Wikia

Psychology Wiki

Talk:Tree of Knowledge System

34,142pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 17:46, August 17, 2006 by Mostly Zen (Talk | contribs)

To Do

I'll try to upload a picture from one of the powerpoints I downloaded from the site. The ToK system seems like a good way to understand how the different areas of psychology interact.

References

I've changed the Paper link to a proper academic reference. I think we should do all our references like that. We need to sort out our referencing guide, and I can include a template of the text/wikicodes you need to make the reference appear like that for beginners.

  • I agree. Let's use the standard APA format Jaywin 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

References to physics

This article is coming along very nicely. I've only had the chance to skim through it, but I'll read it more thoroughly in just a little bit. I've noticed the phrase "complicated physics" a few times. I don't believe Henriques is conceptualizing the ToK like that. As a matter of fact, I believe he's criticized E.O Wilson for classifying everything as being reducible to physics, but I can't quite remember where I've read that. Maybe it's on his website. On page 155 of his paper henriques writes,

"Each stage corresponds to a new dimension of algorithmic information sparked by a complexity building feedback loop."

Maybe we could send an e-mail to Henriques and see if he'd like to get in on this. Anyways, it's looking good. I think this could be an important article for Psychology Wiki when we're done. Jaywin 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right about things not being reduceable. When I said that things are essentially complicated physics, I did mean that, but not in a reductionist way. What I mean by that is that at higher levels of complexity there are emergent properties. It still is more complicated physics, but the emergent properties of cannot be predicted from an analytical-reductionist approach.
For example, we cannot predict flocking behaviour of birds from studying a single bird. No single bird has the brain power to make a flock of birds fly like they do, its an emergent phenomena of one bird flying near to another one, until there are hundreds of them. In effect that would be an equivalent of bird 'Culture' ie it emerges from a complex interaction of Mind.
I think the emergent and non-predictable phenomena (from a reductionist point) is what Henriques is referring to in that quote
"Each stage corresponds to a new dimension of algorithmic information sparked by a complexity building feedback loop."
I think emailing him would be an excellent idea. This system of his could be very useful for the unification of psychology, and hopefully the Psychology Wiki and the article here can stimulate that. Mostly Zen 09:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts about the Article

I just read this article for the first time. I made some minor word choice changes, along with fixing a couple typos and punctuation things. I think that it's a very interesting article, and agree that it'd be a great article to feature.

One thing that I thought could use some change is repeatedly saying, for example, "..very complicated physics..." This sentence in particular: "Note that all of these approaches are really just the complicated interaction of very, very complicated physics on more, very very complicated physics." I think that this is getting away from the professional/academic style (I think?) we want to write with here.

I think that the last few sections of the article are harder to follow. Admittedly, this is something I know very little about. However, I feel that after focusing on and reading this article I should have a good grasp on its message. "the problem of psychology" section was very clear, but after that I feel it got a bit more confusing. Of course this type of abstract article is not the easiest to understand. However, I feel that if there were more of an introduction (perhaps a section between "the problem of psych" and "tree of knowledge" that explained what where the article was going before it went there would help?) Andrew Schramm (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right Andy, both you and Jason have mentioned that the very, very complicated physics sounds less academic than the rest of the article. Feel free to go ahead and change it as I'm sure you are both right as you've noticed the same thing independantly. I wrote the main article quite quickly just so that all of the content is there.
I am going to get biology and physics friends of mine to help edit their specialist sections at the bottom, but please feel free to add extra sections or parts to improve the article. Re-write what I have written if you want :)
We really need to improve this article lots, and then in the next couple of weeks, we can have it as a featured article. If you havent already done so, read the paper in full. I've read about 70% of it, but am going to finish reading it all before I write any more.
I think Jason has linked some related papers too. Tom Michael Mostly Zen Baby tao (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki