The process of constructing a unified Theory of Mind

Post Reply New Topic

What would be missing from a 'theory of mind' constructed out of our modern understanding of sociology, psychology, and semiotics?

How would one go about filling in those gaps?

Do you mean "Philosophy of Mind" instead?

"Theory of Mind" is the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and to others, and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own. Thus, it is a personal issue, rather than a universal one.

No, I entirely mean "theory of mind". I mean the ability to look at another person's actions, statements, body language, and decisions, and from those inputs deduce what their likely beliefs, desires and intentions are via an academic understanding of sociology, psychology and semiotics.

Although interestingly enough, I doubt a "theory of mind" is possible without a "philosophy of mind" as its foundation.

In that case, to answer your original question...

... the answer would be "personal experience".


By following the Scientific Method.

1) Develop a new hypothesis. A hypothesis is merely an idea that is usually based on passive observations of natural events. An idea does not have to be supported, but if it does not, then it remains only an idea.

2) Search for related data, which may be found in the results of previous research, whether or not the results of the previous research actually support the previous research.

3) If existing data does not support the hypothesis, then return to step 1.

4) Create a new supporting theory. A theory attempts to explain the hypothesis in a cause-and-effect manner. Never propose a theory that is not supported by available evidence.

5) Perform experiments to test the theory. Experiments must be appropriate to the proposed theory, and must be both repeatable and verifiable.

6) If the experimental results do not support the theory, then return to step 4.

7) Record findings and submit to peer-review process. A peer group is composed of professional researchers in the field of study that the theory addresses. The peer group will first examine the initial data for factual errors, then the theory for errors of reasoning, and then perform the same experiments under the same conditions to validate or invalidate the theory.

8) If the peer-review process produces conflicting evidence, then return to step 4.

9) At this point, the theory becomes a scientific principle.

10) Publish the results.

A very difficult statement, personally i find that when an incident occurs i have a 'good idea and react. NT's however, find an incident occurs and they have a 'emotion' and react, the semiotics appears as a smile or frown, but then comes the problem or psychology, what motivates the emotion behind the reaction? We can look at the sociology, but what influences an individual in society, parents, friends, school. By time i go through my own process of understanding, the moment as gone. If I were able to truly understand Theory of mind the process would be innate.
I think by definition a aspie will never be able to process NT behaviour, no matter how we subjectify the process. The core issue for me is the psychology of emotion, if your leg is broken then go to hospital to get it fixed, I don't get why someone would cry because they have a broken leg. It seems a matter for NT's, but you can't pin them down to a precise answer on emotions, as a result I don't think you can process Theory of mind.

Such experiments require some amount of information gathering (to get at other peoples' actual internal states).

What instruments are used to measure those states? What biases do those instruments typically have?

Can the OP explain what you mean by "constructing a unified ToM"? I don't really understand you mean by a unified ToM. Do you mean a systematic ToM of NTs for autistic people to understand?

No, I mean a systematic ToM for *me* to understand. If it works well for Autistics, that's gravy, but my primary goal is to create a personal Theory of Mind that operates un a unified and systematic way (that is, it isn't a jumble of independent and contradictory facts).

So your personal ToM for you to understand yourself?

Unfortunately, there are no such instruments. You would have to rely on personal accounts and sift through voluminous amounts of subjective data before reaching even a tentative conclusion.

Reparsing that to make sure we understand each other:

I'm trying to develop a personal ToM for me to understand other people's internal states in an effective and affective way.

Oh.

Well, for that you'd have to major in psychology at a university.

ruveyn.

From what has been posted here, he one day sat down,(long before a personal knowledge of Aspergers) so to speak, and studied body language to develop a workable ToM.
From what I understand, this is close to being 'natural' in blending in. It's to where one doesn't have too put much intellectual effort to' fly it.'
Though I suspect there is an underlying abstract talent that isn't accessible by all.

In real time, I don't think one could do this without developing a " personal" ToM, via an algorithmic compensation of the others' internal state. This would be the start of it.

Wouldn't this developing of a "personal ToM" to understand other people be problematic if oneself is autistic and most others are not?

I read about certain personalities from one of the behavioral sciences or from one of the physiological sciences and apply those theories to people. usually works. or just ignore the people.

see ruveyn