Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cognitive science

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Cognitive science and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Cognitive science / Cognition

The two articles need some work, especially the one on cognition. A systematic perspective is lacking, especially the lead section deserves attention and e.g. a thorough definition. Most basic facts are underrepresented in favour of very specific theoretical assumptions that may presently remain speculative. Differences between CogSci and other approaches to the subject should be clearly reflected (not necessarily explicated). The CogSci perspective should be elaborated on grounds of considerate literature. Please refer to the list of useful literature. 㓟 (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some productive edits to Cognition in the course of an educational assignment. See Talk:Cognition. 㓟 (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Models, representations, maps – a quick review of articles

A number of articles are concerned with a similar or seemingly similar subject matter (remarks/respective scope in brackets):

Cognitive model (specific: cognitive science)
Mental representation (vague, philosophy, mostly on representationalism in general)
Conceptual model (partially very specific to conceptual modelling, partially immensely general)
Internal model (specific: motor control)
Mental model (cognitive psychology, cognitive science, vague)
Cognitive map ((cognitive) neuroscience, psychology, environmental psychology)

Thankfully, cognitive model is specific to its meaning in CS.

Mental representation could be expanded to reflect the more scientific aspects. On the other hand, the definition is quite specific to CS and might be widened a bit.

Conceptual model needs some cleanup, material could be used in the other articles.

Internal model might be renamed »Internal model (motor control)« to reflect its scope.

Comment: That move has been done. 㓟 (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mental model ist really vague, in need of a decent lead and definition – pieces of descriptive and explanatory aspects are mixed together (even tough sections of the article might be very specific).

Cognitive map should see some clean up to distinguish the specific use in behavioural and cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience from applications of the term in environmental psychology (resp. geography, architecture, education etc.).

㓟 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found one more: Mental map. 㓟 (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binding problem

Lova Falk has been doing some recent work on this article already, please help if you like. You can take a look at Talk:Binding problem#Focus of the article and lead Kindly, 㓟 (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance problem

Relevance problem, currently a redirect to Relevance realization, was nominated for deletion at WP:RfD on 14 April. After a week of no input it has been relisted, so your comments regarding this redirect would be very welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 22#Relevance problem. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As are the article itself Relevance realization as well as John Vervaeke. Thanks for the notice! 㓟 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented, I think it is preferable to turn the redirect into a stub rather than deleting it. You could probably write a better one than me, but I'm willing to do it if you prefer. My thought is to write something like this:

The relevance problem is a problem that arises in attempts to implement artificial intelligence. Intelligent behavior requires an ability to learn to respond to arbitrary combinations of features of a situation, but if there are many features, a combinatorial explosion makes it impossible to represent all possible combinations explicitly. The problem is to devise a scheme that only explicitly represents a subset of feature-combinations that are most "relevant".

That would need some editing and sourcing, of course, but comments on whether it goes in the right direction would be welcome. Looie496 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the Frame problem? Regards, 㓟 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me a pointer to a source that defines the relevance problem as you have it in mind? Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are (roughly) the same. Some authors use the term "relevance problem". Some authors consider the terms synonymous, too. Personally and in the most general sense, i would speak of the frame problem. Btw, maybe you have noticed my suggestion to merge Frame problem. Thanks and regards! 㓟 (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source list helpful for this project

Cognitive science has a broad scope, as the project page section about this project makes clear. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much; I have listed this in the literature section of our project page. Kind regards, User:㓟 - (pi) (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Cognitive science articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

two very similar categories

There are two categories that are very similar - maybe they should be merged but maybe they're different enough so I thought I'd see what others thing.

[[Category:Fictional artificial intelligences]]
[[Category:Artificial intelligence in fiction]]

CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Jaynes and his "bicameral mind" hypothesis that consciousness arose only about 4,000 years ago – 3-way POVFORK

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Julian Jaynes#It needs to be made clearer that his overall hypothesis is WP:FRINGE.

Summary: Aspects of his hypothesis having "inspired" some later research doesn't equate to his work being proven correct, and cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and related displines decreasingly support it, most especially his central notion that consciousness only arose a few millennia ago. Furthermore, it was proposed at that article to move it and reshape it into an article on the book, since the person is not notable for anything other than one book. Instead, the subject has been WP:CFORKed (arguably WP:POVFORKed) into two further articles (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, and bicameral mentality). The bio mostly just repeats claims from the book article (but with barely any hint of controversy or challenge, and strong suggestions of influence), while the book article is mostly just repetition of what is said at the hypothesis article (but without much of the critical material from the latter).

It is thus proposed to merge these into a single article on the hypothesis, the book it came from, and who wrote it, with all the critical material present, and expanded by more recent work on consciousness and cognitition. Even if they were not merged, they have to stop viewpoint-forking (and coatracking of the hypothesis across all three articles).

Anyway, please follow up at the Talk:Julian_Jaynes discussion thread, so this stays centralized. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]