“Mind-reading”. What a mine-field. Investigating theory of mind, read loads of ridiculous conclusions in well-written and well-documented and highly-referenced scientific and philosophical papers, which reference OTHER well-written, well documented and highly referenced scientific and philosophical papers and the only Theory of Mind that I have about the various authors is: _BULLSHIT!_
Can somebody please give me their thoughts on “Theory of Mind”?
It’s quite possible that I *lack* a theory of mind, or have an underdeveloped one that utilizes various coping mechanisms such as making use of executive function to compensate for some fundamental ‘flaw’ in comprehending ‘Intention” rather than utilizing whatever brain mechanism is supposed to be required for developing an intuitive theory of mind.
Anyway, the article below isn’t my primary reference material. Rather it’s YOU and an assumption on my part that you are all well-read or already have an understanding of the topic. Perhaps my undeveloped theory of mind assumes that all people think like me. I don’t know. But yet again, I’m ready to punch the computer because I feel like I’m reading well written BS.
Somebody give me their thoughts, on Theory of Mind. Please. Ugh.
I believe I have my own thoughts. Yet, they’re ALSO not entirely my own as well; I believe they’re constructed, yet not _quite_ to the level of “aliens are controlling my thought patterns”, although I can understand people who have come to that conclusion
I’d say the “me” in the thoughts is that little spot inbetween the inner chatter and the outer sensory input, combining with the images in the brain and the stereotyped patterns/assumptions therein, whether based upon past experience or learned patternings.
But Theory of Mind has more to do with “Other People Don’t Think Like Me”. I know I don’t think like other people, but that’s only because I’ve noticed it and been told that. I don’t at first assume people think differently than me. I may assume they know _less_ than me or _more_ than me though. It’s quite possible that I lack a proper theory of mind. I read this ToM stuff and I go, BS! but maybe they see something I don’t.
After all CJ somewhat similar to SJ logic question earlier, but also strikingly different: How can you know you’re missing a sense, if you’ve never had the sense to sense the sense with to then be able to notice that you don’t have the sense to sense the sense with?
I’m a contemporary physicalist. I believe ideas are tangible realities however, but in the sense of being tangible realities built within the mind. Ideas are entirely physical. They also might not follow the same kinds of laws of physics as they don’t suffer the same kinds of constraints as we have in our meat/earth/sky surroundings.
I mean, they _do_ follow the laws of physics, but they also have other rules they follow, because they have a unique machinery that we barely grasp yet.
I can draw a perfect line in the mind. I can also translate that perfect 1 dimensional line into mathematics or into other languages. But when I go looking for it in the physical world? Not there.
Hm. I will have to rethink my statements more critically as I’m trying to stay within the excluded middle here and see both rooms at once. [because they’re not two rooms – they’re part of the same space, the walls being illusionary… etc]
Oh this is marvelous! Here is the ‘gist’ of it right here.
He said that P; he could not have done this unless he thought that Q; he knows (and knows that I know that he knows) that I will realize that it is necessary to suppose that Q; he has done nothing to stop me thinking that Q; so he intends me to think, or is at least willing for me to think, that Q
(Grice 1989: 30-1; cit. in Wilson 2005: 1133).
I believe retrocausation is a fundamental property of how we view causality.
We explain after the fact. The story-telling comes after the event, but the “confidence” feels like prediction. That sort of thing.