Books
Group avatar

Theory of Mind

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others. As originally defined, it enables one to understand that mental states can be the cause of—and thus be used to explain and predict—others’ behavior. Being able to attribute mental states to others and...more »

« more discussions

  • Michael L

    Cognitive dissonance: how is it possible for a person to hold mutually exclusive beliefs?

    Save Changes Cancel
    This phenomenon is apparently so common as to have a name, and to have been widely-studied, but on its face, it seems utterly irrational. Further, so far as I can tell, the only evidence for its existence consists of unverifiable assertions of subjects as to what they believe. This raises other questions... Are subjects accurately reporting what they actually do believe, or asserting beliefs they do not really hold? Are there degrees of "belief" that permit an individual to harbor some tentative or conditional belief that is, nevertheless, at odds with other ideas or beliefs, whether qualified or absolute, that the individual also holds to be true? Or is the existence of such a state of beliefs merely evidence that the individual who holds them is fundamentally irrational?
    Michael L started this discussion 3 years ago. ( reply | permalink )

8

replies
expand replies 
Sign in to participate in this discussion.
  • tanya s
    Save Changes Cancel

    One possible explanation: over the course of human evolution, our cortex outgrew our amygdala; we have the capacity to think about a lot of things that we then have no emotional capacity to deal with. As a result, we're all batsh*t crazy.

    Whaddaya think?

    Seems to me this theory would explain a good bit of irrational human behavior...

    posted 3 years ago. ( permalink )
  • Michael L
    Save Changes Cancel

    Damn! I was really hoping that wasn't the answer.

    posted 3 years ago. ( permalink )
  • Nobody T
    Save Changes Cancel

    The first thing to notice about this question is that it involves the process of attribution, and that the rules of attribution are set forth in stages by mathematical logic. The first stage is called sentential logic and contains the rules for ascribing the attributes true or false, respectively denoting inclusion or non-inclusion in arbitrary cognitive-perceptual systems, to hypothetical relationships in which predicates are linked by the logical functors not, and, or, implies, and if and only if. Sentential logic defines these functors as truth functions assigning truth values to such expressions irrespective of the contents (but not the truth values) of their predicates, thus effecting a circular definition of functors on truth values and truth values on functors. The next stage of attribution, predicate logic, ascribes specific properties to objects using quantifiers. And the final stage, model theory, comprises the rules for attributing complex relations of predicates to complex relations of objects, i.e. theories to universes. In addition, the form of attribution called definition is explicated in a theory-centric branch of logic called formalized theories, and the mechanics of functional attribution is treated in recursion theory.
    In sentential logic, a tautology is an expression of functor-related sentential variables that is always true, regardless of the truth values assigned to its sentential variables themselves. A tautology has three key properties: it is universally (syntactically) true, it is thus self-referential (true even of itself and therefore closed under recursive self-composition), and its implications remain consistent under inferential operations preserving these properties. That is, every tautology is a self-consistent circularity of universal scope, possessing validity by virtue of closure under self-composition, comprehensiveness (non-exclusion of truth), and consistency (freedom from irresolvable paradox). But tautologies are not merely consistent unto themselves; they are mutually consistent under mutual composition, making sentential logic as much a “self-consistent circularity of universal scope” as any one of its tautologies. Thus, sentential logic embodies two levels of tautology, one applying to expressions and one applying to theoretical systems thereof. Predicate logic then extends the tautology concept to cover the specific acts of attribution represented by (formerly anonymous) sentential variables, and model theory goes on to encompass more complex acts of attribution involving more complex relationships.
    Or in other, more easy to understand words: How is it that they are exclusive when they are necessarily encapsulated by the same rules of attribution and a common medium by which a difference relationship (or any relationship) can be affirmed? Maybe because these thoughts are merely manifestations of the natural and necessary process of their embedding entity and language: To process something, you need to have something to process, right? If the process is that of logical reasoning, then if there is no problem, how can a processor exist? No question ,no answer; no problem, no resolution. Humans process things thus, and herein lies the necessity of such things;paradox is a state of nature, otherwise it wouldn't need to actualize and move. It's not contradictory, merely at another level of attribution and embedment. Consider this : If both truth-values(true and false) didn't already exist, how could something be true or false? They are in unresolved truth-state before being processed, pretty much like words before being syntactically processed, just that the processing "language" is noetic, not lingvistic. Realistic acknowledgment of this fact and it's proper integration in models resolves many nasty paradoxes associated with short-circuiting their relationships.

    posted 3 years ago. ( permalink )
  • Nobody T
    Save Changes Cancel

    Much of the above is found at Christopher Langan's CTMU or Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, my all-time favorite book (see shelf...). It provides the interpretative conceptual framework laying the preliminary grounds for the resolution and unification of most things pertaining to knowledge, especially the mind ,the reality, and their relationship.

    posted 3 years ago. ( permalink )
  • Rubilene Borges
    Save Changes Cancel

    Belief is behavior. All kinds of behavior are controlled by a context. You don't tell bad jokes to your mom and it doesn't mean that you never tell bad jokes when you are with someone else. If during your whole childhood you were teached to go to church and pray, you can still do this nowadays and be a science teacher of human evolution, for example. You will probably not telll the priest that Eve and Adam are not real and you'll not tell your students that humans didn't came from apes, that God created us, as we are now. You can live with it, since you know when, where and with who you can behave this or that way.

    posted 3 years ago. ( permalink )
  • Chris Nowakowski
    Save Changes Cancel

    First one simple example; you know Peter and you know John, and you know them both to be trustworthy people. Peter tells you "it happened" and John says "it didn't happen". Since you know them both to be trustworthy people, you are inclined to believe them both, but that creates a logical inconsistency in you mind. The theory of cognitive dissonance says that under such circumstances humans are inately motivated to reduce or eliminate the dissonance or inconsistency. It certainly does not require an irrational person to find oneself in such a situation.

    A more complex example has to take into account that beliefs can serve many different functions in one's psychological processes. Let's take two instances. First there are the beliefs that one holds because they are consistent with what our senses tell us. I believe it is snowing because I see the snow falling. Then there are the beliefs that serve as a buffer between what our senses tell us and our world view. Ideological beliefs are usually in this second category. So what happens if our senses tell us one thing and our ideology tells us something else. Again there is cognitive dissonance. Some deal with it by changing their world view. Others deal with it by finding all sorts of rationalizations as to why the evidence of their senses does not contradict their ideology, and often come up with arguments that may be irrational, but simply saying that they are irrational doesn't really explain anything. They are mostly driven by their attachment to their way of seeing things, and for various reasons are unwilling or unable to change it.

    posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
    show 1 reply
    • greyshirt
      Save Changes Cancel

      Are you writing on what runs through the mind parallel to an action rather than what is intrinsic to person order of things?

      posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
  • greyshirt
    Save Changes Cancel

    Belief in and of itself brings comfort, one just have to say a thing in the circumstance that it occur and if it is in ones temperament to think in such a way then one would develop a behavior that is consistent with that belief. So in essence belief are thought that we harbor that sets a course mentally and is played out in our morals.Whether what we believe is true or not is beside the point.

    posted 2 years ago. ( permalink )
  • To reply to this discussion, please sign in.

Return to top