Talk:Extended cognition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Associated task forces: ...

This redirect 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

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

This article was nominated for merging with Extended mind thesis on the 26th of June 2019. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Merge.

Background

This article began as Enaction (philosophy) but that title has proven to be too restrictive, and most of this material was deleted by Snowded as inappropriate to a philosophy article. The title Extended cognition is not restricted to philosophy, but includes biology and psychology as well.

I have nominated the article Enaction (philosophy) for deletion. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Individual discussion of subsections

There are a number of topics raised in the original article that need to be explored individually. The article does a better job than the following summaries, but the aim below is to provide the gist of the subtopics for those not interested enough to read the article itself. This link couples to the original article, rather than to the emasculated stub left here after Snowded decimated it.

Social constructivism

The basic idea behind extended cognition is that cognition is a consequence of interaction with the individual's environment and the reshaping of that environment in the process of understanding it. Of course, the individual can be so engaged on an individual basis, but the more important kind of interaction is cultural. For an introduction, see the beginning remarks in the article social constructivism. A famous contributor to cognitive psychology was Lev Vygotsky who held that culture is the prime determinant of cognitive development. Gergen and Guzzini and others are cited to illustrate this subtopic.

Non-reductive naturalism

Extended cognition takes the view that one cannot contain mental processes within the brain or the skin, and they are not reducible to 'brain circuitry'. Some adopt the notion of emergence to suggest that when the complicated conglomeration constituting mind with its extension beyond the body is fully understood, new phenomena as yet unrecognized will be found. Ratner and Rohde and Potter are cited to represent this aspect.

Internalism and externalism

The essence of extended cognition being to blur the classic boundary dividing the self from the environment, the subject-object problem is a central philosophical issue although, of course, the subject goes beyond philosophy. Perhaps a simpler approach to this subject is the notion of internalism and externalism, as explained by the two cited review articles on this subject.

Scaffolding

Scaffolding is a term used so broadly that some complain it is losing all meaning. It is much used in the field of education to describe work like that of Jean Piaget that finds how skills build one upon another. It has since been applied by others like Andy Clark to describe more general dependencies of mental states upon peripheral aids, like cell phones and the web. This section cites the psychologists Williams et al., Andy Clark, Griffiths and Stotz among others to illustrate this subtopic.

Summary

Each of these sections can be enlarged and improved, of course, but Snowded believes them all to be irrelevant to the subject of extended cognition, for reasons not yet exposed to public view. The original article should be restored, and if more complete treatment of these subtopics is felt necessary, that should be undertaken.

What should not happen is for Snowded to sweep the whole thing under the rug on pretext, without argument or concrete examination of text and sources. Instead, each subtopic should be discussed and, if needed, rewritten and better sourced to make a stronger presentation. Brews ohare (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Article subject and range: a proposal

At the moment we have an article on Extended Cognition which is one of the four Es referenced in the lede. The material on Scaffolding (to take one example) would normally be considered part of Embedded Cognition. So to include that (and other material) we need a different title which would then allow us to organise the content under various sections: Embodied (extra neural), Embedded (scaffolding), Enacted (co-evolves with reality) and finally extended.

If we assume this is about Philosophy (which I think makes it a manageable article) then the generic phrase seems to be Post-Cartesian. Michael Wheeler for example (Reconstructing the Cognitive World 1992) uses Heidegger as a foundation for this with multiple references to the various Es and there are lots of others. In general the sources I am aware of are generally talking about consciousness so that might be the qualifier. So to start the ball rolling how about renaming this Post-Cartesian theories of consciousness? With that name change (or something similar I am open) we can include more material rather than restrict ourselves to Extended.

Given the current state of thinking here it may be a year or so before the body of material increases to the point where we will need specialised articles on each of the Es. I have not simply made this change as I think it is critical that we reach agreement on the talk page, then start to build the article. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A thoughtful summary. I don't see a problem in having a stub on each of the E's. However, it seems that a general article that can outline the Es and treat them all would be useful, and might avoid that. We already have a big article on Embodied cognition. The article on Situated cognition seems to be a ringer for Enacted cognition and might be adaptable to deal with what is in Enaction (philosophy). The article on Cognition seems a bit too general in scope to take on the 4 E's.

The subject goes beyond philosophy, although philosophy is a big part of it. The articles on Cognitive science and Enactivism (psychology), and to a lesser degree Cognitive psychology, Neuropsychology and so forth, cover some of the science aspects, but the science will enter into the philosophical discussion too, and it will be a problem to keep straight which hat is on.

Your suggestion "post-Cartesian theories of consciousness" with a focus entirely on philosophy might become a straight-jacket. But why not write a proposed contribution with sources and see where it goes? Brews ohare (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Situated cognition has an intro that sounds like enaction, but it is really about educational methods. Brews ohare (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As for scope, I checked out Wheeler. He identifies the larger topic as 'mind and cognition'. His first chapter "Setting the scene" brings into the subject things like artificial intelligence, real-time sensorimotor control, and other topics outside philosophy. He talks about 'opening up the cognitive umbrella' to include 'fluid and flexible responses to incoming stimuli', which sound like psychology to me. He brings up "knowing that" as distinct from "knowing how" and suggests a "marriage between philosophy and science". Brews ohare (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to agree subject and range here Brews and to prevent coatrack articles. I think this is going to have to wait until we have some agreement on the way forward over all your edits, or the engagement of other editors. Without an agreement on the use of primary sources we are just going to repeat the same old arguments in different contexts ----Snowded ^TALK 09:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Handling talk page discussion and edits

I want to make several proposals to make the whole process of working collaboratively easier. My goal is to use this article to see if progress is possible.

Discussions on the talk page should use diffs to reference material on the article itself rather than replicating all of the material here. Editors are more than capable of using the diff to understand what is being talked about and it would make navigation easier and less intimidating.
If agreement is not reached after 1/2 iterations between two editors the discussion ceases unless other editors engage
We agree a strict [[WP:NPA|policy of not commenting on other editor]s, but just on content.
References are embedded in the text while it is being agreed, once stable it is moved into the format preferred by Brews. Again this makes it a lot easier for other editors to engage and follow changes and is a compromise offer.

Thoughts? ----Snowded ^TALK 09:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Snowded: Although the prospect of fruitful collaboration with you appeals to me, I find your guidelines stack the deck. They do attempt to address some problem areas, though, so I'd like to discuss your points as part of an evolution toward agreement.

1. Diffs are fine when a limited point is being made, but where multiple issues arise within an edit or reversion, a diff doesn't cover the situation. So I'd take this to be a recommendation useful when it works.

2. Discussion is always optional, and either of us can opt out at any time. A precise limit of 1 or 2 responses seems artificial, and given the low bandwidth of Talk page communications, probably insufficient to get on the same page.

3. I have no problem discussing content and avoiding personalities. I'd include in that references to my 'style' of editing, my 'failures' to communicate, and other abstract characterizations unrelated to the subject at hand.

4. Referencing is a matter of personal preference and I see no need for this restriction. You can use <ref>...</ref> approach in making your edits if you wish - it is entirely compatible with the list-defined reference system.

A major question not in your points is how we are to deal with your adamant stand against considering individual sources and reporting upon their content. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

[I refactored so that the discussion of primary sources continues in the section below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)]

Status of Snowded's 4 points.

1. There appears to be conditional acceptance by Brews ohare, "useful when it works".

3. Brews ohare accepts that both he and Snowded should observe this point. Here it is with a couple minor changes (added "to" and missing bracket for wikilink).

We agree to a strict policy of not commenting on other editors, but just on content.

(If I misunderstood, please let me know.)

Re point 2, Brews ohare comment "Discussion is always optional, and either of us can opt out at any time." — At the end of a comment, Snowded or Brews ohare could make a statement like, "I'll let you have the last word for now if you like, and wait for another editor to join this discussion because I don't think it's productive for us to continue this discussion alone." One thing it may do is relieve the editor who pauses or ends the two-way discussion from feeling obligated to respond to any questions that may be in the other editor's next comment. Also, whether this approach is accepted may depend on how much the temporary last word is valued by each editor. Comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Re point 4 — I didn't understand what it means to embed references in the text.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, to deal with the points.

Firstly references in text look like this ^[1] rather than being listed at the end of the article. That means that if you delete or amend text it is easy to pick up the reference at the same time. Brew's method means you have to (i) change the text and then (ii) open a second window and go through deleting the detail of each reference that is showing an error message This takes time and to be honest tempts you to simply do a mass revert rather than trying to change the text. Once the article is stable Brew's method is without a question the best. The style Brews is adopting makes it difficult for other editors to work collaboratively.

Secondly trying to close a discussion with any statement like 'lets wait for other editors to engage' has historically resulted in abuse from Brews. After the above post he repeating that behaviour on the ANI case, with language that was at best aggressive, at worst insulting. I think it is important for Brews to acknowledge when enough is enough and he has to wait for other editors to engage. Without some acknowledgement I have little confidence that we will see change.

Thirdly, I think Brews is saying no to point one, but I'm prepared to AGF and maybe change it to say that if that is done it is legitimate for another editor to enclose the material in a "hat" to make the page easier to read. When I have done that in the past he has reverted.

Overall Brews response to Pfhorest as well as myself at the ANI page does not give me much confidence. Also below and at ANI and elsewhere he is simply refusing to listen to wikipedia policy on the use or primary resources. At ANI I thought Pfhorest explained the reasons well but they were rejected by Brews a short time ago. I hope I am wrong, anything you can do to help would be appreciated. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Secondly— From his comments here, it looks like he would accept your pausing the discussion. He wrote, "Discussion is always optional, and either of us can opt out at any time." Also, by accepting point 3, that should eliminate the other potential problems you mentioned regarding pausing the discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well its simple enough for him to confirm your understanding. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As often is the case, Bob is correct in his assessments. Brews ohare (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, so if he is correct is there anything you plan to do differently in the future? The question of primary sources for example has been debated with myself, Machine Elf and Pfhorest several times and with other editors on Philosophy articles as well. Bot nothing has changed in terms of the way you edit articles. Further you continue to argue the same position every time you start on a new article and most recently at ANI. Even if you disagree, are you prepared to abide by community consensus on this? ----Snowded ^TALK 08:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering Snowded's and Brews ohare's comments regarding point 2, I have made an attempt at revising it.

2. If there is a discussion between only the two editors and one of the editors does not think that it is moving towards agreement, the editor may inform the other and cease his comments without penalty until another editor engages.

Would this version be acceptable? Feel free to offer an alternative. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK with me assuming we have a common interpretation of 3, it might be useful to add to "without penalty", "or adverse comment" ----Snowded ^TALK 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with cutting off conversation as you have sometimes done, Bob, by simply saying 'Goodbye'. I see no reason to drag up the concept of 'penalty', whatever that may mean. With Snowded, in practice this agreement amounts to saying we will seldom engage, as most of our engagements have consisted of my attempts to get concrete suggestions out of him that just never happen, and his assertion that engaging in the discussion of sources is something he won't waste time on, because that is OR. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Without penalty" could mean that if a person stops his comments to wait for a third editor to engage, he isn't criticized for stopping. In any case, the meaning of all of this is up to you two. The basic idea is that this change in the discussion style between you two is of mutual benefit.

Re "most of our engagements have consisted of my attempts to get concrete suggestions out of him that just never happen" — If that is the case then there doesn't seem to be any reason to continue such a two-way discussion with him. Someone else would be needed in the discussion. One could make a neutrally worded request for help at appropriate project pages.

Here's what we have for this agreement between you two. (I've renumbered it.)

1. We agree to a strict policy of not commenting on other editors, but just on content.

2. We agree that if there is a discussion between only the two of us and one of us does not think that it is moving towards agreement, the editor may inform the other and cease his comments without penalty until another editor engages.

Is this acceptable to both of you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In respect of an article talk page yes, if we add that material from the page which Brews feels has to be reproduced other than as a dif, then it can legitimately be placed within a hat. Movement on references would be appreciated but not required, it is in Brews interests as it makes it easier to engage in modifying text and less tempting to simply revert. However that is his call, some concession would be a sign of good will. The wider issue of OR will have to go elsewhere if it persists but can be kept off the talk page give 2 above ----Snowded ^TALK 20:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, I agree with your formulation. I object to Snowded's proposed limitations upon the form of my comments. I also want to point out that making an RfC to solicit other editors' participation is OK, and that may well include reproducing an entire subsection with its sources whether or not Snowded has already commented upon it on the talk page, or removed it from the main page. I feel this option has to be explicit, because Snowded often reverts such sourced contributions with (in my view) highly distorted statements best combatted by reading the original. Brews ohare (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not limiting your comments Brews, I am saying that if you really feel it is necessary then it can be hatted to make the page easier to navigate for other editors. Personally I can't see why you don't trust other editors to follow a diff, but this is a compromise. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a compromise, it's an imposition that makes seem less important the evidence needed to establish whether a reversion is supportable. Brews ohare (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is just a formatting change Brews, any editor can click on the hat and read the whole text. It doesn't make it more or less important, just easier to navigate. If you can't accept something as simple as that then forget it. ----Snowded ^TALK 02:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

Todate Brews every other engaged editor has rejected your use of primary sources, it's not just me. So the major issue is to resolve the question of WP:OR where your appeals to policy forums have also fallen on deaf ears. My proposals on 1&4 were to make it easer for other editors to be involved by (i) reducing the volume of text on the talk page and (ii) allowing other editors to change the text without having to open two screens and/or go through multiple edits to remove red text. It's your call but if you are not prepared to move on these items then we will not make progress. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: The topic of primary sources is more interesting and more important than our bickering. And I have to admit to reaching a more complicated view of the matter than before our disputes. To put things in a less black and white light, I'd say the role of primary sources depends upon how established a topic is. And even a subject millennia old, like free will might have some modern developments in flux.

For some established subjects, say expounding about Newton's laws, it is pretty straightforward to pick out a few eloquent sources and quote what they have to say. A format on this topic might proceed with a few quotes selected for their lucidity and an overall structure that is shared by many sources on the subject. But I think that is a very straightforward approach. It looks like what I usually try to do.

But then we can look at a much more fluid situation like the topic here. A very brief look at the literature shows it comes from all directions: cognitive science, philosophy, psychology, child development, man-machine interface design, a huge number of dimensions. One would love to find it all put together in some grand overview, but there is nothing like that available. WP itself has dozens of pertinent articles that overlap but don't encompass each other.

So how should WP approach such matters?

One approach, which you seem to favor, is to say the topic has not gelled so WP should simply avoid it until it does gel and overviews are available. That approach has the drawback that many interesting topics, enaction being one, could not be discussed on WP for decades.

Another approach is to try to capture the situation as it is at the moment, with the expectation that WP can update its articles as things move along. That choice requires the use of primary sources, there being little else. Their use in an article is not an endorsement, just a statement of what the source says. Some sources may be missed. Some may be presented more cogently than others. The WP approach allows editors to rephrase, to add other sources, and to update published views (and overviews) as they arise.

This approach to topics in flux does not fit with the traditional view of an encyclopedia as a repository for received wisdom, but then, that view is a relic at this point.

Any comments? Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No new comments Brews. You argued the same at the appropriate policy forum and your approach was rejected. Every other experienced editor has told you that WP policy does not allow the approach you are taking. Its why you have been unable to get new material into articles and until you are prepared to see the matter differently we are going to be stuck in the same old cycle. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Your approach to this discussion is to say "Brews, no-one agrees with you, so shut up!" That is not a discussion, and the premise is an incorrect summary of what others say. As for getting new material into articles, I have actually succeeded in introducing scores of new articles on a variety of subjects, and have introduced major changes on about the same number along with dozens of diagrams. Your argument is not fact-based and basically is just a squelch - you're saying my opinions are worthless and below your notice. You possibly might notice that your assessment has ignored entirely the issues raised, and is based entirely on your assessment of myself instead. Well, what can I say: you have your opinion and a closed mind. Brews ohare (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, let me qualify, since you started to edit Philosophy articles you have failed to make any significant changes and the arguments you raise above about the use of primary sources have been rejected on article talk space and policy forum pages every time you have raised them. If that is not the case, please provide the diffs to contradict me. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many, and I can't remember them all. But here are a few.

Subject-object problem: Beginning with this edit I made massive revisions in this article over a period of months ending about here when you showed up to begin decimation. The Talk history then shows I attempted to reason with you about your unsupported reversions of parts of this material, and although the article is weaker as a result of your actions, it remains largely intact.
Conceptualization (information science). I started this page and then you showed up eventually settling upon nonsensical arguments about the figure in this article being OR that were eventually overridden by Cunard.
Analytic-synthetic distinction. Beginning here I made substantial additions to this article, ending with this version. For reasons unknown, you did not appear on the scene.
Holphrastic indeterminacy. I started this page which remains pretty much as I left it despite your best efforts to truncate it and have it deleted.
Indeterminacy of translation. Substantial additions were made to this article in a constant struggle with you over 'third party sourcing' and other inventions of yours about WP policy. You actually made a concrete contribution to this article yourself.
Meta-ontology. I contributed to a rather good version of this article which you succeeded in making into a stub.
Ontological commitment. I began a series of additions to this article in a running battle with you over your aesthetics about article construction. Many of these changes survived your repeated reversions.
Epistemological determinism. Expanded this article from a stub beginning here No controversy and no Snowded, and article remains as I left it.
Ontological pluralism. Started this page and later moved it to a subsection Pluralism (philosophy)#Ontological pluralism in Pluralism. The revision history again shows Snowded's unhelpful proclivity for unsupported reversion.
Pluralism (philosophy). In addition to adding the subsection originally contributed as Ontological pluralism, beginning with this edit a great many changes to this article were made that have survived a constant effort by Snowded to revert them all.
Quantifier variance. I started this page which has survived Snowded's repeated reversions on the basis of unsubstantiated claims of OR and SYN and attempts at deletion.

I'm sure there are other examples. With a few exceptions, Snowded you have interrupted and reverted these efforts with claims you have never supported of OR and SYN and your own ideas of aesthetics regarding use of sources and quotations. These contributions of mine never have been shown to be inaccurate, the sources have never been questioned. Brews ohare (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The substantiation of my claim to have made useful additions to WP in the face of Snowded's determined and mostly solitary opposition has nothing to do with the issues raised about primary sources. This material has to do with Snowded's view that the issues are not worth discussing, but what is important is to smear and make me out as a nuisance to justify his actions on ANI. Brews ohare (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all solitary Brews.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And your substantive alternations did not survive scrutiny by other editors Brews. You more or less admit it above. Whenever other editors did get involved you failed to gain support. I can't decimate something or make it unto a stub unless other editors back me up, or fail to support you. You also appeal all the time so you can't say they didn't get the chance. Its a useful list anyway, it will save me having to go through multiple histories to try and get to it if needed for analysis. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for coughing politely. Your remarks contradict the hard evidence above. Brews ohare (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It was an interesting exercise going through those. The articles that you list were in the main edited before you were blocked for a month for breaking your topic ban on Philosophy of Science back in the middle of 2013. Of those you list the changes that survived scrutiny seem to be one or two paragraphs and/or some quotes or references along with some repositioning of material. You break WP:BRD with at least three different editors on about half of the articles. Then after your block you come back and things get difficult. Dilemma of determinism sees the current pattern of intransigence, followed by Free Will and Moral Responsibility where you edit war against 3/4 editors and get little or nothing achieved. Then of course we have the original attempted change to Philosophy where you were in contention with a board range of editors over an extended period. In all of these cases the talk pages are instructive with multiple examples of the behaviour referenced. I haven't done the analysis but for the odd paragraph on the actual message we get pages and pages of diffs of your refusing to accept that you don't have consensus or agreement. Despite your attempting to demonise me, other than on the question of one illustration on one article you have had little or no support and your edits have been reverted by several editors, all of who have extensive periods of working on these articles.

It is also during that latter period that your attempts to change policy on Original Research were also rejected (several times) by the community. Now you may think this is evidence of a substantive and/or useful contribution to Wikipedia, I really don't. But it would be good if someone experienced and neutral went through it ----Snowded ^TALK 17:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: I don't think this Talk page is the place for your unsupported version of history invented to discredit. Brews ohare (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, Following up on a message you left me, let's look at the primary source issue for a specific example here. I think you have probably deleted the text where you thought there was a primary source issue so could you give a link to the page in this article's history and give the excerpt here where you think there was a problem with primary source usage. Just one case will do, i.e. keep it simple. I'd prefer that you only give the excerpt without explanation to start with so I can examine it without prejudice and let you know what I think and/or ask questions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the Free Will article and read the various comments from myself and Pfhorest, then go to the OR notice board and read the discussions initiated by Brews and the responses ----Snowded ^TALK 02:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

→ Bob, it looks like Snowded expects you to define the issues for him. My attempt to do that for him is below. Brews ohare (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, That wouldn't work for me. I need to see for myself an example of the primary source problem that was deleted from this article, as requested in my last message. It's a matter of discussing the content of this article, rather than editors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You may want to tackle a different problem Bob, we (and I mean we as several editors have been involved) have been tackling the original research/synthesis issue from Brews over many articles now. The Free Will article is the best example of the overall behavioural problem, and I am afraid when editors do not listen over multiple articles it ends up as a behaviour issue. However if you want an example here then look at the section on social constructivism which Brews added in to this article. The historical version of the article is here. That material had already been rejected by myself and another editor as you can see here and Brews simply created another article. If you check it out and the references there is no direct link to Enaction, it is Brew's hypothesis of view, together (in the last paragraph) with his use of physics material based on his own cognisance. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem at all in discussing the relevance to Extended cognition of the topic Social constructivism. It is obvious that it fits the definition of 'enaction', but Snowded is within WP guidelines in requesting that some source be found that makes the connection. My conclusion that it fits can be challenged according to WP, and if a source coming to that conclusion cannot be found, then the material has to be removed, placed in a different article where it fits.

However, this discussion never took place. Brews ohare (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, Re "The historical version of the article is here." — For an example of misuse of a primary source in this version, could you give the number of a footnote that contains a primary source that is misused? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by a footnote, the point is that the whole section created by Brews on social constructivism is OR ----Snowded ^TALK 17:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, look at the last paragraph of the Social constructivism section beginning "Thus," and ending with "Examples of complex probing of the environment as part of the cognitive process, what enaction is about, are the Hadron collider or the Hubble telescope. These activities are accompanied by the evolution and application of theories subject to an aesthetic stemming from social interactions between scientists.[12]"

The source (12) fails WP:V.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: It appears that Snowded is not interested in contesting particular citations, but the whole idea of the subsection, regardless of its use of sources. That stance is consistent with his general views as portrayed below. On the other hand, MachineElf seems to have understood you better (apparently he knows what a footnote is) and suggests that the reference to Kuhn fails WP:V. We could go into this further but I am unsure what this accomplishes viz à viz the general principles of where primary sources are acceptable on WP. It may indicate MachineElf is right, or is wrong, or a need for further explanation, or perhaps for a different source. Can a general conclusion be drawn? Either about how well I use sources (carefully or sloppily or elliptically or spottily), or about the more general question of the desirability for WP of allowing the use of sources in this manner, assuming of course, that it is done correctly? Brews ohare (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a general conclusion to be drawn: "Where a source is questioned on some grounds like WP:V, a discussion on the Talk page should ensue to determine whether the source should be replaced or its support of the text made clearer. Such discussion should replace blanket reversion of entire sub-sections and histrionics." Brews ohare (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

From MachineElf's last message, I looked at the subject paragraph and its secondary source "Chapter 9: Rationality and Theory Choice", pp. 208–215. Pages 211, 213, and 215 were not available for viewing. I was unable to verify the paragraph using the viewable part of the source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: here is a different link to Kuhn's article. Brews ohare (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, Sorry, this link is incomplete. Brews ohare (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, perhaps you could explain your objective and it could be achieved differently? Maybe another footnote? Maybe the generalities I outlined above? Brews ohare (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about "histrionics", it's already been discussed at Talk:Enaction (philosophy)#Agree with Snowded and that's some pretty mellow melodrama... so I'm sure you won't mind holding back until you devote your full attention to it?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my vocabulary. You could discuss the use of this source there in more detail, where you already raised this issue, if you wish. Brews ohare (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The new link only had pp. 208–209.

I was checking whether the paragraph was verifiable using the given source. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. If the paragraph is verifiable using another source, feel free to present it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, I'll address this point in a new subsection below. Brews ohare (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded's view of primary sources and OR according to Brews

Snowded has an issue with a form of contribution that he refers to as an 'essay', by which he means a presentation of a topic based upon a narrative thread supported by citations or quotations from 'primary' sources.

Now if a WP editor actually makes some extrapolation or interpretation not actually contained in the cited sources, but the editor's own original contribution, everybody agrees WP rules that out as WP:OR. There is no quarrel about that.

However, Snowded goes further than this, and says even if the presentation has no extrapolation, interpretation or perspective introduced by the editor, and everything in the presentation is contained in the sources cited and accurately attributed to them, such a presentation cannot be used on WP.

Snowded points out that by virtue of the very structure of such an 'essay' article, some selection of sources has been made, and only a selection of the ideas in these sources have been presented. Thus, by its very structure the presentation involves an assessment by the WP editor, and is therefore a violation of WP:OR because no WP editor can be allowed to exercise their independent judgment. Snowded uses this argument on Talk pages to say there is no point or purpose in his discussing contributions of this kind, and he need not discuss them at all; they are OR on the face of it.

By these standards, an acceptable WP article must restrict itself to reporting upon articles of a 'secondary' nature, by which Snowded means articles that comment upon various published works. The WP editor can then quote the comments of the 'secondary' source about the works cited in that source using a form of words equivalent to: "Author A in his discussion of subject x has noted that author B said y about subject x." That is preferable to the WP editor themselves saying "Author B said y about subject x", because, although the statement about B is the same, the WP editor did not have to single out B, nor the idea y from among B′s thoughts.

Now, everyone would agree that the first version is not a violation of OR.

So the issue comes down to whether it is placing too much discretion in the hands of the WP editor to let them (i) select which published works like monographs, anthologies or even journal papers, will be reported upon, and (ii) select which ideas within these works will be reported upon?

According to some WP editors, allowing this limited discretion is not policy and is not how WP is constructed. This difference of opinion was aired on WP:OR. Snowded thinks there was resounding support for his view here. I'd say there were arguments on both sides, and in fact, this policy is not commonly followed on WP and if applied rigorously would cut a large portion of its articles down to stubs (as is Snowded's practice in reverting large portions of articles) and eliminate many altogether.

There are a number of editors, and Snowded is one of them, who say the answer is: Yes, it's too much discretion. There are others like Jc3s5h who say that's what WP editors always do, and it's entirely within their discretion.

So, one might ask two questions (i) Is this the way WP articles are in fact constructed? and (ii) If this standard is applied to existing WP articles, how does that limit what WP can do? Must WP contain only condensed summaries of already published reviews?

So, Bob, you can come down on either side as suits your taste. The unfortunate fact is that WP will not clarify its policy in this regard and so every time a fight arises it will have to be settled by the parties themselves or be taken for adjudication. Of course, adjudication of a content dispute will not happen, but it will effectively end the dispute by banning one or all parties in one way or another. Brews ohare (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue really is your willingness to accept the judgement of other editors, rather than the rightness or wrongness of your overall position. You have raised all the arguments above before and you have not received support from experienced editors at the OR forum or from experienced editors on the various articles in question. You have written whole essays on your talk page about why wikipedia is wrong and you are right. I asked Bob, for who you seem to have some respect, to try and help in explaining this to you rather than judging the rightness or wrongness of a case. I also pointed him to an example (Free Will) where another editor than I put a lot of effort into explaining matters to you to no avail. All of us who edit wikipedia have to accept consensus and the fact that wikipedia is managed through behavioural controls not content adjudication. When editors will not do that and persist with the same approach (and your case the same material) over multiple articles, including setting up new articles to hold material already rejected elsewhere the behaviour is deemed intransigent and can lead to blocks and bans as you have already discovered. I attempted above to set out some guidelines that I hoped would modify that behaviour to allow you to contribute but you have not being prepared to modify your behaviour in any significant way. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: The above is not an 'argument'. It is my conception of your stance. It could be mistaken, and it could be accurate. Only you can say. But you haven't. Your 'explaining matters to me' extends only to this explanation of your views. As to my accepting your opinion on matters, that is unlikely to happen. I will accept the opinion of reliable sources.

Can you say whether or not I have captured you point of view? And if there are some nuances missed, perhaps you could explain them? Brews ohare (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

References

[1]
book name etc

Rational theory choice

In a thread above Bob has suggested:

"I was checking whether the paragraph was verifiable using the given source. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. If the paragraph is verifiable using another source, feel free to present it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)"

The paragraph in question reads as follows:

Thus, as the idea of extended cognition suggests within the context of social constructivism, the development of a paradigm involves the interaction of scientists with their environment and each other, the theoretical treatment of experimental results, and re-engagement in probing the environment on the basis of that theory, sometimes with very sophisticated apparatus. Examples of complex probing of the environment as part of the cognitive process, what enaction is about, are the Hadron collider or the Hubble telescope. These activities are accompanied by the evolution and application of theories subject to an aesthetic stemming from social interactions between scientists.[12]

The note [12] provided is:

[12] Thomas Kuhn formally stated the need for the "norms for rational theory choice". One of his discussions is reprinted in Thomas S Kuhn. "Chapter 9: Rationality and Theory Choice". In James Conant, John Haugeland, eds (ed.). The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970-1993, (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. =208 ff. ISBN 0226457990. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

From the context, I'd say the reference to Kuhn is in support of the last sentence that suggests scientific activities use theories that are governed by an 'aesthetic' that is a social construction of scientists and is not itself scientific. The 'aesthetic' in question is referred to earlier in the subsection as follows:

The dissatisfaction of scientists with an existing theory leads to a paradigm shift, and this dissatisfaction is a matter of criteria demanded of an acceptable theory.[9] These criteria are not themselves scientifically established, but describe an 'ideal' theory as seen by the scientific community,[11] criteria such as 'elegance', 'completeness', 'seminality', 'simplicity'.[12][13]

The notes provided are:

[9] Stefano Guzzini (2000). "A reconstruction of constructionism in international relations" (PDF). European Journal of International Relations. 6 (2): 158. One of the main defenders of epistemological constructivism who is also well known in IR [international relations], Thomas Kuhn.

[11] Alexander Bird (August 11, 2011). Edward N. Zalta, ed (ed.). "Thomas Kuhn: §3: The concept of a paradigm". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition). This [a paradigm] is the consensus on exemplary instances of scientific research. {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

[12] See Kuhn referred to above as [12]

[13] Mark Colyvan (2001). The Indispensability of Mathematics. Oxford University Press. pp. 78–79. ISBN 0195166612.

Bob doubts that the source [12] supports such a view, and he has read the pages of [12] available on line without finding any support for the initial paragraph in question. He has then asked if support can be found anywhere at all.

I hope the situation is properly presented above. If I get a green light on this, I will proceed. Brews ohare (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll point out again that Snowded thinks this entire subsection is in violation of WP:OR and that it is a violation regardless of whether everything it says is an accurate portrayal of the sources cited. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the subject paragraph with its source OK as is? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The source The structure of scientific revolutions on p. 184 says

"A third sort of element in the disciplinary matrix I shall here describe as values...they do much to provide a sense of community to natural scientists as a whole. Though they function at all times, their particular importance emerges when members of a particular community must identify crisis or, later, choose between incompatible ways of practicing their discipline. Probably the most deeply held values concern predictions: they should be accurate; quantitative predication are preferable to qualitative ones; whatever the margin of permissible error, it should be consistently satisfied in a given field; and so on. There are also, however, values to be used in judging whole theories: they must, first and foremost, permit puzzle-formulation and solution; where possible they should be simple, self-consistent, and plausible, compatible, that is, with other theories currently deployed."

On p. 184 he continues:

"Judgments of simplicity, consistency, plausibility, and so on often vary greatly from individual to individual. ... In short, though values are widely shared by scientists and though commitment to them is both deep and constitutive of science, the application of values is sometimes considerably affected by the features of individual personality and biography that differentiate the members of the group.

To many readers of the preceding chapters, this characteristic of the operation of shared values has seemed a weakness of my position. Because I insist that what scientists share is not sufficient to command uniform assent about such matters as the choice between competing theories or the distinction between an ordinary anomaly and a crisis-provoking one, I am occasionally accused of glorifying subjectivity and even irrationality. But that reaction ignores two characteristics displayed by value judgments in any field. First, shared values can be important determinants of group behavior even though the members of the group do not all apply them in the same way....Second, individual variability in the application of shared values may serve functions essential to science.The point where values must be applied are invariably also those at which risks must be taken."

This is not the same source, but I happen to have this one in my own library. I'll look further in the provided source later today. But I wonder if this quote satisfies you as supporting the statement that there is an aesthetic at work? Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I added some more from Structure. The whole postscript seems to be available on line here. I think these quotes make the point about scientists sharing an aesthetic. If there is still doubt in your mind as to what Kuhn said, we can look at other sources.

As for the original source, the present on-line accessible segments seem to cut off just where they begin to become pertinent. I don't know if I had different portions available earlier (Google access varies over time). The essay, 'rational theory choice' engages the same issues as Structure, but Kuhn focuses upon whether the 'aesthetic' is rational or not, as his critics have claimed Kuhn sees them as irrational, and he wishes to assert that they are rational, though hardly incontrovertible or always applied. Brews ohare (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit doubtful that the real issue here is what Kuhn said, or what source he said it in. But ignoring this doubt, another useful statement of Kuhn's views is his The trouble with the historical philosophy of science found on-line here. Brews ohare (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, you have to have a source which makes a clear connection not just a tangential reference. In practice extended cognition is just ONE of the Es and a lot of people would argue they enable us to transcend Social Constructivism and Critical Realism alike. You are simply making connections on your own cognisance. That is original research and/or synthesis. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence of the subject paragraph being verifiable with the new source The structure of scientific revolutions, p.184 — The last part of the subject paragraph's last sentence "theories subject to an aesthetic stemming from social interactions between scientists" is mentioned in the p.184 source as values shared in a community of scientists. Including the rest of the sentence to get, "These activities are accompanied by the evolution and application of theories subject to an aesthetic stemming from social interactions between scientists", I was unable to verify this sentence using the p.184 source. The p.184 source isn't about extended cognition. It's about values in science and the authors opinion about what those values should be for choosing theories to use. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, almost. The reference to Kuhn is to his view that there exist values in science, guiding its practice and influencing its views, and these are in place because of social interactions among scientists. The point being made is that Kuhn's views set him in social constructivism. That point is explicitly stated by Guzzini (reference 9). So far as the use of sources is concerned, this is all that the source is intended to support.

Now we can change hats, if you like, to go into whether it has been established that social constructivism has a connection to extended cognition, which is another matter entirely, and the one Snowded has raised immediately above.

So are we to take the view that this digression into Kuhn was a bit of a side issue, and the real point has now been identified? Brews ohare (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Assuming this to be the direction, Snowded raises an excellent point that there are several E′s, noted by Rowlands among others as Embodied, Embedded, Enacted and Extended. A separation is not always observed. For example, the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Embodied cognition includes a section on Enactive cognition. In my view, the material related to social constructivism is related in this loose manner to extended cognition, and would be better placed in an article on enactive cognition, which at the moment we do not have, and which does not fit exactly into Enaction (philosophy) because it is a hybrid topic extending beyond philosophy.

So I'd take a meaningful question to be "How does social constructivism fit in with the E′s?" and "Are there some sources making this connection?".

Are we on the same page here? Brews ohare (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, assuming this is the direction, my view is that the two are connected, and that the four definitive aspects of social constructionism provided in the orignal WP article referring to Gergen are obviously connected to the E′s. However, it is the nature of WP that another editor can question this connection, and ultimately require a source that makes this connection using the same words. Is that the situation we are facing here? Brews ohare (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not been able to verify the subject paragraph using its given source or the p.184 source, and as far as I can tell no other source has been presented that would verify the given paragraph. I'll be leaving the discussion now. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, before departure, can you tell me what it is in this paragraph you wish to have verified? Brews ohare (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob has left me completely confused by his remark that he could not verify that Kuhn discussed extended cognition, because there was never any such claim made in the discussion of Kuhn. It was claimed only that Kuhn's views have been seen as a form of social constructivism as stated by Guzzini, and that the origin of this view of Kuhn is a result of Kuhn's remarks about the role of community adopted values among scientists, as cited.

It would seem this discussion had the one benefit of drawing Snowded to make a specific comment about his concern that inadequate connection is made between Gergen's description of social constructionism and the 'E's' . Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As things stand, I am not persuaded that extended cognition is the place for the aspects of cognition outlined in the original WP article, so I propose to move on. Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Added The Extended Mind by Andy Clark and David Chalmers to Further reading

Proposed merge with Mind extension

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It seems this is all the discussion we're going to get. The result is Merge a subset of the pages, specifically in the way described in my proposal. PJvanMill (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

There appear to be a lot of articles on nearly the same topic. First, a list:

Mind extension (which focuses on Clark)
Andy Clark § The Extended Mind
Extended mind thesis (focuses on Chalmers and Clark)
The Extended Mind (book by Chalmers and Clark)
Externalism (focuses on Clark, Chalmers, and Gallagher)
Extended cognition (which focuses on Rowlands)
Enactivism

I make no claim that these terms are pure synonyms, but I do think most of these should be merged into 2 or 3 articles. Note that Mark Rowlands refers to his advocacy for externalism, extended mind, and extended cognition seemingly interchangeably. Daask (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

We need to consider article title if we merge them all. Google Ngrams isn't helpful, as they are all very rare terms.

Then, I tried Google Scholar. I found only 3 sources which used the phrase "mind extension":

Bruner, E., & Iriki, A. (2016). Extending mind, visuospatial integration, and the evolution of the parietal lobes in the human genus. Quaternary International, 405, 98-110.
Slaby, J. (2016). Mind invasion: situated affectivity and the corporate life hack. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 266.
Stadler, M. (2014). Neurohistory Is Bunk?: The Not-So-Deep History of the Postclassical Mind. Isis, 105(1), 133-144.

"extended cognition" has 4,290 hits and "extended mind" has 12,900 hits Just to be sure, I checked "extended mind" chalmers, which has 6,050 hits, so I think it's safe to say that "extended mind" is the preferred term.

Daask (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to try and expand Extended mind thesis by incorporating content from the other articles into it. Once I feel that article is acceptable, I'm planning to make The Extended Mind and Mind extension into redirects, as it seems those will be completely redundant, and to replace the section in the Andy Clark article with a short summary and a "Full article" link. I think Extended cognition is basically the same concept and as such it should be merged into it as well, but I am not sure how to incorporate the content about Rowlands' work into it (any suggestions?). Externalism seems to be a broader concept, so that should not be merged. I'm not touching Enactivism. PJvanMill (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Daask: The above was written when I didn't know to ping people I was replying to, so it's no surprise I got utterly lost in the questions of how and what to merge. Again, my proposal is:

Merge Mind extension, Extended cognition, The Extended Mind and Andy Clark#The Extended Mind into Extended mind thesis

Rationale: "Extended mind thesis" is the best name for the concept and this is essentially the same concept as "Mind extension" and "Extended cognition". "The Extended Mind" is the name of the first work expressing this concept, but it does not seem to be independently notable: sources seem to establish the importance of the concept introduced in the paper, not the paper itself.

This discussion isn't attracting much attention, and I'm tempted to just go ahead with the merge, but I will try to get some of the editors of the articles involved to participate in this discussion first. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a merge is a good idea - the best title might be post-cartesian views of consciousness as 'extended' is only one aspect we have embodied etc. That allows Andy's original work in 'scaffolding' and his current work on spectra to be combined with lots of other thinkers in the field and some aspects of epigenetics (Eva's stuff on symbols) happy to help out-----Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: I think the article you would call "Post-cartesian views of consciousness" already exists in Externalism: that article talks about all of "Extended mind", "Enactivism", "Embodied cognition", "Situated cognition" and more related concepts. The place for connecting all of the ideas you mentioned would be there. I think it is a good idea to have one, but no more than one, article specifically about "Extended mind", which would be the result of this merge. Does that sound good to you? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I';; check it out - various 5Es or 7Es depending on who you read. So you want this merge to just be around the idea as in Andy and others? -----Snowded ^TALK 16:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: Seven different Es? Really... Well, I don't think all of those are notable enough to get their own article, but I think Extended does, given that there are quite a few sources talking specifically about it. So yes, I think this merge should result in an article about only the concept of the extended mind, with sections about The Extended Mind the paper and the work that builds further upon it, maybe a section about how it relates to other ideas... et cetera.

Embodied says that cognition depends on the body, whereas Extended says that cognition extends into the environment, so those two are different from each other. The article on Situated cognition describes it more as a psychological theory of learning, with one tiny section about its statements on philosophy of mind. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It is one of those areas, like complexity where so much is shifting it is difficult to get wikipedia articles sorted - agree with you on consolidating where possible. So are you just going to merge and get on with it? -----Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: I'm at least going to wait a few days to give Daask an opportunity to respond, who initially proposed a merger. Then I plan to go ahead with the merger. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2020 (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.