Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:53:28.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How “weak” mindreaders inherited the earth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2009

Cameron Buckner ,
Adam Shriver ,
Stephen Crowley  and
Colin Allen
Cameron Buckner
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN [email protected]://www.indiana.edu/~phil/GraduateBrochure/IndividualPages/cameronbuckner.htm
Adam Shriver
Affiliation:
Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology Department, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO [email protected]://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/people/index.php?position_id=3&person_id=60&status=1
Stephen Crowley
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Boise State University, Boise, ID [email protected]://philosophy.boisestate.edu/Faculty/faculty.htm
Colin Allen
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN [email protected]://mypage.iu.edu/~colallen/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carruthers argues that an integrated faculty of metarepresentation evolved for mindreading and was later exapted for metacognition. A more consistent application of his approach would regard metarepresentation in mindreading with the same skeptical rigor, concluding that the “faculty” may have been entirely exapted. Given this result, the usefulness of Carruthers' line-drawing exercise is called into question.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 140 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carruthers, P. (2005) Why the question of animal consciousness might not matter very much. Philosophical Psychology 18:83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2008b) Metacognition in animals: A skeptical look. Mind and Language 23(1):58–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1983) Intentional systems in cognitive ethology: The Panglossian paradigm defended. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6(3):343–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2001) The practice of mind: Theory, simulation, or primary interaction? Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (5–7):83–107.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2004) Understanding interpersonal problems in autism: Interaction theory as an alternative to theory of mind. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 11(3):199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gluck, M., Mercado, E. & Myers, C. (2008) Learning and memory: From brain to behavior. Worth Press.Google Scholar
Gluck, M. & Myers, C. (2001) Gateway to memory: An introduction to neural network models of the hippocampus and learning. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. (2004) The limits of spectatorial folk psychology. Mind and Language 19:548–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutto, D. (2008) Folk psychological narratives. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Onishi, K. & Baillargeon, R. (2005) Do 15-month-olds understand false beliefs? Science 5719:255–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perner, J., Rendl, B. & Garnham, A. (2007) Objects of desire, thought, and reality: Problems of anchoring discourse referents in development. Mind and Language 22(5):475–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perner, J. & Ruffman, T. (2005) Infants' insight into the mind: How deep? Science 308:214–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruffman, T. & Perner, J. (2005) Do infants really understand false belief? Response to Leslie. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(10):462–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shriver, A. & Allen, C. (2005) Consciousness might matter very much. Philosophical Psychology 18:103–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenning, K. & Van Lambalgen, M. (2008) Human reasoning and cognitive science. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surian, L., Caldi, S. & Sperber, D. (2007) Attribution of beliefs by 13-month old infants. Psychological Science 18:580–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed