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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I noticed this book was listed in "Controversial Books" category, but the article doesn't mention anything about the controversy. Can someone who is familiar with it say something about why it is controversial? FarmerBob 07:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, there isn't one. Cmouse 15:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Having read it myself, I'd say the biggest controversy is that it's more of a book of poetry and stream of consciousness, then a scientific attempt at defining a conscious mind. Since the focus of the book strongly implies this "theory" should be applied to computers, I found it a bit disappointing that the book had essentially no technical details whatsoever. Ceran (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm getting rid of this section. We only have one rather arbitrary example and it looks like it would be quite confusing to people who haven't read the book. I don't think an example section is a good idea anyway... There are just too many ideas that Minksy touches on and no way to decide which ones deserve to be chosen. Literally every page of Society of Mind contains candidates for mentioning. If someone can come up with a short list of "major" ideas from the book then perhaps we could do that.. but I know I'd have a hard time choosing just a few ideas and on top of that I doubt we could describe them better than Minksy does.
We might be able to describe them a bit more accessibly. Certainly a selection from the middle or end of the book could be phrased better if presented independantly than a direct quote from Minsky would do. But your point about examples is pretty valid. Maybe if/when I reread it, I'll look for good ones. Michael Ralston 03:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
