tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post3374311328563006527..comments2023-12-20T19:30:28.788-05:00Comments on Fixing Psychology: Ecological and Social Psychology - Minds as PerceivableEric Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-42466511034892911432014-06-30T19:07:28.081-04:002014-06-30T19:07:28.081-04:00Yeah... the term "minds" is used in part...Yeah... the term "minds" is used in part because it is provocative... but it is not an incorrect use of the term, so I my academic sensibilities still permit it. ;- )<br /><br />I must confess that I have not read Folk Psychological Narratives, but I did review Dan's last book, and I really like his stuff. (Note to self, blog now that the review is out.) Dan and I do not agree aboutEric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-70887548496405821782014-06-30T11:24:06.422-04:002014-06-30T11:24:06.422-04:00Hello! Just got here through Charles's commen...Hello! Just got here through Charles's comment on Andrew and Sabrina's blog. <br /><br />I'm completely on board with your comments Eric, but I think it's better to stick with direct perception of intentional behaviour, rather than 'minds', if only because it's such an underdefined term.<br /><br />I've been dipping in and out of that Krueger paper, which looks Agnes Hensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16686264466189978375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-16424105307896428552011-09-15T19:19:55.044-04:002011-09-15T19:19:55.044-04:00Andrew,
Thanks for passing it along. The reference...Andrew,<br />Thanks for passing it along. The reference section makes it seem even more intriguing. I should get a chance to read it in the next few days and report back.Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-90278603144393567862011-09-15T05:56:53.133-04:002011-09-15T05:56:53.133-04:00I haven't looked at the paper but the abstract...I haven't looked at the paper but the abstract just came through my RSS feed and looked relevant:<br /><br />Krueger (2011) <a href="Seeing" rel="nofollow">Seeing mind in action</a><br /><br /><b>Abstract</b><br />Much recent work on social cognition and empathy in philosophy of mind and cognitive science has been guided by the assumption that minds are composed of intracranial phenomena, Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-83801434926030959512011-09-07T11:35:06.494-04:002011-09-07T11:35:06.494-04:00Eric -
Well, there is no question that shooting f...Eric -<br /><br />Well, there is no question that shooting for unambiguous assessment of the state of another person's mind re any action is "aggressive". Given the nature of the specific action of interpreting language, I would think it overly so. But perhaps for simpler actions it's a reasonable goal.<br /><br />Re quotes: my intent is merely to signal that further fruitful Charles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-82944211430333766682011-09-06T15:54:05.066-04:002011-09-06T15:54:05.066-04:00Charles,
What you say is appealing, but I am looki...Charles,<br />What you say is appealing, but I am looking for something more aggressive. Davidson's argument sounds like a reasonable characterization of language (we can put off 'accurate or inaccurate' for another time, it is certainly reasonable). What I want to argue is that everything Gibson said about the direct perception of objects and events holds equally for direct Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-83416746355985903582011-09-06T12:10:01.901-04:002011-09-06T12:10:01.901-04:00"Organisms perceptual systems are capable of ..."Organisms perceptual systems are capable of resonating with information in ambient arrays that specify the behavioral orientation of their social partners ... We can directly perceive other’s minds."<br /><br />Davidson's key essay "Three Varieties of Knowledge" includes the claim that we not only can, but to some extent must, "know the minds of others" if we Charles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-62697542154613226542011-09-05T11:18:00.320-04:002011-09-05T11:18:00.320-04:00I'm not objecting to the idea you're after...I'm not objecting to the idea you're after, though; obviously, if we can get to the intention of an actor, there must be information for it. I just get nervous about relying on tau-anything these days. It was the one thing ecological psych had going for quite a while; everyone got complacent that the principle of higher order information had been established and got lazy with information;Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-28185817042820429712011-09-05T11:15:09.538-04:002011-09-05T11:15:09.538-04:00Well, tau itself has a few problems. It's not ...Well, tau itself has a few problems. It's <a href="http://www.cisi.unito.it/neuropsicologia/didattica/materiali/approfondimenti/movimento/1999/tresilian.pdf" rel="nofollow">not much of a time-to-contact variable</a>, for instance. <br /><br />It's frustrating - it's such a good, straight forward example of the direct specification of a higher order property, but it just isn't thatAndrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-43002389632113494782011-09-05T10:23:50.478-04:002011-09-05T10:23:50.478-04:00I agree, the 'generalized tau' thing is a ...I agree, the 'generalized tau' thing is a bit weird. On the other hand, I think the original tau work seemed very grounded. I mentioned it for two reasons: First, one of the repeated criticisms of the proposed Holt-Gibson merger was that it was antithetical to Eco-Psych in some way, so I wanted examples that were clearly Eco-Psych. Second, I do think that much of what we call 'Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-40782664762436739252011-09-05T02:08:00.536-04:002011-09-05T02:08:00.536-04:00My first thought; tau-coupling will get you nowher...My first thought; tau-coupling will get you nowhere. Lee's generalised tau theory is all a bit mad, frankly, and so is Lee. Last time I saw this presented at a conference I couldn't believe my eyes, it was so bizarre.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.com