Talk:Mind's eye

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 religion
	Philosophy of mind
	Ancient philosophy

Cognitive science (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science

Neuroscience

This redirect 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

Untitled

A little too much emphasis on the religious side without distinguishing it from the 'imagination' perspective enough. I think a little more separation between the two meanings would be in order. Tried to rephrase, but you've been constantly making changes, and I have to go to bed now. :) -- Gutza, 1:18 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I added a link to a non-existent article, I know. A friend of mine will finish his edits soon and post the article. Thanks for your patience. -- THEBlunderbuss 03:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC) No original research please -- User:70.181.8.74[reply]

Forgive my ignorance... but how exactly does the excerpted text refer to a "mind's eye?" It seems to me to refer to situational awareness(despite the author's calling a mind's eye), a quite different idea entirely. Mind's eye refers to religious or occult instances- situational awareness, as in the excerpted text, refers to something far less subjective. Also... the talk about chakras is stated, currently, as fact but it's clearly not so. It needs more references to which group thinks "the mind's eye is situated right between the 2 eyes, and expands up to the middle of the forehead when opened," if that's relevant at all.--AK7 06:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness of the surrounding is directly related to the mind's eye, and this indeed goes according to cognitive science as well as to most types of Hinduism and Buddhism. AOA

"biological foundation of the mind's eye" - This is almost meaningless. Without a clear and concise definition of the "mind's eye", how can one argue for or against its existence? This article presupposes that this singular "eye" exists, and that it is therefore possible to find this obscure, undefined entity lurking in the complex biological occurrences of the brain. What the term "mind's eye" actually denotes (and connotes) is a conflation of all the phenomena of consciousness that we are aware of (what I would redundantly call "conscious consciousness"). On top of that, "mind's eye" has much older spiritual (and quasireligious) meanings, that are not (even in passing) mentioned here. However, I don't think there is any common definition of the term, and the current one just seems to be some kind of Wikipedia editors' consensus. Fuzzform (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to point out that this phrase comes from Hamlet? 75.175.168.174 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mental Image

To all intents and purposes, "mind's eye" is no more than a colloquial way of referring to people's ability to experience mental imagery. There is a separate article on mental image that, although a bit of a mess, is much better and more comprehensive than this. This article should be deleted, "mind's eye" should be pointed at mental image, and if anyone thinks there is any worthwhile information here that mental image does not have, it should be merged into there. Treharne (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]