Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:56:20.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Explaining or redefining mindreading?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2020

Krzysztof Dołęga
Affiliation:
Institut für Philosophie II, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780Bochum, Germany. [email protected] [email protected] www.rub.de/philosophy/bewusstsein/schlicht.html.en
Tobias Schlicht
Affiliation:
Institut für Philosophie II, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780Bochum, Germany. [email protected] [email protected] www.rub.de/philosophy/bewusstsein/schlicht.html.en
Daniel C. Dennett
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, MA02155. [email protected] https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/

Abstract

Veissière et al. disrupt current debates over the nature of mindreading by bringing multiple positions under the umbrella of free-energy. However, it is not clear whether integrating the opposing sides under a common formal framework will yield new insights into how mindreading is achieved, rather than offering a mere redescription of the target phenomenon.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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. (2015) Perceiving mental states. Consciousness and Cognition 36:498507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiebich, A. & Coltheart, M. (2015) Various ways to understand other minds. Towards a pluralistic approach to the explanation of social understanding. Mind and Language 30(3):235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. (2009) The free-energy principle: A rough guide to the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(7):293301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friston, K. (2012) A free energy principle for biological systems. Entropy 14:2100–121. doi:10.3390/e14112100.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2001) The practice of mind. Theory, simulation, or primary interaction? Journal of Consciousness Studies 8(5–7):83108.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2008) Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition 17:535–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallese, V. (2003) The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: The quest for a common mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 358:517–28. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gopnik, A. & Wellman, H. M. (2012) Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory. Psychological Bulletin 138(6):10851108. doi:10.1037/a0028044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutto, D. & Myin, E. (2017) Evolving enactivism: Basic minds meet content. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Newen, A. (2015) Understanding others: The person-model theory. In: Open mind: 26(T), eds. Metzinger, T. & Windt, J., pp. 128. Mind Group, doi:10.15502/9783958570320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Clark, A. (2014) Getting ahead: Forward models and their place in cognitive architecture. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(9):451–56. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zahavi, D. (2014) Self and other: Exploring subjectivity, empathy and shame. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar