Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:23, 11 April 2014

Philosophy: Mind Redirect‑class Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of mind

Background

This article began as Enaction (philosophy) but that title has proven to be too restrictive, and most of this material was deleted by Snowded as inappropriate to a philosophy article. The title Extended cognition is not restricted to philosophy, but includes biology and psychology as well.

I have nominated the article Enaction (philosophy) for deletion. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Tags

The discussion on correct title and sources is here. This article seems to have been created to avoid engagement with that discussion. Rather than duplicate it I suggest we complete on the Enaction article. ----Snowded 04:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This article was created to treat a subject wider in scope than Enaction (philosophy), and contains material Snowded decided did not belong in that article. If Snowded wishes to discuss his actions in reverting that material here as well, he need to supply some kind of argument, and not simply revert material without comment. Brews ohare (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not clear that you have chosen the right subject. Even if you have, of your subsections only Scaffolding really belongs and that needs to be set in context. The other three sections are all based on your conclusions as to their relevance - original research and the reasons for rejection are the same as when you tried it before, ----Snowded 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Snowded, we have on one hand your unsupported assertion, and on the other a fully sourced and explained article found here. Brews ohare (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Individual discussion of subsections

There are a number of topics raised in the original article that need to be explored individually. The article does a better job than the following summaries, but the aim below is to provide the gist of the subtopics for those not interested enough to read the article itself. This link couples to the original article, rather than to the emasculated stub left here after Snowded decimated it.

Social constructivism

The basic idea behind extended cognition is that cognition is a consequence of interaction with the individual's environment and the reshaping of that environment in the process of understanding it. Of course, the individual can be so engaged on an individual basis, but the more important kind of interaction is cultural. For an introduction, see the beginning remarks in the article social constructivism. A famous contributor to cognitive psychology was Lev Vygotsky who held that culture is the prime determinant of cognitive development. Gergen and Guzzini and others are cited to illustrate this subtopic.

Non-reductive naturalism

Extended cognition takes the view that one cannot contain mental processes within the brain or the skin, and they are not reducible to 'brain circuitry'. Some adopt the notion of emergence to suggest that when the complicated conglomeration constituting mind with its extension beyond the body is fully understood, new phenomena as yet unrecognized will be found. Ratner and Rohde and Potter are cited to represent this aspect.

Internalism and externalism

The essence of extended cognition being to blur the classic boundary dividing the self from the environment, the subject-object problem is a central philosophical issue although, of course, the subject goes beyond philosophy. Perhaps a simpler approach to this subject is the notion of internalism and externalism, as explained by the two cited review articles on this subject.

Scaffolding

Scaffolding is a term used so broadly that some complain it is losing all meaning. It is much used in the field of education to describe work like that of Jean Piaget that finds how skills build one upon another. It has since been applied by others like Andy Clark to describe more general dependencies of mental states upon peripheral aids, like cell phones and the web. This section cites the psychologists Williams et al., Andy Clark, Griffiths and Stotz among others to illustrate this subtopic.

Summary

Each of these sections can be enlarged and improved, of course, but Snowded believes them all to be irrelevant to the subject of extended cognition, for reasons not yet exposed to public view. The original article should be restored, and if more complete treatment of these subtopics is felt necessary, that should be undertaken.

What should not happen is for Snowded to sweep the whole thing under the rug on pretext, without argument or concrete examination of text and sources. Instead, each subtopic should be discussed and, if needed, rewritten and better sourced to make a stronger presentation. Brews ohare (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Article subject and range: a proposal

At the moment we have an article on Extended Cognition which is one of the four Es referenced in the lede. The material on Scaffolding (to take one example) would normally be considered part of Embedded Cognition. So to include that (and other material) we need a different title which would then allow us to organise the content under various sections: Embodied (extra neural), Embedded (scaffolding), Enacted (co-evolves with reality) and finally extended.

If we assume this is about Philosophy (which I think makes it a manageable article) then the generic phrase seems to be Post-Cartesian. Michael Wheeler for example (Reconstructing the Cognitive World 1992) uses Heidegger as a foundation for this with multiple references to the various Es and there are lots of others. In general the sources I am aware of are generally talking about consciousness so that might be the qualifier. So to start the ball rolling how about renaming this Post-Cartesian theories of consciousness? With that name change (or something similar I am open) we can include more material rather than restrict ourselves to Extended.

Given the current state of thinking here it may be a year or so before the body of material increases to the point where we will need specialised articles on each of the Es. I have not simply made this change as I think it is critical that we reach agreement on the talk page, then start to build the article. ----Snowded 08:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A thoughtful summary. I don't see a problem in having a stub on each of the E's. However, it seems that a general article that can outline the Es and treat them all would be useful, and might avoid that. We already have a big article on Embodied cognition. The article on Situated cognition seems to be a ringer for Enacted cognition and might be adaptable to deal with what is in Enaction (philosophy). The article on Cognition seems a bit too general in scope to take on the 4 E's.

The subject goes beyond philosophy, although philosophy is a big part of it. The articles on Cognitive science and Enactivism (psychology), and to a lesser degree Cognitive psychology, Neuropsychology and so forth, cover some of the science aspects, but the science will enter into the philosophical discussion too, and it will be a problem to keep straight which hat is on.

Your suggestion "post-Cartesian theories of consciousness" with a focus entirely on philosophy might become a straight-jacket. But why not write a proposed contribution with sources and see where it goes? Brews ohare (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Situated cognition has an intro that sounds like enaction, but it is really about educational methods. Brews ohare (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As for scope, I checked out Wheeler. He identifies the larger topic as 'mind and cognition'. His first chapter "Setting the scene" brings into the subject things like artificial intelligence, real-time sensorimotor control, and other topics outside philosophy. He talks about 'opening up the cognitive umbrella' to include 'fluid and flexible responses to incoming stimuli', which sound like psychology to me. He brings up "knowing that" as distinct from "knowing how" and suggests a "marriage between philosophy and science". Brews ohare (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to agree subject and range here Brews and to prevent coatrack articles. I think this is going to have to wait until we have some agreement on the way forward over all your edits, or the engagement of other editors. Without an agreement on the use of primary sources we are just going to repeat the same old arguments in different contexts ----Snowded 09:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Handling talk page discussion and edits

I want to make several proposals to make the whole process of working collaboratively easier. My goal is to use this article to see if progress is possible.

1. Discussions on the talk page should use diffs to reference material on the article itself rather than replicating all of the material here. Editors are more than capable of using the diff to understand what is being talked about and it would make navigation easier and less intimidating.
2. If agreement is not reached after 1/2 iterations between two editors the discussion ceases unless other editors engage
3. We agree a strict s, but just on content.
4. References are embedded in the text while it is being agreed, once stable it is moved into the format preferred by Brews. Again this makes it a lot easier for other editors to engage and follow changes and is a compromise offer.

Thoughts? ----Snowded 09:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Snowded: Although the prospect of fruitful collaboration with you appeals to me, I find your guidelines stack the deck. They do attempt to address some problem areas, though, so I'd like to discuss your points as part of an evolution toward agreement.

1. Diffs are fine when a limited point is being made, but where multiple issues arise within an edit or reversion, a diff doesn't cover the situation. So I'd take this to be a recommendation useful when it works.

2. Discussion is always optional, and either of us can opt out at any time. A precise limit of 1 or 2 responses seems artificial, and given the low bandwidth of Talk page communications, probably insufficient to get on the same page.

3. I have no problem discussing content and avoiding personalities. I'd include in that references to my 'style' of editing, my 'failures' to communicate, and other abstract characterizations unrelated to the subject at hand.

4. Referencing is a matter of personal preference and I see no need for this restriction. You can use <ref>...</ref> approach in making your edits if you wish - it is entirely compatible with the list-defined reference system.

A major question not in your points is how we are to deal with your adamant stand against considering individual sources and reporting upon their content. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Status of Snowded's 4 points.

1. There appears to be conditional acceptance by Brews ohare, "useful when it works".

3. Brews ohare accepts that both he and Snowded should observe this point. Here it is with a couple minor changes (added "to" and missing bracket for wikilink).

We agree to a strict policy of not commenting on other editors, but just on content.

(If I misunderstood, please let me know.)

Re point 2, Brews ohare comment "Discussion is always optional, and either of us can opt out at any time." — At the end of a comment, Snowded or Brews ohare could make a statement like, "I'll let you have the last word for now if you like, and wait for another editor to join this discussion because I don't think it's productive for us to continue this discussion alone." One thing it may do is relieve the editor who pauses or ends the two-way discussion from feeling obligated to respond to any questions that may be in the other editor's next comment. Also, whether this approach is accepted may depend on how much the temporary last word is valued by each editor. Comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Re point 4 — I didn't understand what it means to embed references in the text.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, to deal with the points.

Firstly references in text look like this rather than being listed at the end of the article. That means that if you delete or amend text it is easy to pick up the reference at the same time. Brew's method means you have to (i) change the text and then (ii) open a second window and go through deleting the detail of each reference that is showing an error message This takes time and to be honest tempts you to simply do a mass revert rather than trying to change the text. Once the article is stable Brew's method is without a question the best. The style Brews is adopting makes it difficult for other editors to work collaboratively.

Secondly trying to close a discussion with any statement like 'lets wait for other editors to engage' has historically resulted in abuse from Brews. After the above post he repeating that behaviour on the ANI case, with language that was at best aggressive, at worst insulting. I think it is important for Brews to acknowledge when enough is enough and he has to wait for other editors to engage. Without some acknowledgement I have little confidence that we will see change.

Thirdly, I think Brews is saying no to point one, but I'm prepared to AGF and maybe change it to say that if that is done it is legitimate for another editor to enclose the material in a "hat" to make the page easier to read. When I have done that in the past he has reverted.

Overall Brews response to Pfhorest as well as myself at the ANI page does not give me much confidence. Also below and at ANI and elsewhere he is simply refusing to listen to wikipedia policy on the use or primary resources. At ANI I thought Pfhorest explained the reasons well but they were rejected by Brews a short time ago. I hope I am wrong, anything you can do to help would be appreciated. ----Snowded 23:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Secondly— From his comments here, it looks like he would accept your pausing the discussion. He wrote, "Discussion is always optional, and either of us can opt out at any time." Also, by accepting point 3, that should eliminate the other potential problems you mentioned regarding pausing the discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well its simple enough for him to confirm your understanding. ----Snowded 00:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As often is the case, Bob is correct in his assessments. Brews ohare (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, so if he is correct is there anything you plan to do differently in the future? The question of primary sources for example has been debated with myself, Machine Elf and Pfhorest several times and with other editors on Philosophy articles as well. Bot nothing has changed in terms of the way you edit articles. Further you continue to argue the same position every time you start on a new article and most recently at ANI. Even if you disagree, are you prepared to abide by community consensus on this? ----Snowded 08:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering Snowded's and Brews ohare's comments regarding point 2, I have made an attempt at revising it.

2. If there is a discussion between only the two editors and one of the editors does not think that it is moving towards agreement, the editor may inform the other and cease his comments without penalty until another editor engages.

Would this version be acceptable? Feel free to offer an alternative. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK with me assuming we have a common interpretation of 3, it might be useful to add to "without penalty", "or adverse comment" ----Snowded 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

Todate Brews every other engaged editor has rejected your use of primary sources, it's not just me. So the major issue is to resolve the question of WP:OR where your appeals to policy forums have also fallen on deaf ears. My proposals on 1&4 were to make it easer for other editors to be involved by (i) reducing the volume of text on the talk page and (ii) allowing other editors to change the text without having to open two screens and/or go through multiple edits to remove red text. It's your call but if you are not prepared to move on these items then we will not make progress. ----Snowded 16:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: The topic of primary sources is more interesting and more important than our bickering. And I have to admit to reaching a more complicated view of the matter than before our disputes. To put things in a less black and white light, I'd say the role of primary sources depends upon how established a topic is. And even a subject millennia old, like free will might have some modern developments in flux.

For some established subjects, say expounding about Newton's laws, it is pretty straightforward to pick out a few eloquent sources and quote what they have to say. A format on this topic might proceed with a few quotes selected for their lucidity and an overall structure that is shared by many sources on the subject. But I think that is a very straightforward approach. It looks like what I usually try to do.

But then we can look at a much more fluid situation like the topic here. A very brief look at the literature shows it comes from all directions: cognitive science, philosophy, psychology, child development, man-machine interface design, a huge number of dimensions. One would love to find it all put together in some grand overview, but there is nothing like that available. WP itself has dozens of pertinent articles that overlap but don't encompass each other.

So how should WP approach such matters?

One approach, which you seem to favor, is to say the topic has not gelled so WP should simply avoid it until it does gel and overviews are available. That approach has the drawback that many interesting topics, enaction being one, could not be discussed on WP for decades.

Another approach is to try to capture the situation as it is at the moment, with the expectation that WP can update its articles as things move along. That choice requires the use of primary sources, there being little else. Their use in an article is not an endorsement, just a statement of what the source says. Some sources may be missed. Some may be presented more cogently than others. The WP approach allows editors to rephrase, to add other sources, and to update published views (and overviews) as they arise.

This approach to topics in flux does not fit with the traditional view of an encyclopedia as a repository for received wisdom, but then, that view is a relic at this point.

Any comments? Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No new comments Brews. You argued the same at the appropriate policy forum and your approach was rejected. Every other experienced editor has told you that WP policy does not allow the approach you are taking. Its why you have been unable to get new material into articles and until you are prepared to see the matter differently we are going to be stuck in the same old cycle. ----Snowded 23:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Your approach to this discussion is to say "Brews, no-one agrees with you, so shut up!" That is not a discussion, and the premise is an incorrect summary of what others say. As for getting new material into articles, I have actually succeeded in introducing scores of new articles on a variety of subjects, and have introduced major changes on about the same number along with dozens of diagrams. Your argument is not fact-based and basically is just a squelch - you're saying my opinions are worthless and below your notice. You possibly might notice that your assessment has ignored entirely the issues raised, and is based entirely on your assessment of myself instead. Well, what can I say: you have your opinion and a closed mind. Brews ohare (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, let me qualify, since you started to edit Philosophy articles you have failed to make any significant changes and the arguments you raise above about the use of primary sources have been rejected on article talk space and policy forum pages every time you have raised them. If that is not the case, please provide the diffs to contradict me. ----Snowded 07:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many, and I can't remember them all. But here are a few.

• Subject-object problem: Beginning with this edit I made massive revisions in this article over a period of months ending about here when you showed up to begin decimation. The Talk history then shows I attempted to reason with you about your unsupported reversions of parts of this material, and although the article is weaker as a result of your actions, it remains largely intact.
• Conceptualization (information science). I started this page and then you showed up eventually settling upon nonsensical arguments about the figure in this article being OR that were eventually overridden by Cunard.
• Analytic-synthetic distinction. Beginning here I made substantial additions to this article, ending with this version. For reasons unknown, you did not appear on the scene.
• Holphrastic indeterminacy. I started this page which remains pretty much as I left it despite your best efforts to truncate it and have it deleted.
• Indeterminacy of translation. Substantial additions were made to this article in a constant struggle with you over 'third party sourcing' and other inventions of yours about WP policy. You actually made a concrete contribution to this article yourself.
• Meta-ontology. I contributed to a rather good version of this article which you succeeded in making into a stub.
• Ontological commitment. I began a series of additions to this article in a running battle with you over your aesthetics about article construction. Many of these changes survived your repeated reversions.
• Epistemological determinism. Expanded this article from a stub beginning here No controversy and no Snowded, and article remains as I left it.
• Ontological pluralism. Started this page and later moved it to a subsection Pluralism (philosophy)#Ontological pluralism in Pluralism. The revision history again shows Snowded's unhelpful proclivity for unsupported reversion.
• Pluralism (philosophy). In addition to adding the subsection originally contributed as Ontological pluralism, beginning with this edit a great many changes to this article were made that have survived a constant effort by Snowded to revert them all.
• Quantifier variance. I started this page which has survived Snowded's repeated reversions on the basis of unsubstantiated claims of OR and SYN and attempts at deletion.

I'm sure there are other examples. With a few exceptions, Snowded you have interrupted and reverted these efforts with claims you have never supported of OR and SYN and your own ideas of aesthetics regarding use of sources and quotations. These contributions of mine never have been shown to be inaccurate, the sources have never been questioned. Brews ohare (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The substantiation of my claim to have made useful additions to WP in the face of Snowded's determined and mostly solitary opposition has nothing to do with the issues raised about primary sources. This material has to do with Snowded's view that the issues are not worth discussing, but what is important is to smear and make me out as a nuisance to justify his actions on ANI. Brews ohare (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

1. book name etc

• Redirect-Class Philosophy pages
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• Redirect-Class philosophy of mind pages
• Low-importance philosophy of mind articles
• Philosophy of mind task force articles