1 introduction
play

1. Introduction butterfillS@ceu.hu butterfillS@ceu.hu first - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1. Introduction butterfillS@ceu.hu butterfillS@ceu.hu first challenge second challenge We are stuck with our two main ways of describing and explaining things, one which treats objects and events as mindless, and the other which treats


  1. 1. Introduction butterfillS@ceu.hu butterfillS@ceu.hu

  2. first challenge

  3. second challenge

  4. “ We are stuck with our two main ways of describing and explaining things, one which treats objects and events as mindless, and the other which treats objects and events as having propositional attitudes. I see no way of bridging the gap ” (Davidson 2003: 697)

  5. “ We are stuck with our two main ways of describing and explaining things, one which treats objects and events as mindless, and the other which treats objects and events as having propositional attitudes. I see no way of bridging the gap ” (Davidson 2003: 697)

  6. third challenge third challenge

  7. “perception, action, and cognition are grounded in social interaction” (Sebanz & Knoblich 2008)

  8. “the unique aspects of human cognition ... were driven by, or even constituted by, social co-operation” (Moll & Tomasello 2007) “perception, action, and cognition are grounded in social interaction” (Sebanz & Knoblich 2008)

  9. fourth challenge

  10. philosophical tools

  11. What Are Mental States? Tracking, Measuring and Representing Beliefs What is Core Knowledge (or Modularity)? Radical Interpretation Actions, Intentions and Goals Goal Ascription: the Teleological Stance and Motor Awareness What Is Joint Action? Shared Intention and Motor Representation in Joint Action

  12. What Are Mental States? Tracking, Measuring and Representing Beliefs What is Core Knowledge (or Modularity)? Radical Interpretation Actions, Intentions and Goals Goal Ascription: the Teleological Stance and Motor Awareness What Is Joint Action? Shared Intention and Motor Representation in Joint Action

  13. What Are Mental States? Tracking, Measuring and Representing Beliefs What is Core Knowledge (or Modularity)? Radical Interpretation Actions, Intentions and Goals Goal Ascription: the Teleological Stance and Motor Awareness What Is Joint Action? Shared Intention and Motor Representation in Joint Action

  14. What Are Mental States? Tracking, Measuring and Representing Beliefs What is Core Knowledge (or Modularity)? Radical Interpretation Actions, Intentions and Goals Goal Ascription: the Teleological Stance and Motor Awareness What Is Joint Action? Shared Intention and Motor Representation in Joint Action

  15. What Are Mental States? Tracking, Measuring and Representing Beliefs What is Core Knowledge (or Modularity)? Radical Interpretation Actions, Intentions and Goals Goal Ascription: the Teleological Stance and Motor Awareness What Is Joint Action? Shared Intention and Motor Representation in Joint Action

  16. October 10: Sugden, R. (2000). Team preferences. October 24: Matthews, R. J. (1994). The measure of mind. October 31: Davidson, D. ([1984] 1973). Radical interpretation. November 14: Bratman, M. (1984). Two faces of intention.

  17. not adequately understanding

  18. not adequately understanding

  19. Objectivity Could there be mindreaders who are able to identify differences in belief despite not understanding what it is for a belief to be true or false? Self-awareness Does being a mindreader entail being able, sometimes, to identify one's own mental states and actions? Evidential basis What evidence could in principle support the ascription of a particular belief to a given subject, and how does the evidence support the ascription? Holism Could there be mindreaders who can identify intentions and knowledge states but not beliefs?

  20. a puzzle

  21. Infants’ false-belief tracking abilities (Southgate et al 2007)

  22. Infants’ false-belief tracking abilities Violation of expectations (Onishi & Baillargeon 2005) - with change of location (He et al 2011) - with deceptive contents (Song et al 2008; Scott et al 2012) - observing verbal comm n Anticipating action (Southgate et al 2007) (Clements et al 1994) - looking (Knudsen & Liszkowski 2011) - pointing

  23. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  24. Yellow Green Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  25. Yellow Green Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  26. Yellow Green Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  27. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  28. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  29. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  30. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  31. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  32. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  33. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  34. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  35. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  36. Onishi & Baillargeon (2005)

  37. Yuck Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  38. I have to clean Yuck this up Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  39. I have to clean Yuck this up Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  40. I’ll leave my toy I have to here [target clean container] Yuck this up Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  41. I’ll leave my toy I have to here [target clean container] Yuck this up E1 left toy here Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  42. I have to clean Yuck this up This is E2. She is cleaning up E1 left toy here Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  43. I have to clean Yuck this up E1 left toy here Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  44. I have to clean Yuck this up E1 left toy here Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  45. I’ll put it [the toy] in my I have to pocket clean Yuck this up E1 left toy here Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  46. I have to clean Yuck this up E1 left toy here Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  47. I have to clean Yuck this up E1 is coming back E1 left toy here Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  48. I have to clean Yuck this up E1 left toy here Knudsen & Liszkowski (2011)

  49. Infants’ false-belief tracking abilities Violation of expectations (Onishi & Baillargeon 2005) - with change of location (He et al 2011) - with deceptive contents (Song et al 2008; Scott et al 2012) - observing verbal comm n Anticipating action (Southgate et al 2007) (Clements et al 1994) - looking (Knudsen & Liszkowski 2011) - pointing

  50. Infants’ false-belief tracking abilities Violation of expectations (Onishi & Baillargeon 2005) - with change of location (He et al 2011) - with deceptive contents (Song et al 2008; Scott et al 2012) - observing verbal comm n Anticipating action (Southgate et al 2007) (Clements et al 1994) - looking (Knudsen & Liszkowski 2011) - pointing Helping (Buttlemann et al 2009) Communicating (Southgate et al 2010) Altercentric interference (Kovacs et al 2010)

  51. Infants’ false-belief tracking abilities Violation of expectations (Onishi & Baillargeon 2005) - with change of location (He et al 2011) - with deceptive contents (Song et al 2008; Scott et al 2012) - observing verbal comm n Anticipating action (Southgate et al 2007) (Clements et al 1994) - looking A-tasks (Knudsen & Liszkowski 2011) - pointing Helping (Buttlemann et al 2009) Communicating (Southgate et al 2010) Altercentric interference (Kovacs et al 2010)

  52. 1. There are subjects who can pass A-tasks 2. These subjects’ success on A-tasks is explained by the fact that they can represent (false) beliefs

  53. 3-year-olds fail false belief tasks prediction (Wimmer & Perner 1983) - action (Astington & Gopnik 1991) - desire (Wimmer & Mayringer 1998) retrodiction or explanation (Bartsch & London 2000) select a suitable argument (Gopnik & Slaughter 1991) own beliefs (first person) involvement (deception) (Chandler et al 1989) nonverbal response (Call et al 1999; Low 2010 exp.2) test questions word-for-word (Gopnik et al 1994; identical to desire and pretence Cluster 1996) tasks

  54. 3-year-olds fail false belief tasks prediction (Wimmer & Perner 1983) - action (Astington & Gopnik 1991) - desire (Wimmer & Mayringer 1998) retrodiction or explanation (Bartsch & London 2000) select a suitable argument (Gopnik & Slaughter 1991) own beliefs (first person) involvement (deception) (Chandler et al 1989) nonverbal response (Call et al 1999; Low 2010 exp.2) test questions word-for-word (Gopnik et al 1994; identical to desire and pretence Cluster 1996) tasks

  55. 3-year-olds fail false belief tasks prediction (Wimmer & Perner 1983) - action (Astington & Gopnik 1991) - desire (Wimmer & Mayringer 1998) retrodiction or explanation (Bartsch & London 2000) select a suitable argument (Gopnik & Slaughter 1991) own beliefs (first person) involvement (deception) (Chandler et al 1989) nonverbal response (Call et al 1999; Low 2010 exp.2) test questions word-for-word (Gopnik et al 1994; identical to desire and pretence Cluster 1996) tasks

  56. 3-year-olds fail false belief tasks prediction (Wimmer & Perner 1983) - action (Astington & Gopnik 1991) - desire (Wimmer & Mayringer 1998) retrodiction or explanation (Bartsch & London 2000) select a suitable argument (Gopnik & Slaughter 1991) own beliefs (first person) involvement (deception) (Chandler et al 1989) nonverbal response (Call et al 1999; Low 2010 exp.2) test questions word-for-word (Gopnik et al 1994; identical to desire and pretence Cluster 1996) tasks

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend