Talk:Umwelt

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology

Collective Umwelt

I thought this entry would be improved by adding the explanation of collective Umwelt. --David91 19:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use of "epicenter" to mean "center" was in quotation

My apologies for alteration to the quote -- I should have been more attentive. We might want to find another quote that doesn't have incorrect English usage, however. Thesmothete 15:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regret the necessity to rein in an active editor with good intentions. For the record, the quote is reproduced in the last sentence of the second paragraph in John Deely's piece at http://www.ut.ee/SOSE/deely.htm. I am, however, more than happy if you can find a similar quotation that avoids such an infelicitous usage. David91 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tick example

The tick is responding the the energy of the sun via its photosensitive skin, so the sun is another a carrier of significance. Also, would the tick not need to know something about the grass it is to climb? Would this be another carrier of significance, similar to the hairy topology of mammals? Dfarrell07 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article should stick to the details that Uexkull used. — goethean ॐ 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)~~ nevermind, I thought that I was at the Uexkull article. — goethean ॐ 00:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XKCD

I am surprised this page hasn't already been under an edit war or lock-down due to the XKCD reference today, especially considering it is April Fools. I guess I basically just saying: "First!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.58.191 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well. Looks like someone got the date posted wrong though. can anyone verify so it can be fixed(XKCD, where posting the dates of the comic updates is tantamount to heresy)? I know I saw it yesterday (GMT -5 here). Akoi Meexx (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comic should not be included, that would completely irrelevant recentism. If it actually discussed the concept it might make a bit of sense, but it doesn't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comic itself does not discuss umwelt, but the fact that the comic displayed changes entirely depending on your browser, operating system, window width (sometimes), or geographical region based on IP address is more relevant. I'm not sure if it is relevant enough to include, I'm just pointing out there is more to the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.216.4 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting the "Baccano!" reference, too; it looks like it was added solely as a cover for the xkcd: (first appearance) Josiah Stevenson 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiahstevenson (talk • contribs)

HCI technique?

This magazine article quote suggests that this name is also given to an HCI technique:

"It emulates a technique HCI specialists use to design interfaces called umwelt, which is a practice of imagining what the world must look like to the potential users of the interface."

Any more on that? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing lead, bad definition

I think the lead here leaves a lot to be desired and does not seem to conform very well to the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, specifically the following point: "If its subject is definable [which this one is], then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialized term, provide the context as early as possible."

What seems to stand in for a definition in the first sentence ("the 'biological foundations that lie at the very epicenter of the study of both communication and signification in the human [and non-human] animal'") does not seem like a definition to me, but rather a feature of the concept. If it is supposed to be a definition, it is certainly almost useless to a layperson. If one googles "Umwelt," one can easily find lots of simple definitions, whereas someone without any knowledge of the topic can read this lead and come away having no idea what the term is supposed to mean.

I may try to fix myself at some point in the future but if anyone else gets around to it first, I think it would be a significant improvement!

Emptybathtub (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree - I have added a succinct (and sourced) definition, however the article is full of technical language so I have also added a tag directed here for anyone able to fix the other problems in the article with greater expertise in the area.

Beyond the general technical language, there's two other issues in the article I've identified that should be addressed which I also don't have the expertise for myself:

- The relevance and meaning of the three images at the top of the article regarding circular feedback

- How and why the concept offers a potential solution to the Cartesian Theatre, which is otherwise not discussed in the remainder of the article. Terovian (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error

Please fix: "contrating" should be changed to "contrasting." This spelling error was impossible to fix, which seems a serious problem with our code. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks.

Salvio giuliano

23:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]