Beyond Presuming the Brain to be the Center[edit]

Traditional Chinese medicine as the ancients understand that the heart is a significant core of mind as science is beginning to understand by potential. The region generalized as "the gut" also is said to be a center to relate for concentration of mental energy from the root. The head where the brain is merely has the capacity to observe, one mental base of reference holistically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.66.29 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Energy and Matter[edit]

This article needs help. The Mind = Energy, The Brain = Matter. The kind of energy in the mind is Thought Energy. The kind of matter in the brain is Grey Matter. Why are we talking about philosophers from thousands of years ago? What did they know about energy? This article is way off track. What is the Mind? It is visualization. What is the Brain? It is neurons. Talk about not understanding your own mind :). This article should almost be deleted, it is so poorly thought out :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.30.193 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, mind does not equal energy nor does it use it. The brain consists of matter/energy (E=Mc2). Matter and Energy are different ways of looking at the same thing.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 13:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of mental faculties schemes[edit]

I'd like to suggest that somebody write on the history of the main schemes of mental faculties / divisions of the mind (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, St. Paul, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Kant, Freud). Some sources can be found on: Trichotomy (philosophy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.19.96.193 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the typical materialist assumption[edit]

This article is just full of typical anglo analytic materialism and It does not mention idealism in full detail in any meaningful way, not even mentioning Kant that the trascendental ego/soul/mind is not something like an empiric object (which is in space and time) and therefore impossible to apply our intellectual categories, or Eeven Berkeley, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, FH Bradley, Timothy Sprigge

cosmogonic mindocracy = (in some cases its different because cosmogony is something specific and metaphysics is wider) metaphysical mindocracy[edit]

Metaphysical and cosmogonic mindocracy = "dominance of the mind" is a form of creationism based on weak personhood (see: gradient theory of personhood). A mind (thinking organ; here not a material and biological brain) doesn't have to meet all the criteria of personhood (see: Mary Anne Warren). (The "cosmogonic mindocracy" = "thought itself being the first cause of everything" is not a form of emanationism [conscious control of cosmogony isn't an emanation; but philosophers have different standards from non-philosophers.] We have to create a page on cosmogonic mindocracy = metaphysical mindocracy = the claim that thought preexisted, created and defines everything being the only true nature. We have to create that page because its the "weakest form of metaphysical personocracy" (according to cosmogonic mindocracy the first reality isn't a person, but at least one criterion of personhood [thinking ability, but abstract] is met [Mary Anne Warren's criteria of personhood aren't analytical enough; we need to introduce ideas from neuroscientists who are also philosophers.]) We need to mention the full spectrum of cosmogonies. Some might claim: "metaphysical mindocracy is rare. Why bother to mention it?". But exactly because it is a very subtle idea (the weakest possible form of metaphysical personocracy [very few or only one criterion of personhood is met]), it helps define borderline ideas in metaphysics. (unsigned edit by 2a02:2149:8439:4600:40d2:8f7f:20bf:767)

You can give it a try yourself but before you get started, make sure that the topic meets notability guidelines to merit its own article. The article itself should be well-sourced. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health[edit]

The mental health section in this text is lacking a lot of factual research. There are a couple of opinions in this section that are not supported by any information. There needs to be some viable sources added.98.97.35.16 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)98.97.35.16 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we find a better intro?[edit]

The mind is "that which thinks?" Isn't that a tautology? 2A01:E11:17:40B0:E1D6:1CF4:350F:D7AC (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence states: The mind (adjective form: mental) is that which thinks, imagines, remembers, wills, and senses, or is the set of faculties responsible for such phenomena. I don't think this falls under the definition of "tautology". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the article[edit]

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)[reply]

Categories