I have to say that I am confused about what this journal is asking me to do exactly. My feeling is that this journal will be the same as the most previous revision projecct post that I made because I have not made much progress since then. With that being said, let’s see what we can do with this journal.
My relationship with peer-review with regard to college work has not been great. The feedback and commentary always seem to fall on either side of the spectrum of positivity and negativity. Either my work is “so good” or it is “not the way I would have done it.” Obviously, there have been a couple of moments in the midst of all of this where great feedback has been given to me, but that is, again, seldom the case. Hopefully I can receive some peer review feedback that allows me to further this revision project in ways that make sense, not to just reword things, or just simply subtract or add information.
The only commentary work that I have completed for my revision project has been done in my head and out loud with Dr. Smith, but I have a couple of ideas on how to drastically improve on the project, even with the limited commentary I have available. So, the original paper that I wrote in my junior year was about The Interface Problem that is presented by Bermudez in the book The Philosophy of Psychology, but only one common response out of the four to the problem itself. The response that I focused on was the autonomous conception of mind, but there is also the functional conception of mind, the neurocomputational conception of mind, and the representational mind. All of these theories/responses to this question posed by Bermudez react to the issue at question in different ways. So, the first big change I would make in my project would be to include this additional information. The example proposal from the bottom of the PDF that was shared with us will be great once I get to that part of my project, simply because it is written about the same professor that I am using for this project.
