Talk:Mind#Sankhya.2C vedanta.2C yoga.2C etc...

{{ArticleHistory

|action1 = GAN

|action1date = 11:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

|action1link = Talk:Mind/GA1

|action1result = listed

|action1oldid = 1249531542

|action2 = PR

|action2date = 10 January 2025

|action2link = Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mind/archive1

|action2result = reviewed

|action2oldid = 1268561424

|action3 = FAC

|action3date = 2025-02-10

|action3link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mind/archive1

|action3result = promoted

|action3oldid = 1272592164

|dykdate = 1 November 2024

|dykentry = ... that diverse fields study the mind, including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy?

|dyknom = Template:Did you know nominations/Mind

|topic = Social sciences and society

|currentstatus = FA

|maindate=April 16, 2025

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class = FA|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=High |mind=yes |metaphysics=yes}}

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Mind/Archive index

|mask=Talk:Mind/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 0

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Mind/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Copied |from=Objecthood |from_oldid=1294563550 |to=Mind |date=June 25, 2001 |diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1294560052}}

Did you know nomination

Bad sentence in lead paragraph

The following sentence must be changed:

Its exact nature is debated, like whether mental phenomena are internal activities of transforming information or dispositions to engage in observable behavior.

The use of "like" as an adjective is non-encyclopedic in tone.

Beyond that, the compound predicate is ambiguous. Is part of the debate:

:(A) Whether mental phenomena are either

::(1) internal activities of transforming information, or

::(2) internal activities of transforming dispositions?

Or is part of the debate:

:(B) Whether mental phenomena are

::(1) internal activities of transforming information, or

::(2) dispositions to engage in observable behavior?

One might argue that the terminating dependent clause "to engage in observable behavior" makes the possibility (A) unlikely. I would agree with that idea. Yet that is not a sufficient justification for letting the sentence remain as it is now. Wikipedia does not function by challenging its readers to decipher ambiguity. I shall act boldly and reforge the sentence. I realize that this is not the context where rash decisions are to be tolerated, but the sentence cries out for an edit. If I err, then please forgive. —catsmoke ^talk 04:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Another editor has addressed the sentence, as I was writing my explanation. Here was my proposed replacement:

Facets of its nature—such as mental phenomena—are subject to debate: Are mental phenomena the internal activities of information transformation, or are they dispositions toward engaging in observable behaviors?

If there is uncertainty regarding an ideal replacement for the flawed original, please consider what I have here written. —catsmoke ^talk 04:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello {{u|Catsmoke}} and thanks for your suggestion. The current passage in our lead says "The mind plays a central role in most aspects of human life but its exact nature is disputed. Some characterizations focus on internal aspects, saying that the mind transforms information and is not directly accessible to outside observers. Others stress its relation to outward conduct, understanding mental phenomena as dispositions to engage in observable behavior." This sounds fine to me. As a sidenote to your suggestion: questions are usually not used in encyclopedic texts, see MOS:QUESTION. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

"THE MIND" in pop culture

It was featured in a early Simpsons episode, - maybe episode 1?

in which Homer Simpson is putting Bart Simpson to bed, and

Bart asks, Homer, ... what is the mind?

and Homer replies: What is mind?, - don't matter... what is matter, nevermind!

Good night, boy.

(Simpsons, Season 1, Episode 1?, not sure about other references). Sio8927 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:See WP:CULTURALREFS for the inclusion criteria for pop culture items. You would need a citations that mentions the item and discusses in some way its cultural significance. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would not be in favour of a trivia section mentioning every time somebody in a film or series, or book, asks a question, or makes a comment, about the mind. Lova Falk (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)