind

philosophy of mind
Seriously, I think this meets most, if not all, the criteria for an FA candidate. Any suggestions for possible improvement or things to avoid would be appreciated, however. --Lacatosias 11:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Overall it looks quite good from my quick glance. I am not sure about the tone it has been written in, it reads in places more like a popular philosophy book than a reference book; the section on The Mind-Body Problem in particular reads like the foreword of such a book. (I appreciate that it has been written so as to understandable to non-philosphers such as myself). The intro needs to be expanded to be a summary of the whole article, not a preamble that leads into the first chapter. But these are problems of presentation and otherwise looks hella comprehensive and referenced. It probably needs just a couple of pairs of eyes, and I'll give it a more detailed look very soon and leave my thoughts here. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 09:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a moment (edit conflict).Here was my response to the first comment:
 * I appreciate the comments. I think you're right about the intro: I'm not used to writing summary-style intros but habituated to brief lead-off style essays and such. I'll try to adress that ASAP. As to tone, I'm not sure I really want to address that for fear of all-too-easily going to the other extreme.--Lacatosias 14:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The tone is not nearly so bad in the rest of the article that I have read, to be fair, but you really need to tighten up that Mind-Body Problem introduction. I sympathise with why you don't want to go to far the other way. I'll try and help some. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 1) mind-body problem intro needs to be de-popularized. Still needs to be addressed.

2) Intro has been expanded and I have attempted to make it as close to a full summary of the article as possible without blowing it up out of proportion. Take a look at this new version.

Okay, time for some more thoughts. These may not need to be answered, they are just questions that arose in my mind when I read the article.
 * 1) Arguments for dualism - what do philosophers make of the first argument? Is it in favour?


 * This has been taken care of, I believe.


 * 1) Interaction dualism - You probably shouldn't write it is clear that my mental states (desires, beliefs, etc.)  or Descartes' argument obviously depends on the crucial premise that what I believe to be "clear and distinct" ideas in my mind are necessarily true., as in avoid self referencing. Unless, of course, this is conventional in philosophy. But you should certainly avoid self referincing in the context of the article as much as possible. see Manual_of_Style


 * taken care of.


 * 1) Interaction dualism - This idea is rejected by most modern philosophers. Why?


 * Taken care of, I believe: Answer now provided in artcile.


 * 1) Behaviorism - Why is this a monism rather than a dualism?


 * taken care of, I beleive.

I'll read some more later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These are some interesting question. The answer to number 1 is that this is definitely a consideration (not really an argument) in favor of dualism. Like most arguments (even relatively sophisticated ones), it is overwhelmingly rejected by modern philosphers. Are you suggesting it is vague or not very interstng as an argument. If that is the case, I can easily replace it with much more sophisticated arguments for dualism that I know of. Number 2 on self-referencing: yes, indeed, this is very common in philosophy (even philosophical encylcopedias) but it can easily be eliminated and is not neccesary to the article.With reagrd to the third point; this was actually a bit of careleness. I intended to write up a response to that argument, but then backed-off since I though it would cause an long cycle of replies and countereplies (the hard part of wiriting about philosphy arguments knowing where to stop becasue there are no final answers as in science or math). But either the question obsvervation should be removed or an explnation given. Behavorism is physicalistic monism because it claims that there simply are no mental states such as beliefs, desires (no inner mental life at all, therefore no mind) but just dispositons (or conditioned reflexes) to behave in certain ways. This might need claficiation. Thanks for the input.--Lacatosias 15:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * -1 it doesn't need to be removed, in fact as a position that the avarage reader would identify with I'd argue that it deserves a mention. Just clarify it is asupporting argument rather than a strong position. 2: I'd suggest looking at how they deal with it in other philosophy Featured Articles, free will, Omnipotence paradox and other wikipedia articles. (Oh, and the hard part of wiriting about philosphy arguments knowing where to stop becasue there are no final answers as in science or math yeah, it isn't actually that different from biology, except that for every rule in biology there is an exception.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've actually tackled the third point first and provided some powerful reasons that most philosophers reject the idea of "clear and disticnt ideas" in modern times. I hope that is satisfactory. The first two points will be dealt with right away: not a problem.--Lacatosias 15:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright folks, don't just criticize and run please. This is peer-review not FAC. How shall we get this thing up to FA status?? --Lacatosias 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Easy, tiger. The Peer Review process takes a week, and we all work to different schedules. However a quick glance at the intro - I don't think you are quite there yet. You should set it up so that the first paragraph describes the problem and the next two talks about the various solutions and philosophies. I should have more time to look at this tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The new intro is on the right track. I'll give it, and the rest of te article, a good look at tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Weighing in at about 90K??! and four paragraphs?? How the devil is it possible to explain the philosophy of mind in three paragraphs anyway. Am I supposed to be Steven Jay Gould or something?? Good heavens!! The FA German version has a two-sentence intro!!--Lacatosias 18:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do sympathise, really. I am curently trying to get albatross through FAC and, well, there are gaps in what I have written that make me weap. I will try and help you, with my limited philosophical experience. Just remember that in the intro you can make sweepuing general statements that you don't have to back up in any way (as long as they are covered in the article.). Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My questions on dualism and Interaction dualism have been clarified. Good work. I'll do some more reviewing tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I very much appreciate your taking your time to follow up on your criticims of the article and not just leave a brief comment and run, as happened on my only previous occasion of Peer Review concerning my article on Jerry Fodor. "It's to long, break it up". Done. "It's too technical". Tried to clarify. No response for a month. Archived. Period. Anyway, you have been very helpful. The points you identified were indeed significant deficiencies. The intro, for example, is now much closer to what the standards require. I will look it over again and see what's missing or unclear.--Lacatosias 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, ploughing on through the article. Identity theory - I think I understand how token identity theory overcomes the challanges faced by identity theory that were mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, but it could possibly be a little clearer.
 * Functionalism - Putnam and Fodor saw mental states in terms of an empirical computational theory of the mind - as a non-philosopher I have no idea what empirical computational theory of the mind means, please link the somewhere phrase to somewhere relevant or explain briefly.
 * I have some more questions but I need to read it again to make sure I ask them right. Sabine's Sunbird talk 13:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. is this server working now?? I didn't link to computational theory of the mind because it's another one of the thousands of stubs that I'll probably end up having to expand myself. This could be a chllenge. I may have to simply delete the expression or create a more direct linkg to the functionalism article there. It's fairly well-explained in that piece. Or perhaps copy an pate a section out of functionalism. Ok, I'll see what's the best approach. It shouldn't be a problem to revise the identity theory just a bit to emphasize the distintion.--Lacatosias 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've linked to the stub article computational theory of mind, but it's almost useless. As usual, I'll have to expand to a few paragraphs, at least, myself. This would save space in this article.--Lacatosias 16:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The stub is fine, it tells you what it is without overburdening you with details. Possibly a gross oversimplification, but at a fundamental level I know what it is now. Anyway, I have pretty much reached near the end of the article. I need some time to try and digest it. My only concern, apart from a few small niggles like I have already brought up, is the way the whole thing flows, and I need to think about how and if that can be addressed, given the nature of the subject. I think I need to read it again, so bear with me, this is very different to teh usual stuff I edit. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)