Then… then it sounds that Pierce may hold to a form of a Theory of Mind – “the ability to attribute mental states to yourself and to others”. I don’t hold to theory-of-mind much because part of it requires the facility to infer the beliefs of others. As I am likely autistic spectrum, any ability to do that seems like magic mind reading and for me to form a theory of mind, it takes a lot of reasoning through it consciously. For me, theory-theory works better – the “little scientist” view. I think Pierce may fit well into an “Extended Theory of Mind”, not limited to regular theory-of-mind as it extends socially and culturally as well,

 Then… then it sounds that Pierce may hold to a form of a Theory of Mind – “the ability to attribute mental states to yourself and to others”.
I don’t hold to theory-of-mind much because part of it requires the facility to infer the beliefs of others.
As I am likely autistic spectrum, any ability to do that seems like magic mind reading and for me to form a theory of mind, it takes a lot of reasoning through it consciously.
For me, theory-theory works better – the “little scientist” view.
I think Pierce may fit well into an “Extended Theory of Mind”, not limited to regular theory-of-mind as it extends socially and culturally as well,
 Intent, yes.
It has always baffled me how it is possible to determine intent except through trope/stereotyped patterns (scripted expectations).
I like our legal system generally but that aspect always seemed strange, to hang (literally) on reasoning out planned or not planned – what was believed by the defendant.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 2 = zero

Leave a Reply