The Blog: Cogito Ergo Blogo

Mind Reading

Before people think we’ve gone off the deep end, we should explain that by Mind Reading, we don’t mean anything having to do with the paranormal or the occult.  We’re talking about the way human beings can be really good at understanding each other, the way we figure out what other people believe, desire, or intend.  It’s this perfectly ordinary skill -- the basis and significance of which we want to explore today.

Our capacity for mind-reading is actually a big deal -- a major evolutionary achievement of our species.  Without it, we couldn’t learn from each other as easily and as profusely as we do.  And we couldn’t so effortlessly coordinate our lives with others in the many ways we do.

Take the people in the audience at Pacific University, where this pogram was recorded.  They all managed to show up at the same place at the same time to witness Philosophy Talk in action.  How did they manage to do that?  It might have had something to do with the posters plastered all over campus.  But those lovely posters are just a few colorful marks on paper, but somehow that enabled everybody in the auditorium to surmise that we intended to be there doing the show.  And on the basis of that bit of mind-reading, they were able to form the intention of being there too.  And Voila!  There they all were together.

But what about that age-old philosophical conundrum -- the problem of other minds?  I know my mind and its contents directly and immediately -- from the inside.  It’s impossible for me to doubt that I have a mind.  But knowing your mind is different.  I can observe your outward behavior and can maybe guess there’s a mind behind it.  But it’s just a guess.  For all I know, you might really be a mindless automaton or a zombie.  And if I can’t rule out such possibilities, how can I possibly read your mind?  You might not even have a mind to read, for all I know.

Still, we shouldn't work ourselves into a skeptical frenzy.  Suppose we take our mind reading abilities at face value and try to figure out exactly what underlies that ability.  There's lots of fascinating new work in philosophy and cognitive science about the basis of our capacity to read minds.  Maybe learning how we actually manage to read minds might cure my doubts.  Some investigators think that our mind-reading abilities are rooted in a complex theory of mind.  In other words, reading minds is analogous to making inferences about the not-directly-observable behavior of atomomic particles on the basis of theories in physics or chemistry.

But the mind is a pretty complex thing.  Philosophers and scientists who study the mind still don’t understand it fully.  How can ordinary folks be so good at reading minds, if the people whose business it is to rigorously investigate the mind, still don’t really have a good theory of how it works?  There’s another view that says mind-reading doesn't have to involve theoretical knowledge at all.  Here’s how it goes: we figure out what other people feel or believe or intend by creatively projecting ourselves into their situation and figuring out what we ourselves would do or feel or believe in that situation.  And there are other approaches as well, which we hear about from our guest, Shaun Nichols, co-author of "Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretense, Self-Awareness and Understanding Other Minds."

Comments

Paul D. Van Pelt's picture
Submitted by Paul D. Van Pelt (not verified) on April 08, 2012

Some say the mind-reading thing is nothing more (or less) than an experiential or, similarly, learned behavior phenomenon. I subscribe to this and also believe it is one of Richard Dawkins' 'extended phenotypes': those traits, abilities or characteristics that present themselves, independently(?) of our genetic evolution. Certainly there must be some credence and evidence for all of these notions. Philosophers and scientists have parts of it right but will we ever know what it really means to know anything? I do not know, but have lost little sleep over that.

Warmest Regards,
PDV.

Arvoasitis's picture
Submitted by Arvoasitis (not verified) on April 21, 2012

Over the decades, I have observed that a statement that begins "I know for sure that" is invariably followed by nonsense, and the more forcefully the statement is made, the more preposterous it is likely to be. (In quite a number of cases, I have had adequate knowledge of the facts or realized that the speaker was representing opinion as fact, and in the rest I have made a reasonable surmise.) Similarly, in scholarly writing, any statement that begins "We now know that" should set off all kinds of alarm bells, unless you know that it is so.

At a pragmatic level, it is reasonable to claim to know things (the dispute being about the criteria or qualifications for a valid claim to knowledge). On the other hand, Constructive Psychology considers the world largely ambiguous and open to interpretation. Indeed, CP sees the brain as an artist that creates its own reality (but that may be going a little too far).

Get Philosophy Talk

Live

Sunday at 10am, PST, KALW, 91.7 FM, Local Public Radio, San Francisco

Streaming

Broadcast live on your iPhone or Android using the Public Radio Player

Podcast

Individual episodes, multipacks and The Complete Philosophy Talk on sale now through Iamplify.   Individual episodes available through Itunes and CD Baby.

Subscribe

Subscribe to our free weekly download service, and our monthly eNewsletter

John Perry and Ken Taylor

Talk to Us

Sidebar Menu

Past Blogs

  • May 01, 2013 : Good, Evil, and the Divine Plan
    Posted by JP This Sunday we're asking about Good, Evil, and the Divine Plan. The question is: if...
  • April 29, 2013 : The Demands of Morality
    This week we're asking about the Demands of Morality -- whether living morally adds or...
  • April 25, 2013 : Religion and the Art of Living
    Posted by JP   Religion offers us a comforting and inspiring vision of human existence.  ...
  • April 12, 2013 : Dance as a Way of Knowing
    Posted by LM The title of this week’s show might sound a little mysterious. How can dance, of all...
  • March 28, 2013 : Truth & Other Fictions
      We've titled this week's show "Truth – and Other Fictions."  Now that’s a provocative...

Would you like to be a caller on Philosophy Talk?

Please contact Ken & John by email at ideas@philosophytalk.org if you have an angle to add to any of the upcoming topics on Philosophy Talk, or if you have suggestions for future topics. You could be a guest caller on the air!

Support Philosophy Talk

DONATE TODAY

Philosophy Talk relies on the support of listeners like you to stay on the air and online. Any contribution, large or small, helps us produce intelligent, reflective radio that questions everything, including our most deeply-held beliefs about science, morality, culture, and the human condition. Make your tax-deductible contribution now through Stanford University's secure online donation page. Thank you for your support, and thank you for thinking!