Theory Theory Research Articles

Mental Theorizing about Fictional Characters

Abstract Mindreading is the ability to attribute mental states to others and predict their behavior. Mindreading is commonplace in our daily lives, as well as our engagements with fictions. In this paper, I provide an account of how we mindread fictional entities that draws upon a version of theory-theory (TT). TT states that we attribute mental states through a process of inference-drawing from tacit folk psychological knowledge about mental states and information about our current environment and then conclude that the target must think or feel a certain way. Philosophers of art seldom argue in favor of TT. My opinion is that TT does not appeal to those trying to explain fictional mindreading because it does not explicitly make use of the imagination or imaginary mental states. Moreover, TT faces several standard objections that philosophers of art have taken to heart. Most significantly, it is argued that TT proposes an overly complex cognitive architecture and does not capture the phenomenology of our mindreading experience. To combat such worries, I supplement the traditional account of TT with an account of social referencing. Social referencing is a heuristic model of how we quickly understand our social surroundings. I argue that this updated version of TT can adequately account for the challenges faced by standard TT and can readily explain how we mindread fictional entities.

Superposition mechanism as a neural basis for understanding others

Social cognition has received much attention in fields such as neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy. Theory-theory (TT) and simulation theory (ST) provide the dominant theoretical frameworks for research on social cognition. However, neither theory addresses the matter of how the concepts of “self” and “other” are acquired through the development of human and nonhuman agents. Here, we show that the internal representations of “self” and “other” can be developed in an artificial agent only through the simple predictive learning achieved by deep neural networks with the superposition mechanism we herein propose. That is, social cognition can be achieved without a pre-given (or innate) framework of self and other; this is not assumed (or is at least unclear) in TT and ST. We demonstrate that the agent with the proposed model can acquire basic abilities of social cognition such as shared spatial representations of self and other, perspective-taking, and mirror-neuron-like activities of the agent’s neural network. The result indicates that the superposition mechanism we propose is a necessary condition for the development of the concepts of “self” and “other” and, hence, for the development of social cognition in general.

Samoświadomość w ujęciu kognitywnym, a spektrum autyzmu

Jednym z problemów współczesnych nauk kognitywnych jest niewypracowana spójna definicja świadomości oraz samoświadomości. Jest to związane z interdyscyplinarnością kognitywistyki, czyli czerpania z takich dziedzin nauki, jak: neurobiologia, psychologia poznawcza, filozofia umysłu, lingwistyka, logika, fizyka, a także z zakresu badań nad sztuczną inteligencją. W związku z powyższym mimo istnienia m.in. kognitywnej teorii świadomości J. Baarsa w niniejszym artykule skupiono się na procesach poznawczych, które wpływają na samoświadomość jednostki. W celu uzyskania obrazu samoświadomości w ujęciu kognitywnym przedstawiono mechanizmy poznawcze zawarte w teorii umysłu (ToM) oraz przedstawiono teorie jej rozwoju, czyli teorię teorii (TT), teorię modularności oraz teorię symulacji. Coraz częściej samoświadomość ujmowana jest poprzez znalezienie neurofizjologicznych korelatów pomiędzy rozpoznawaniem świadomych bodźców w danej sytuacji od tych, których podmiot nie jest świadomy. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest próba wskazania wpływu przedstawionych procesów poznawczych na samoświadomość osób z autyzmem. W artykule odniesiono się do literatury przedmiotu dotyczącej spektrum autyzmu, a także zwrócono uwagę na neurologiczne i neurofunkcjonalne korelaty autyzmu. Nieprawidłowy proces mentalizacji u osób autystycznych znajduje potwierdzenie w badaniach opartych na neuroobrazowaniu. Niniejsze opracowanie jest koncepcją teoretyczną wyłaniającą się z analizy wybranych mechanizmów poznawczych oraz w odniesieniu do dotychczasowych badań na temat samoświadomości u osób z autyzmem. Jest także próbą zarysowania istniejących niejasności i otwartych pytań dotyczących samoświadomości osób ze spektrum autyzmu.

Beyond Identity: the Dynamic Self at the Intersection of Performance Philosophy and the Philosophy of Science

In this article we advocate the methodological loop in the study of the dynamical at the crossroads of performance philosophy, (artistic) performance, and the philosophy of science. We point to the importance of the dynamics of methodology transfer between arts and sciences and the continuum proposed by Newman & Benz in 1998. In the first part of this paper we give a comparative review of the research context relevant for our field of study, and we explain our research hubs in approaching the concept of performance. We suggest the possibility to define our filed of research in three equally legitimate ways: as philosophy-of-performance, philosophy-as-performance and performance-as-philosophy. In our recent work we are primarily interested in artistic performances that incorporate elements of artistic practice in the methodology of research output (Frayling 1993), as well as in the potentials of performative aspects of scientific and methodology. However, the conceptual background relevant for this paper is in the field of process philosophy and its relation to science (Birkhard's interactivist 2009; Campbell's process-based model for an interactive ontology 2009). We attribute particular importance to the notion of autopoietic feedback (Maturana and Varela 1974; Luhmann 1990). The second part addresses the issue of transcending identity in the representations of the and the other; the relationship between Theory-Theory (TT) and Simulation Theory (ST), as well as some recent attempts at combining different theories of mind (e.g. Barlassina 2013). We also deal with the notion of embodied praxis (Gallagher and Meltzoff 1996); we mention some neuroscientific insights into the similar phenomena, and - commenting on the importance of the dialogue between neuroscientists and philosophers (Changeux and Ricour) - we give an example of an enactive approach to understanding acting (Zarrilli 2007). In the third part of this article, we critique the notion of interpassivity (Žižek 1997; Pfaller 2000). In the concluding part we mention the importance of exploring the concept of expanded self (Gallagher 2000; Jeannerod 2003; Kim and Johnson 2013). Being aware of the impossibility to reach final conclusions in the scientific approach to the dynamics of the self, instead of a formal conclusion, we offer a quote from Yeats' poem Balloons of Mind.

How Do We Understand Others? Empathy and Theory-Theory of Mind as Two Different, but Cooperative, Mechanisms for Sensibility

The aim of this paper is to understand whether Theory-Theory of Mind (TToM) can be considered the one and only source of our understanding of others or not. I support the idea that TToM cannot have such a role and that it can be played only by basic empathy - a sui generis perception. In this paper, I challenge TToM as basic, I then consider the notion of “empathy” and I provide a very narrow definition of low-level empathy, that I compare to Scheler’s account on affective phenomena.

Introduction to debates on embodied social cognition

Social cognition, very basically, is our ability to understand and interact with others. In all sorts of everyday situations, we observe, understand, and interact in complex social situations. Following politics, gossiping, playing sports, engaging in pretend play, and driving on a busy freeway are just a few instances of social cognition. The study of social cognition seeks to explain the cognitive architecture of our minds and psychological processes that make it possible for us to engage in social cognition. For much of the past two decades, there has been a two-party debate about social cognition between the Theory Theory (TT) and the Simulation Theory (ST). Theory theorists argue that we explain and predict behavior by employing folk psychological theories about how mental states inform behavior. With our folk psychological theories, we infer from a target’s behavior what his or her mental states probably are. And from these inferences, plus the psychological principles in the theory connecting mental states to behavior, we predict the target’ sb ehavior (Carruthers and Smith 1996; Davies and Stone 1995a; Gopnik and Wellman 1992; Nichols and Stich 2003). In its most general form, the TT holds that mindreading is an information-rich process. The process of understanding others’ mental states relies on a rich body of folk psychological information. Simulation theorists, in contrast, argue that we explain and predict a target’s behavior by using our own minds as a model, putting ourselves in another’s shoes, so to speak, and imagining what our mental states would be and how we would behave if we were in the target’s situation. More specifically, we retrodictively simulate to figure out what the target’s mental states could have been to cause the observed behavior, then we take the target’s mental states in the form of pretend beliefs and pretend desires as input, run them through our own decision-making mechanism, and take the resulting conclusion and attribute it to the target (Currie and Ravenscroft 2002; Davies and Stone 1995b; Goldman 2006; Gordon 1986; Nichols and Stich 2003). In contrast with the TT, the ST posits an information-poor process.

Why Studies of Autism Spectrum Disorders Have Failed to Resolve the Theory Theory Versus Simulation Theory Debate

The Theory Theory (TT) versus Simulation Theory (ST) debate is primarily concerned with how we understand others’ mental states. Theory theorists claim we do this using rules that are akin to theoretical laws, whereas simulation theorists claim we use our own minds to imagine ourselves in another’s position. Theorists from both camps suggest a consideration of individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) can help resolve the TT/ST debate (e.g., Baron-Cohen 1995; Carruthers 1996a; Goldman 2006). We present a three-part argument that such research has so far been inconclusive and that the prospects for studies of ASD to resolve the debate in the near future remain uncertain. First, we discuss evidence indicating that some individuals with ASD can perform effectively on tests of mental state understanding, which questions what ASD can tell us regarding theorising or simulation. Second, we claim that there is compelling evidence that domain-general mechanisms are implicated in mental state reasoning, which undermines how ASD might inform the TT/ST debate given that both theories appeal to domain-specific mindreading mechanisms. Third, we suggest that neuroscientific evidence for an assumed role of the mirror neuron system in autism also fails to arbitrate between TT and ST. We suggest that while the study of ASD may eventually provide a resolution to the TT/ST debate, it is also vital for researchers to examine the issues through other avenues, for example, by examining people’s everyday counterfactual reasoning with mental state scenarios.

Mirror neurons are not evidence for the Simulation Theory

Recently, there as been a resurgence of interest in theories of mindreading. New discoveries in neuroscience have revitalized the languishing debate. The discovery of so-called mirror neurons has revived interest particularly in the Simulation Theory (ST) of mindreading. Both ST proponents and theorists studying mirror neurons have argued that mirror neurons are strong evidence in favor of ST over Theory Theory (TT). In this paper I argue against the prevailing view that mirror neurons are evidence for the ST of mindreading. My view is that on an appropriate construal of their function, mirror neurons do not operate like simulation theorists claim. In fact, mirror neurons are more appropriately understood as one element in an information-rich mindreading process. As such, mirror neurons fit in better with some sort of TT account of mindreading. I offer a positive account, the Model TT, which better explains the role of mirror neurons in social cognition.

Illuminating the dark matter of social neuroscience: Considering the problem of social interaction from philosophical, psychological, and neuroscientific perspectives.

Successful human social interaction depends on our capacity to understand other people's mental states and to anticipate how they will react to our actions. Despite its importance to the human condition, the exact mechanisms underlying our ability to understand another's actions, feelings, and thoughts are still a matter of conjecture. Here, we consider this problem from philosophical, psychological, and neuroscientific perspectives. In a critical review, we demonstrate that attempts to draw parallels across these complementary disciplines is premature: The second-person perspective does not map directly to Interaction or Simulation theories, online social cognition, or shared neural network accounts underlying action observation or empathy. Nor does the third-person perspective map onto Theory-Theory (TT), offline social cognition, or the neural networks that support Theory of Mind (ToM). Moreover, we argue that important qualities of social interaction emerge through the reciprocal interplay of two independent agents whose unpredictable behavior requires that models of their partner's internal state be continually updated. This analysis draws attention to the need for paradigms in social neuroscience that allow two individuals to interact in a spontaneous and natural manner and to adapt their behavior and cognitions in a response contingent fashion due to the inherent unpredictability in another person's behavior. Even if such paradigms were implemented, it is possible that the specific neural correlates supporting such reciprocal interaction would not reflect computation unique to social interaction but rather the use of basic cognitive and emotional processes combined in a unique manner. Finally, we argue that given the crucial role of social interaction in human evolution, ontogeny, and every-day social life, a more theoretically and methodologically nuanced approach to the study of real social interaction will nevertheless help the field of social cognition to evolve.

Seeing minds: A neurophilosophical investigation of the role of perception-action coupling in social perception

This paper proposes an empirical hypothesis that in some cases of social interaction we have an immediate perceptual access to others' minds in the perception of their embodied intentionality. Our point of departure is the phenomenological insight that there is an experiential difference in the perception of embodied intentionality and the perception of non-intentionality. The other's embodied intentionality is perceptually given in a way that is different from the givenness of non-intentionality. We claim that the phenomenological difference in the perception of embodied intentionality and non-intentionality translates into an account of how, in some cases of social cognition, we perceive mental properties in the perception of embodied intentionality. The hypothesis derives support from a host of recent empirical studies in social neuroscience which demonstrate the importance of embodied engagements in understanding other minds. These studies reveal that embodied intersubjective interaction often builds on our ability to understand other minds in an immediate perceptual way not adequately investigated by theory-theory (TT) and simulation theories (ST) of mind-reading. We argue that there is a genuine, nontrivial difference in the informational content of the perception of embodied intentionality and the perception of non-intentionality which leads to a further difference in the way information is processed in the case of perception of embodied intentionality as opposed to the perception of non-intentionality. The full significance of such difference is appreciated only within an account of perception which views perception and action as tightly coupled. Thus, we propose an “action-oriented account of social perception” to develop a neurophilosophical account of the perceptual knowledge of other minds.

Empathy and Direct Social Perception: A Phenomenological Proposal

Quite a number of the philosophical arguments and objections currently being launched against simulation (ST) based and theory-theory (TT) based approaches to mindreading have a phenomenological heritage in that they draw on ideas found in the work of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Stein, Gurwitsch, Scheler and Schutz. Within the last couple of years, a number of ST and TT proponents have started to react and respond to what one for the sake of simplicity might call the phenomenological proposal (PP). This paper addresses some of these critical responses, and distinguishes—in the process—substantive disagreements from terminological issues and other issues that are symptomatic of different research agendas. It does so by focusing specifically upon some objections made by Pierre Jacob. These epitomize the kinds of concerns that are being raised about PP at the moment, and thus facilitate a reply on behalf of PP that also applies more generally.

Inference or interaction: social cognition without precursors

In this paper I defend interaction theory (IT) as an alternative to both theory theory (TT) and simulation theory (ST). IT opposes the basic suppositions that both TT and ST depend upon. I argue that the various capacities for primary and secondary intersubjectivity found in infancy and early childhood should not be thought of as precursors to later developing capacities for using folk psychology or simulation routines. They are not replaced or displaced by such capacities in adulthood, but rather continue to operate as our ordinary and everyday basis for social cognition. I also argue that enactive perception rather than implicit simulation is the best model for explaining these capacities.

Direct perception in the intersubjective context

This paper, in opposition to the standard theories of social cognition found in psychology and cognitive science, defends the idea that direct perception plays an important role in social cognition. The two dominant theories, theory theory (TT) and simulation theory (ST), both posit something more than a perceptual element as necessary for our ability to understand others, i.e., to “mindread” or “mentalize.” In contrast, certain phenomenological approaches depend heavily on the concept of perception and the idea that we have a direct perceptual grasp of the other person’s intentions, feelings, etc. This paper explains precisely what the notion of direct perception means, offers evidence from developmental studies, and proposes a non-simulationist interpretation of the neuroscience of mirror systems.

Social cognition and social robots

Social robots are robots designed to interact with humans or with each other in ways that approximate human social interaction. It seems clear that one question relevant to the project of designing such robots concerns how humans themselves interact to achieve social understanding. If we turn to psychology, philosophy, or the cognitive sciences in general, we find two models of social cognition vying for dominance under the heading of theory of mind: theory theory (TT) and simulation theory (ST). It is therefore natural and interesting to ask how a TT design for a social robot would differ from the ST version. I think that a much more critical question is whether either TT or ST provide an adequate explanation of social cognition. There is a growing although still minority consensus that, despite their dominance in the debate about social cognition, neither TT nor ST, nor some hybrid version of these theories, offers an acceptable account of how we encounter and interact with one another. In this paper I will give a brief review of the theory of mind debate, outline an alternative theory of social cognition based on an embodied interactive approach, and then try to draw out a few implications about social robotics.

Beyond Simulation–Theory and Theory–Theory: Why social cognitive neuroscience should use its own concepts to study “theory of mind”

The debate between Simulation–Theory (ST) and Theory–Theory (TT) provides the dominant theoretical framework for research on “theory of mind” (ToM). Behavioural research has failed to provide clear methods for discriminating between these theories, but a number of recent studies have claimed that neuroimaging methods do allow key predictions of ST and TT to be tested. In the current paper it is argued that neuroimaging studies have not in fact provided any data that discriminates between ST and TT accounts of propositional attitude ascription, and moreover that it is uncertain that they will in the future. However, it is also argued that the fault lies with the ST/TT debate, not with the methods and concepts of neuroimaging research. Neuroimaging can certainly contribute to our understanding of ToM, and should contribute to the project of developing theoretical models more firmly grounded in specific cognitive and neural processes than ST or TT.

Functionalism, the theory-theory and phenomenology

Functionalism, the theory-theory and phenomenology