Talk:Mind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration. |
| B | Mind has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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'.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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/
[edit] 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)
Categories: Psychology articles with comments | B-Class psychology articles | Top-importance psychology articles | B-Class core topic articles | Wikipedia Version 0.5 | Wikipedia CD Selection-0.5 | Wikipedia Release Version | B-Class Version 0.5 articles | Philosophy and religion Version 0.5 articles | B-Class Version 0.7 articles | Philosophy and religion Version 0.7 articles
