Theories of Mind: What's Natural?

1991 ◽  
Vol 36 (12) ◽  
pp. 1091-1091
Author(s):  
Carl N. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Theories Of Mind

Human Mind and Its Carriers: Is It Possible to Transform Ourselves into Robots?

2021 ◽  
pp. 105-117
Author(s):  
Vadim V. Vasilyev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Identity ◽  
Human Person ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
John Searle ◽  
David Chalmers ◽  
Main Emphasis ◽  
Theories Of Mind ◽  
Continuous Stream ◽  
Previous State ◽  
The Brain

In this paper I discuss some aspects of the problem of carriers of human mind and person. The main emphasis is placed on the origin of our idea of the identi­cal self in the stream of perceptions, the need for a physical carrier of our self and person, and on possibility of replacing the biological carriers of self and per­son with artificial analogues. I argue that the idea of identical self is constructed by reflection on memories, that its truth is guaranteed by continuous stream of perceptions kept in memories, and that the stream of perceptions presupposes the presence of a normally functioning brain, which can be considered as a car­rier of our mind and person. Therefore, personal identity turns out to be depen­dent on the identity of the brain in time. An attempt to copy the structures of mind and person onto other possible carriers can thus only lead to creation of duplicates of the original person, but not to the continuation of its existence on another carrier. I argue that the gradual replacement of their components with artificial analogues is a more promising way of transforming the biological carri­ers of human person. To access the possible consequences of such a replacement I analyze arguments of John Searle and David Chalmers, designed to show, re­spectively, the disappearance of consciousness and person with such a replace­ment and, on the contrary, their preservation in a previous state. I explain why Searle’s arguments are unconvincing, and demonstrate that Chalmers’ arguments are based on a hidden premise, the confirmation of which is possible in the con­text of dubious theories of mind-body identity, epiphenomenalism or panpsy­chism only. I conclude that in the current situation it is impossible to predict which consequences for our person would follow such a replacement.

The Role of Scientific Results in Theories of Mind and Brain: A Conversation among Philosophers and Scientists

1976 ◽  
pp. 317-328
Author(s):  
E. M. Dewan ◽  
John C. Eccles ◽  
Gordon G. Globus ◽  
Keith Gunderson ◽  
Peter H. Knapp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Theories Of Mind ◽  
Mind And Brain ◽  
Scientific Results

scholarly journals Distributed Cognition, Neuroprostheses and their Implications to Non-Physicalist Theories of Mind

1970 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-142
Author(s):  
Jean Gové
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Functioning ◽  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Distributed Cognition ◽  
Common Assumption ◽  
Theories Of Mind ◽  
Organic Brain ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Brain

This paper investigates the notion of ‘distributed cognition’ – the idea that entities external to one’s organic brain participate in one’s overall cognitive functioning – and the challenges it poses. Related to this is also a consideration of the ever-increasing ways in which neuroprostheses replace and functionally replicate organic parts of the brain. However, the literature surrounding such issues has tended to take an almost exclusively physicalist approach. The common assumption is that, given that non- physicalist theories (dualism, hylomorphism) postulate some form of immaterial ‘soul’, then they are immune from the challenges that these advances in cognitive science pose. The first aim of this paper, therefore, is to argue that this is not the case. The second aim of this paper is to attempt to elucidate a route available for the non- physicalist that will allow them to accept the notion of distributed cognition. By appealing to an Aristotelian framework, I propose that the non-physicalist can accept the notion of distributed cognition by appeal to the notion of ‘unitary life’ which I introduce as well as Aristotle’s dichotomy between active and passive mind.

Curriculum Influences: William James and Michel Foucault

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Baker ◽  
Clare O'Farrell
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Michel Foucault ◽  
William James ◽  
The United States ◽  
13Th Century ◽  
Early Christian ◽  
Concrete Experience ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Theories Of Mind ◽  
Primary Focus

William James (1841–1910), working primarily out of the United States, and Michel Foucault (1926–1984), working primarily out of France, are two very different figures who both made an impact on current theories of education. Even if the primary focus of their work is not education, their ideas challenge what it is that makes education recognizable as education and takes issue with its very identity as a discipline. William James, who began publishing in the 1870s, is generally described as a philosopher and psychologist. He remains well-known for his work on pragmatism in the wake of Charles Sanders Peirce’s pragmaticism and for his work on religion, ethics, and mind theory, but he also devoted considerable time to the study of parapsychology and gave some attention to teacher education. Foucault has been variously described as a philosopher, historian, historian of ideas, and a social and political theorist. His work addressed an impressive array of fields across the sciences, literature, art, ethics, and institutional, political, and social history, and spanned a wide range of historical periods mainly in European and French history from the 13th century to the 20th century with later excursions into the Ancient Greek and early Christian eras. Foucault’s work has been widely, but selectively, deployed within education studies across the globe, with a strong focus on his notions of power, governmentality, surveillance, subjectivity, discourse, and ethics in their various iterations. James’s work has been relatively less deployed, with emphasis on the application of his version of pragmatism, theories of mind, and talks to teachers. The work of the two thinkers may be considered to overlap in two important ways: first, in their respective approaches to the notion of practice, namely the idea of philosophy as strategic and located in day-to-day concrete experience rather than occupying the rarefied realms of abstraction; and second, their interest in the margins of knowledge – knowledge that has been excluded by mainstream science and accepted ways of thinking. In the case of James, this interest manifests in his long-term studies in the field of parapsychology and in the case of Foucault in his interest in the meandering byways and monstrosities of the history of ideas, of long-forgotten knowledge rejected by the scientific mainstream or formulated on the margins of society.

Chimps, Dogs, and Us

Reading Minds ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 98-112
Author(s):  
Henry M. Wellman
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Theory Of Mind ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Social Cognitive ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Human Cognition ◽  
Social Understanding ◽  
Mind Reading ◽  
Theories Of Mind ◽  
Almost All

This chapter addresses how animal studies are a crucial way to discover what makes people, and our theories of mind, uniquely human. Chimpanzee social understanding falls far short of human children’s. Nevertheless, people’s human theory of mind reflects beginnings owed to nonhuman ancestors. At the same time, human theory of mind is distinctive. It is broad, impacting almost all of human cognition and social interaction. It is fundamentally developmental, requiring more and more advanced mind-reading insights over an entire human life. It is also helpful and communicative. Even infants deploy their social–cognitive insights to help, communicate with, and learn about others. As such, while people sprang from animal ancestors, it is their advanced, rapidly developing social understanding that makes them uniquely human.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document