Talk:Consciousness

Untitled

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

• Archive 1 ( // to 21/10/05)
• Archive 2 (21/10/05 to 13/04/07)
• Archive 3 (13/04/07 to 29/11/09)

Any objections to re-structuring this page?

I think this page needs to be significantly re-organized. There are a lot of high quality sources and I think in general the page does a good job of covering lots of perspectives that researchers have put forward, but often not in a very systematic way. I'm planning to re-organize the page in a sandbox (without making any changes to the content) and then copy in my revised version here, but first I wanted to check if anyone objects to my overall plan. Here are the main problems I see and how I'm planning to fix them:

• The lead currently only addresses how to define consciousness rather than summarizing the whole article. The material in the lead belongs in the "Problem of definition" section with just a shorter summary in the lead along with summaries of other sections.
• The "Interdisciplinary perspectives" section is actually closer to a lead since it actually summarizes the sections for philosophy, science, and medicine below. A trimmed down version of that material and summaries of other sections can together form a new lead. The "Interdisciplinary perspectives" material doesn't need a section in the body, since it just covers what is said in later sections more briefly.
• Three of the sub-sections in the "Philosophy of mind" section should be moved out: "Consciousness in children", "Animal consciousness", and "Artifact consciousness". As the material in these sub-sections demonstrates, these topics are not necessarily only philosophical ones but rather span various disciplines. These three could be the sub-sections of a new section further down. Maybe it could be called "Consciousness outside human adults", though hopefully I can think of a better section title.
• Within the "Scientific study" section, there should be a sub-section for "Models of consciousness". Currently, there's already quite a bit about this crammed into the "Neural correlates" sub-section and for some reason "Entropic brain" has its own sub-section while no other model does.
• The "Stream of consciousness" section should be broken up. The part from William James can be worked into the "Scientific study" section, while the part about Buddhist psychology can be added to the "Spiritual approaches" section. The "Narrative form" sub-section is off-topic and I think the material should be moved to a more appropriate article, but for now I would just leave it as a separate section to avoid combining content changes with my organizational changes.
• The "Anasognosia" sub-section belongs within the "Disorders of consciousness" sub-section.

There may be a few other things to move around but that's basically my plan. Again, I won't bundle content changes together with my re-organization (though in the future a lot of these sources probably need updating). If anyone has objections/suggestions for this let me know. Otherwise I'll go ahead soon. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been a bit slow to get to this and I think it's better I implement the above piece by piece rather than all at once. Just fixed the organization regarding anosognosia. Let me know if any objections as I re-organize. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 21:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick note that I didn't finish all of these, but if someone else is working on the page and wants to discuss just ping me. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 20:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gazelle55: One thing that really strikes me about this article is that the lead section doesn't really inform the readers that consciousness isn't truly understood and that it's mechanics are a subject of research and scientific study.★Trekker (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind

Removed uncitated sources saying default is historical one.added source citated showing dominant position in philosophy of mind is physicalism Orexin (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article doesn't follow the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are highlighted below:

• There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article.
• There are some sections that rely upon block quotes. This creates copyright concerns and increases the word count. This information might be better as summarised prose.
• The article, at over 11,000 words, is above the recommended length at WP:TOOBIG. I think this might be a sign that this is too detailed. I think removing most of the block quotes will resolve this, but the article should be edited for too much detail.
• The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Consciousness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article. Some sections rely upon block quotes, which create copyright concerns, make the text more difficult to read, and increase the word count. This information might be better summarized in prose. The article, at over 11,000 words, is above the recommended length at WP:TOOBIG, I think summarising most of the block quotes will resolve this, but I think information can be spun out. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: you're our foremost expert(/masochist) at crafting articles on these large, philosophical concepts. No pressure to participate in this process, but just flagging it in case it piqued your interest. Ajpolino (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with the points raised by Z1720. The lead covers only the problem of definition and there are several unreferenced passages and unnecessary quotes that should be replaced by regular prose. These points could be addressed in the scope of the GAR, but given the length of the article, this is not a quick fix. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the length, although I would not flunk it on just this basis if the reference issues were resolved.

Also, whatever the outcome of the rating reassessment, rewriting the lead would be a major improvement to the article. I'm not volunteering, but I think it would be possible to do a pretty good job in less than an hour.

If no one takes this on during the GAR, maybe consider sharing on the talk page? It's not often you encounter an active solicitation to rewrite the lead of such a general article. Someone will step up. Patrick (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh: GARs are transcluded onto article talk pages, so this information will be there. You could also start a new section for the lead on the talk page, as it might lead to collaboration. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.