Theory of mind: the idea that not all knowledge is universal knowledge.
Your thoughts?
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I would agree that knowledge is not universal. Knowledge is both cultural and personal. Cultural knowledge is the body of accumulated beliefs, ideologies, accepted wisdoms, accepted proofs contained within a culture. Each culture has its own "knowledge."
Knowledge is also personal -- the patterns of meaning or cognitive structures which we build in our own minds.
wordywalt
Level 9
Dec 8, 2017
2
Yesterday, I was making a drug run for my mom. As I was waiting to be served, I saw a magazine on a rack. It was the Time Magazine Special Edition titled “The Animal Mind”. I’m really into animals and had heard a little about the present direction of research into mind and thought processes. So, I bought the issue. Theory of mind is referenced several times.
Theory of mind presumes that other animals (mammals and birds) have a mind. As far as the meaning for humans go each human can only intuit the existence of their own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another.
As originally defined, it gives people the capability to understand that mental states can be the cause of—and thus be used to explain and predict—the behavior of others. Being able to attribute mental states to others and understanding them as causes of behavior implies, in part, that one must be able to conceive of the mind as a "generator of representations".
The Theory of mind requires social and other experience over many years for its full development. Empathy is considered a related concept, meaning the recognition and understanding of the states of mind of others, including their beliefs, desires and particularly emotions.
AstralSmoke
Level 8
Dec 8, 2017
1
Of course all of our knowledge isn't universal. The human study and definition of the laws of physics for example. Things often "defy the laws of physics" not because the laws are universal, ibut because they're "earthly."
Suffolkian
Level 5
Dec 8, 2017
2
If I know how much money I have in my pocket but you don't, that wouldn't be universal knowledge would it. My point is that I don't understand the question.
TommyMeador
Level 7
Dec 8, 2017
2
I'm not certain I understand the definition. Does this mean as opposed to a collective subconscious knowledge? If so, then I agree. I don't buy into the notion of a collective subconscious, and I think we know only what we've directly experience (whether from personal experience or from someone else relaying their experience to others).
resserts
Level 8
Dec 8, 2017
3
Is that what he was talking about? Naah, collective subconscious, I don't think so.
To me, things like common archetypes across eons of time in multiple cultures is explained by a common consciousness. As well as architectural similarities (think pyramids). It's the least "woo" explanation for me of all these things until another more plausible explanation is presented.
Maybe not, @TommyMeador. I'm looking for clarification, because I don't know what "universal knowledge" — especially in regard to theory of mind — would entail. It seems our minds are self-evidently subjective and that people from various backgrounds and with disparate experiences have vastly different understanding, areas of knowledge, etc.
@Hominid: I think we have a biological template that makes us similar in many respects, more so than to crocodiles for example, so given a similar level of social and technological advancement we're likely to see some people come up with similar ideas and solutions to problems. I'm not sure I'd call that a collective subconsciousness or universal knowledge, though, because I don't think it's universal at all. A peasant and a king are likely to have very different experiences and approach life very differently. It just seems like people of similar biology, brain chemistry, and background are likely to see things more similarly, but that's like saying marbles of similar size on an incline of similar material and pitch will travel a similar relative path. That's not what we're calling collective subconsciousness, is it?
Check out my response. It might shine a bit more info on the subject.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.