According to Lisa Zunshine, theory of mind is essential to both verbal communication, and reading fiction. She defines the principle as the ability to explain physical actions through mental phenomena. Through ToM, we are able to discern the thoughts and motives of people that we encounter. For example, when someone is yelling and animated, we can infer they are likely upset. When reading, we also attribute mental states to characters; we question the motives behind their decisions. Zunshine suggests that this is the reason that we enjoy reading fiction. It parallels our interactions in real life.
This paper will examine the reliability of George Berkeley’s metaphysical theory of Idealism. Berkeley’s Idealism holds that reality is made real by what the mind perceives and that what we perceive to be material is really a collection of immaterial sensations. Idealism is defined as the view “that only mental entities exist, so physical things exist only in the sense that they are perceived” (“Idealism”). Berkeley’s argument of Subjective Idealism is the view that reality consists of one’s mind and its ideas, while Objective Idealism says in addition, a supreme mind produces ideas in the physical world that do not depend on human minds to exist (Velasquez 146). Without Objective Idealism, one can undergo solipsism which is the belief that only one’s self and experiences of the world are real and everything else does not exist (“Solipsism”). Opposing Idealism is the metaphysical view of Materialism which holds that only physical things exist (“Materialism”). This paper will start by examining George Berkeley’s views of Subjective and Objective Idealism and how they apply to reality. Then, the critiques made and supported by Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes against both views of Idealism will be argued. However, these arguments fail to properly examine Berkeley’s Idealism, thus causing the critiques to be based upon misinformation. Although the criticisms pose potential flaws, Berkeley’s Idealism continues to be a major discussion in the metaphysical debate.
This philosophical study will support the theory of interactive mind/body dualism in the writings of Renee Descartes. The distinction between the energy of the mind is typically separated from the function of the body, yet Descartes found that they interacted to form thoughts. Descartes’ theory of dualism also defines how the mind can generate thoughts through the bodily function of the brain. In this context, Descartes found that the pineal gland was an example of a bodily organ, which could transmute the pneuma (aka. the spirit) to generate a thought through the mind. This type of mind and body interaction successfully defines Descartes dualism in the development of the thought process. The pineal gland supports the contention that the brain must work in conjunction with the mind I the formation of human consciousness. In essence, Descartes’ interactive dualism defines the cooperative operations of the brain and the mind that work to form thoughts through the pineal gland and the pneuma.
According to Korsgaard, the human mind is “essentially reflective” (92). By this, she means that we are capable of examining and evaluating the various perceptions and desires which make up the content of our mind. This ablility gives rise to a problem she terms the “normative problem,” since we can critically question whether the perceptions and desires we experience are reasons, or whether they dictate how we should act. This is a problem because if the mind continues to reflect and can grasp no reason, “it cannot commit itself or go forward” (93). She also thinks that “because of the reflective character of the mind ... we must act ... under the idea of freedom” (94). Desires and perceptions appear to us, but which of them influences our actions is a matter of which we choose to act on. The notion of “freedom” as well as that of “reasons” are essential for explaining how we make decisions when we reflect on our options for how to act (96). Korsgaard defines a reason as a “reflective success,” or an agent 's affirmation of some
This theory is not only credible in literature, to discuss the intentions of an author, but is also effectively used in film, to discuss the intentions of a director. One benefit of this theory is that it can help with many literary problems. For example, Freudian critics not only “stress distinction between the conscious and the unconscious”, but also uncover “the unconscious motives of characters” as well as see “an embodiment of classic psychoanalytic conditions” within literary works (Barry 101). By drawing connections between concepts in the text, we are able to further enrich our understanding of the work and, if we plan to discuss it with others, are able to yield a meaningful, coherent interpretation of the
Perception is a concept that we take for granted in our everyday lives. We assume that what we perceive are the physical properties of the objects we encounter. George Berkeley, through his work Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous , questions these notions of what is truly real. Berkeley voices his opinion through the character Philonous, who assumes a very similar role to Socrates in the Platonic dialogues. First, it is necessary to distinguish between different types of sensory perception for clarity’s sake. Philonous systematically shows where all sensory perceptions break down to qualia within the mind in the beginning of his dialogue, first with secondary qualities, and then primary qualities. To explain our sense of objective reality, Philonous refers to an ultimate observer, who observes everything, at all times. There are however some issues with Berkeley’s idealist theory, as I will explore at the end of this paper.
Sigmund Freud was the founder of modern psychology. Freud’s theories of the mind and how the mind worked changed how psychoanalyst look at the mind and its actions. Freud’s universal theory of the mind will more than likely outlive the psychoanalytical therapy. Sigmund Freud is respectively compared to other notable men, such as Plato and Shakespeare. Some people believe his effect is more important to us than the lasting value of his theories. He was an Austrian neurologist who created a new approach to the knowledge of the human personality.
The study of children’s theory of mind has grown tremendously attractive to many developmental psychologists in the past few decades. The reason for this being because having a theory of mind is one of the quintessential skills that define us as being human and because having this ability plays a major role in our social functioning. To have a theory of mind is to be able to reflect on the categorical contents of one’s own mind, such as dreams, memories, imaginations, and beliefs, which all provide a basic foundation to understand how someone else may think and why they may behave in the manner that they do (Bjorklund, p.199). It is the development of one’s concepts of mental activity; their ability to understand that they think things that others do not and that their thoughts are theirs alone, as well as understanding that other peoples’ minds work in the same way, in which they too, have their own individual thoughts. Our theory of mind grants us ability to navigate our personal and social world by explaining past behavior, and anticipating and predicting future actions (Moore & Frye, 1991).
Beilock, Sian. How the Body Knows Its Mind. New York, NY: Atria Books, 2015. Print. (152-158)
In The article “Brainology” “Carol S Dweck, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, differentiates between having a fixed and growth mindset in addition how these mindsets have a deep effect on a student’s desire to learn. Individuals who have a fixed mindset believe they are smart without putting in effort and are afraid of obstacles, lack motivation, and their focus is to appear smart.. In contrast, students with a growth mindset learn by facing obstacles and are motivated to learn. Dwecks argues that students should develop a growth mindset.
When I read the profiles of John as an introvert and as an extrovert, my mind kept returning to the thought that both of these stories were about the same man; that each told the story of that man in different circumstances. Immediately, my mind led me down the road of creating the story behind John. Was the extrovert John his normal persona, but introvert John showed up on a melancholy day? Or perhaps, Jon was usually very introverted, but we caught him on a particularly optimistic day in the extroverted scenario? I found myself wanting more details; wondering why he had not spoken with the pretty girl from last night. Why did he need the stationery? How does he know so many people in the paper store? Obviously, he is not a total recluse if he had the opportunity to see the pretty girl. My reaction is explained easily enough by author Malcolm Gladwell, "We have, as human beings, a storytelling problem. We're a bit too quick to come up with explanations for things we don't really have an explanation for." (Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking , 2005) Gladwell clarifies that when we are missing the details we crave to fill these gaps in the stories, we feel the need to create them ourselves. He further defines this behavior as “rapid cognition” which is, “…the kind of thinking that happens in a blink of an eye. When you meet someone for the first time, or walk into a house you are thinking of buying, or read the first few sentences of a book, your mind takes about two seconds to jump to a series of conclusions.” (Gladwell, 2005) We utilize rapid cognition on a daily basis to judge people and situations all around us. It is a subconscious process in which we size up a person or situation in approximately t...
So, in conclusion theory of mind is a method of explaining human social interaction, which goes some distance to explaining our somewhat seemingly planetary unique ability to empathise, comprehend, and guess others actions and behaviour. It has been researched by a number of psychologists in the field, and is an extremely useful and viable tool in explaining some of the complexities of the human condition. It has a central position in the field of evolutionary psychology, and will continue to do so; with good reason, for without its presence a large amount of the remainder of the psychological spectrum would have difficulty understanding anything about the human mind.
In the essay “Thought” by Louis H. Sullivan, he states that people don’t always need words just to communicate. There are several ways that individuals are able to communicate without words, they can express themselves by gestures and facial features, like explaining themselves to others. Sullivan believes that both thinking and creative thinking are better without words and that the minds is always working; therefore, it does not have time to place words together. In order to think clearly they must use other means of pondering; although, the mind works quickly it will take a long time to write what they are thinking because the mind continues without stopping. When individuals are reading they are not think their own thought exactly but what
That our perception of the world is predominantly governed by the senses of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell is not disputed. However, scientists and amateur academics alike have historically disagreed about the existence of any additional senses, with the most contentious debate surrounding the phenomenon generally referred to as ESP, or "psi." Despite the vast number of people who claim to have or to have witnessed psychic abilities, the corresponding research has found little that is empirically valid or significant to corroborate the wealth of more anecdotal evidence. To establish their validity, it would be necessary to show how they occur in the sensory system - how the input is received and how the subsequent outputs are generated - and so far there is no evidence for the presence of a mechanism specified for this task. Regardless of the extent to which skeptics can take their argument, that so many people over time have reported some degree of extrasensory perception somewhat justifies an inquiry into its history as a cultural and scientific phenomenon as well as any potential empirical proof.
Schizophrenia is a mental illness of the highest order that effects the brain in mysterious ways. It is a disease that’s root has riddled both scientist and doctors for centuries. Although being diagnosed with it is very rare, the results it has produced on humans are very disturbing. It has even affected a few of the great minds in our world’s history, driving them insane, beyond human reason. It throws out all logic and reason that we might have and replaces it with fantasy. It truly is like living in another reality. So what exactly is schizophrenia, what does it do to the human mind, and can its riddle be solved in the future? I will take a close look at these questions and the staggering effect that schizophrenia has had on its victims.
Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind (1949) is a critique of the notion that the mind is distinct from the body, and is a rejection of the philosophical theory that mental states are distinct from physical states. Ryle argues that the traditional approach to the relation of mind and body (i.e., the approach which is taken by the philosophy of Descartes) assumes that there is a basic distinction between Mind and Matter. According to Ryle, this assumption is a basic 'category-mistake,' because it attempts to analyze the relation betwen 'mind' and 'body' as if they were terms of the same logical category. Furthermore, Ryle argues that traditional Idealism makes a basic 'category-mistake' by trying to reduce physical reality to the same status as mental reality, and that Materialism makes a basic 'category-mistake' by trying to reduce mental reality to the same status as physical reality.