I reject the idea that they can do so without first having encountered other sentient beings, learned something about them, and how to read the outward signs. — Vera Mont

I'm sure that this can be part of the process, but it is not required.

Every person of faith has formed a theory of mind about what is in the mind of their God.

Psychology seems to have more difficulty than any other science about escaping from its philosophical roots. — Ludwig V

But it relies more and more on neuroscience – understanding the structure and function of the brain – using techniques like brain imaging.

I'm not sure whether "by ascribing mental states to them" is a harmless paraphrase of "understanding other people" or something more substantial, philosophically speaking, and more controversial. — Ludwig V

Something more substantial. What controversy do you see?

I'm not sure that it is wise to treat these propositions more or less as axioms when they are the focus of much philosophical debate. — Ludwig V

Some psychologists criticize theory of mind because it can be wrong – that sometimes we make wrong conclusions - but I think that misses the point. That we can make inferences and interpretations of what is in another mind at all is the point. It says nothing about their accuracy.

I can play basketball and not sink the ball in the basket every time, but I’m still playing basketball.

Perhaps it doesn't make any difference whether philosophical dualism or one of its variants is true, but if that's so, it makes a big difference to philosophy. — Ludwig V

I understand philosophical dualism to mean that the physical body and the mental mind are different things, that the mind is not made of physical matter. This tends to agree with a scientific description. In biology, every part of an organism is described in terms of its structure and its correlating function (and structure complements function).

So, the physical brain is the structure and in undergoing its electro-chemical processes it produces its function - the mind. The mind can in this context be considered an emergent property of the brain – the intangible flow of information through the nervous system.

I could have sworn you did.
it's not about reading outward signs
— Questioner — Vera Mont

It's more than that.

Reading inward signs is telepathy. — Vera Mont

"Theory of mind" is a well-established and supported piece of psychological information that has been the subject of scientific research going back nearly 50 years. I invite you to google using the search words "theory of mind."

You have a theory I'm unable to validate. — Vera Mont

To deny that humans make conclusions about what is in other minds is blind indeed.

It is a story—a very well supported one. However unlikely it might be, it is not impossible that it is false. — Janus

It is no more a story than atomic theory, gravity, thermodynamics, or cell theory. Stories come from the imagination. Scientific theories come from evidence.

How could you know that? — Janus

I read it.

I don't understand how telepathy — Vera Mont

It's not telepathy. it's your brain working.

telepathy comes out of a theory based on no experience and no sensory input. — Vera Mont

Who said it does not require experience and sensory input? Re-read my posts.

Right now, I have a theory of what is in your mind.

a general ability to 'read' the body language, expression and tone, in the context of previous knowledge, of another's communication. — Vera Mont

I feel that you have ignored all that I have said about theory of mind and remain close-minded to understanding it. I repeat - it's not about reading outward signs - it is about forming theories about what is in anther mind.

theory of mind is rather misleading and vague nomenclature, IMO. — Vera Mont

That is because you don't understand it.

Evolution is a theory and as such is not a part of the physical landscape, so it belongs with reason. The correctness or incorrectness of that theory is not part of the physical landscape either but is determined by what actually has happened in the physical landscape. About this we have only clues which enable us to tell the story that is the Theory of Evolution. — Janus

There are some things said here which I must question. First of all, understanding the definition of a scientific theory. It is not a "hunch" - but a well-supported set of conclusions supported by evidence. We do not measure scientific theories by their "correctness or incorrectness" but by the weight of the evidence supporting them. The evidence for the theory of evolution could fill a library.

Also, the theory of evolution is not a "story." That term diminishes what we know about evolution. It sounds like something you might believe in, or might not. But evolution does not ask us for faith, it asks us to review the evidence, and then make our own conclusion.

An animal that can reason and anticipate what might happen would obviously have a survival advantage over one that cannot. I think it is obvious that animals also reason, at least in concrete, if not abstract, ways. — Janus

We are the only animals that understand that sexual intercourse leads to babies. What do you make of that?

How is that determined? — Patterner

Yeah, that would require we verify the thoughts of 8 billion people. Maybe in some weird sci-fi movie…

I think that’s why I had some trouble with the original question, which seemed to be calling for a prioritization of all human thought, an obviously unreasonable task.

I guess the most we can say is – was an understanding or a misunderstanding made? The reaction/response/behavior flowing from an understanding will be more aligned with reality, and the reaction/response/behavior flowing from a misunderstanding will be less aligned.

But now "a theory you form in your mind specific to the mental state of another mind" seems just like a belief, so what I'm hearing is "a belief you form in your mind specific to the mental state of another mind" — Ludwig V

Well, some “beliefs’ are more supported than others. “Theory of mind’ is what the psychologists call it. But, it’s true, you cannot have a belief in a supernatural being without having a theory about what is in their mind.

You can read about the connection between belief and theory of mind in Jesse Bering's book The Belief instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life

I totally agree with you that it is a matter of interpretation. Our inability to agree then has an explanation. But whose is the better interpretation?
— Ludwig V — Ludwig V

Sorry, let me try this again. Yes, forming a theory of mind for another depends on making inferences. Yes, inferences may be wrong. Yes, two different people might have a very different theory of mind about the same person. Whose is better? The one that gets the closest to the truth?

They are responding to an exaggeration or distortion of a threat via mass media. — NOS4A2

This explains the totality of Trump's support.

Politicians will not drive the transformative change the world needs. — Seeker25

No, probably not. But, political systems provide the conditions that determine whether progress can be made or not. Only democracies, with representation from free and fair elections, human rights like freedom of association and expression, and the rule of law, allow the free exchange of ideas and their implementation.

And while the worldwide trend over the last couple of centuries has been towards democracy, there has been democratic backsliding. According to a recent report measuring the global state of democracy, the number of countries worldwide moving towards authoritarianism is more than double the number moving towards democracy.

So what do we do as we watch the world slide into autocracy?

If a certain consensus could be reached among people from different countries and cultures about what is good or bad for humanity, it could mark the beginning of a collegiate apolitical authority capable of morally censuring actions by governments and other centres of power that go against humanity's interests. If this idea works, millions of people could join in and drive change. — Seeker25

That would be heaven on earth.

Couple questions:

Could the entire world’s population agree on what is good or bad for humanity?

What form would this “apolitical authority” take and from where would it derive its power?

Are you advocating for anarchism?

Well, yes, we do indeed develop a concept of mind. I would expect that there is a substantial common core to all our concepts, for two reasons. First, because we learn our concepts from each other as part of learning to speak and secon because if there wasn't at least a common core, we couldn't communicate about minds - our own or others'. — Ludwig V

You have changed the terms, and with that have changed the definition. We are not talking about an understood “concept” but rather a “theory.” And the “theory of mind” is not an idea about what a mind is or does, expressed in generalities, but rather a theory you form in your mind specific to the mental state of another mind.

I have a theory of mind for my mother, and one for my brother, and one for my friend….

Well, my concept of mind enables me to interpret the thought of dogs and some other animals. — Ludwig V

That doesn’t mean the dog can form theories about what is in your mind. You are human – yes, you have the capacity to form theories about what is in other minds. We can even form theories about what is in the minds of supernatural beings that do not even exist. The fact that we are storytellers supports this. “Theory of mind” allows us to inhabit the minds of the story’s characters, analyzing their thoughts, feelings, motivations, intentions and perspectives.

I totally agree with you that it is a matter of interpretation. Our inability to agree then has an explanation. But whose is the better interpretation? — Ludwig V

Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re asking.

What is a matter of interpretation?

What is the explanation for our inability to agree?

Whose is the better interpretation of what?

Explore how seemingly unrelated concepts can intertwine with your creative pursuits — punos

This seems to be the key. Einstein termed it "combinatory play" - the secret of genius, and the essential feature of productive thought. Quoted from the article:

Alive and awake to the world, we amass a collection of cross-disciplinary building blocks — knowledge, memories, bits of information, sparks of inspiration, and other existing ideas — that we then combine and recombine, mostly unconsciously, into something “new.”

It's worth mentioning, too, that Einstein came up with some of his best ideas while playing the violin.

If we do not understand where we are, we cannot know where we should go. — Seeker25

I could not agree more. But the problem is, how do we get them all to listen? Anti-intellectualism has a long and brutal history, from Socrates to Galileo, to the deportation and subsequent murder of Armenian intellectuals (1915) to the mass exterminations of Stalin’s Great Purge (1930s) to China’s cultural revolution (1960s) to the persecution and murder of Navalny in Russia.

Anti-intellectualism is strong in the US, where Evangelicals and Southern Baptists denounce a belief in evolution and climate change as sins. Rejecting the intellectual “elites” may have been the deciding factor costing Harris the election. With Trump elected, we can expect the country to get more regressive, not progressive. The number of book bans in the US has skyrocketed in the last few years, and in “stop-woke” Florida they are teaching that slavery was good for the enslaved person since it taught them “valuable skills.”

In fact, Florida’s new education standards led to this quote from Florida Education Association President Andrew Spar:

“How can our students ever be equipped for the future if they don’t have a full, honest picture of where we’ve come from? Florida’s students deserve a world-class education that equips them to be successful adults who can help heal our nation’s divisions rather than deepen them … Gov. DeSantis is pursuing a political agenda guaranteed to set good people against one another, and in the process, he’s cheating our kids. They deserve the full truth of American history, the good and the bad.”

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/floridas-new-history-standard-blow-our-students-and-nation

So, how do we produce “citizens of the world” if they are denied the full truth?

Whether we like it or not, we must make decisions continuously, thereby shaping our life and our world. What criteria do we use to decide? — Seeker25

Education. We need an educational system that guides our young people to take into account and acknowledge all of history and all perspectives. And this requires that we overcome the forces (like populism) that keep us mired in our basest instincts.

That's been known to produce variably reliable results. — Vera Mont

For sure. Assumptions, misperceptions, misconceptions, misunderstandings, delusions and fallacies all happen.

Of course. How else do we draw conclusions about anything? — Vera Mont

We imagine them.

Ah, reasons, not causes. Then we might choose to do otherwise than what evolution says? — Banno

I said reason, not reasons. The ability to think things through.

Our evolution did not produce an automaton. It produced a species with enormous imaginative and creative powers. We are a wonder! We are not simple. Evolution produced our ability to choose from an array of choices. Evolution produced our ability to weigh consequences. Evolution produced our ability to question. Evolution produced three pounds of grey matter that rocks.

What crime did Trump commit again? — NOS4A2

Trump’s words and deeds in trying to overturn the 2020 election constitute a criminal scheme.

On August 1, 2023, a grand jury of everyday Americans, convened by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), returned an indictment criminally charging former President Donald Trump with four crimes related to 2020 presidential election interference. The indictment centers on Trump and his co-conspirators’ attempt to prevent the lawful certification of the 2020 presidential election, and to interfere with millions of Americans’ right to vote and have that vote counted.

https://statesunited.org/resources/doj-charges-trump/

I pointed you to a 165-page court filing that laid out all the evidence against Trump. And if you have not read it, you are not in a position to criticize it.

Also, Trump has been clear about his plans to concentrate power in the Executive Branch, and will not tolerate any refusal to carry out his orders, whether or not they are legal. Under Trump, we can expect the rule of law to be under assault, and the courts to be very busy.

Trump’s illegality has already begun with his insistence on the Senate bypassing the normal confirmation process to install his loyalists, even though the Constitution says appointees must be confirmed with the “advice and consent of the Senate.”

But, even beyond that, whether or not something is a crime cannot be the sole criterion to determine if something is wrong or immoral.

Trump is not a man of principle. He exploits the biases, bigotry, and fears of his base for one purpose only: to gain more power for himself. He has them voting against their own interests to further his own. Surely, this is immoral.

An example of the way he manipulates his base can be found in the tweet below that he made last summer (posted three times).

I would be interested in hearing your opinion of its morality, in light of the fact it was made with reference to his attempt to overturn a legal election so he could stay in power.

Jul 20th 2024 - 10:12:25 PM EST, Jul 20th 2024 - 8:44:02 PM EST, Jun 25th 2024 - 3:09:00 PM EST

Every time the Radical Left Democrats, Marxists, Communists, and Fascists indict me, I consider it a GREAT BADGE OF HONOR. I’m being indicted for YOU. Never forget—our enemies want to take away MY FREEDOM because I will never let them take away YOUR FREEDOM. They want to silence ME because I will never let them silence YOU. In the end, they’re not after me, they’re after you—and I’m just standing in their way!

evolution is appealing becasue it offers folk a way to avoid responsibility for their choices. — Banno

Sorry, no, this ignores that evolution gave us reason.

A problem arises when, even presented with the truth, a certain part of the population will prefer comforting lies. We see it in religion and politics all the time.

But I think our culture leans too heavily on evolutionary theory for a sense of identity. It is a biological theory about the origin of species. Due to the historical circumstances of its discovery it has assumed a role for which I don't think it's suitable. — Wayfarer

At the same time, the theory of evolution allows for a wide degree of variation with the species. It recognizes spectrums of traits and characteristics (even gender), and in that way may assist us in accepting those who don't fit our particular paradigm.

Theory of mind originated with gorillas? — Vera Mont

More likely in the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which lived about 6-8 million years ago.

I did not know that 'theory' could be applied to an inarticulate process like watching and interpreting the physical actions of another sentient being. — Vera Mont

Theory of mind does not refer to the process, but the end result – the inferences you make is the theory - formed in your mind – it’s a theory about what is in the mind of another mind.

I don't see how two individuals - other than predator and prey - can interact without interpreting states of mind - or at least states of emotion and health. — Vera Mont

We can make conclusions about emotion and health just by observing outward signs. This is not what forming a theory of mind is about. If you form a theory about what is in another mind, you form conclusions about the mental state of another with a view to making predictions.

A good book with a detailed explanation of theory of mind is Jesse Bering’s The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life.

Here are two quotes from it -

From psychologist Nicholas Humphrey (pre-1978):

We humans … have evolved to be “natural psychologists.” The most promising but also the most dangerous elements in our environment are other members of our own species. Success for our human ancestors must have depended on being able to get inside the minds of those they lived with, to second-guess them, anticipate where they were going, help them if they needed it, challenge them, manipulate them. To do this they had to develop brains that would deliver a story about what it’s like to be another person from the inside.

From psychologists David Premark and Guy Woodruff (defining theory of mind in 1978):

A system of inferences of this kind may be properly viewed as a theory because such (mental) states are not directly observable, and the system can be used to make predictions about the behavior of others.

whether there's also a neurological capability to discriminate true from false, and right from wrong, in the same way we discriminate red from green, or high pitches from low pitches. — J

Well put. Clearly, the first two examples are subjectively decided, whereas the last two examples are objectively decided. And a subjective point-of-view can have a thousand things influencing it.

we require reasons for saying and doing correct things — J

Agree, and this seems to suggest the very human tendency to ask, “Why?”

We have to find those for ourselves, and the method for doing so is entirely different from consulting hard-wired intuitions. — J

We find no answers outside of our brain, whether it is in the hard-wired or soft-wired parts.

and if evolution can explain anything we chose to do, it explains nothing. — Banno

I agree, and see I need to backtrack on my comments a bit. What the above observation brings to my mind is our great creative power. The mind can create. We can take two unconnected thoughts, perceptions, or memories, and combine them to make something new. Einstein called this “combinatory play” and he said it is the main element of all productive thought.

And I think our great predictive power works in our favour, too. We are able to imagine alternate possible futures, and then make our decision based on which future we prefer.

How do you know that non-human animals don't have a theory of mind? — Ludwig V

The scientific research into nonhuman animals’ theory of mind (ToM) goes back decades and there is no consensus. But do I think a dog can interpret and make inferences about human thought? No.

How do you know that other people have a theory of mind? — Ludwig V

I am human and I can make inferences into what is in another mind. The key word is inference.

We do not just perceive – we perceive and interpret. the mental states of others.

Besides empathy, things like collaboration, education, and figuring out our social standing, rely on our theory of mind.

Since the theory of mind is posited as an essential prerequisite of empathy, it seems to follow that if somone (human) can interact appropriately with other people, they have a theory of mind. — Ludwig V

Every time you form a conclusion about what is in the mind of another (whether it is correct or not) you are using your ToM capacity.

So, if some non-human animals can interact appropriately with various other animals, including human animals, does it not follow that they have a theory of mind? — Ludwig V

Not necessarily. Interacting is not the same as interpreting mental states.

In practice, these supposed different alternatives come down to the same process. There is no way to read a mind except by reading behaviour. — Ludwig V

But not all reading of behavior involves ToM.

When you read a book, is the end goal to see the symbols on the page, or to make meaning out of them?

I say empathy predates theory of mind by many millennia. — Vera Mont

The origins of both theory of mind and empathy go back about 5-6 million years ago.

"Homo sapiens" translates to "wise man"

The species Homo sapiens dates back about 200,000 years ago.

We're also very big on wishful thinking. — Vera Mont

That's true.

Then how do we know which to heed -- the first, second, or third thought? Is the idea supposed to be that there is yet another evolutionary capacity that indicates the correct choice among thoughts? — J

Well, the first thought is usually instinctual and made without thought. The more thought we put into, the more considered and reasonable our reaction will be. Our second and third thought will bring other factors to bear, such as consequences, and I'd say consequences are something that is learned.

But - the process of learning does not exist separate from our neurological capability to do so.

Nevertheless, here lies the real problem: humans making decisions contrary to evolutionary trends. A genocide can be the final wrong decision in a chain of errors. What criteria for solutions can be derived from evolutionary trends? We must respect life; the world is diverse, and we must manage that diversity rather than destroy it; we are entirely dependent on one another and must recognize the dignity of others; evolution is balance, imbalances and injustices generate problems. Finally, evolution has endowed us with a consciousness that we must individually develop (the capacity to understand our environment and the role we must adopt). — Seeker25

I think I understand you, and I do appreciate your optimistic position. You are suggesting we need to “evolve beyond our evolution.” But when I see a president elected by appealing to the basest instincts of the population, that gives me pause.

We need to move forward on protecting human rights. We need to move forward on protecting the environment. Yes, this requires particular perspectives. How do we get there?

How can we be more like Estonia? – which scored the highest in the world on both the Human Rights Index and as the most environmentally friendly country in the world.

What happens when, for some reason, we fail to develop our consciousness? — Seeker25

Then we are not aware of what is going on around us. And awareness always has to be the first step to solving any problem.

How is a head of state who threatens or invades a neighbouring country different from an alpha male marking its territory? — Seeker25

Territorialism is strong in all of us. There’s the person in the parked spot who takes longer to drive out of it because someone is waiting for it (that’s not me). There’s the teenager who doesn’t want you in their room. And we all feel territorial about our homes.

Invading a country shows territorialism, for sure, but there are others factors at play, including the quest for power. And often, there are economic factors to consider. For example, Putin wants Ukraine’s vast natural resources. So, that would be evolutionary driven, too – the need to provide for your group.

How is someone insensitive to the suffering of others different from animals, who remain unaffected by the problems others in their species may face? — Seeker25

A human insensitive to the suffering of others is still human – but with a psychological deficiency – perhaps the area of their brain responsible for empathy never developed properly because it was never stimulated. Perhaps they suffered trauma as a child and that affected their psychological development.

I think it’s a false premise, though, that animals are unaffected by the problems of others in their group. The pack instinct is strong.

How is a dictator who clings to power any different from an alpha male that refuses to leave its position until defeated by a younger rival? — Seeker25

They are probably operating on the same instincts.

How is an animal that feeds on the weakest different from a sexual abuser? — Seeker25

Well, they are both about power. But feeding is different from naked power.

However, neither aggression nor genocide are responses aligned with evolutionary trends. — Seeker25

Aggression is definitely genetically programmed into us. Here’s a video of an angry baby slapping Dad in bed for snoring too loud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmZYChLfVqs

Genocide, as I have already explained, is linked to one group believing their survival depends on the extermination of another group.

Humans must decide whether to respect the powerful trends of evolutions or to challenge them. — Seeker25

The question is not whether we should “respect” our baser instincts – it’s like respecting gravity – not something to be respected, it just is - but whether we should defy them, whether we should rise above them. The answer is necessarily, yes. This requires awareness, learning, education, and considered thought.

And also, before any lofty goals can be reached, one’s basic needs for food, shelter, safety must be met. Comfortable people rarely fight.

Humanity’s progress, or a high risk of self-destruction, depends on our decisions. — Seeker25

Definitely agree.

Many human actions have little significance, but there are others—especially those carried out from positions of power—that challenge the trends of evolution. — Seeker25

Do you mean when power is used for good?

Right. That's the salient point when it comes to invoking evolutionary biology as a rationale for ethical normativity. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure this correctly represents my view, or if that is what it seems, I did not intend that.

"Rationale" suggests justification, or excuses bad behavior, and I did not mean to suggest that we give in to our basest instincts. But we need to be aware of them to override them.

I did not mean to comment of "ethical normativity" - whatever that is - but rather to comment on what we have to work with.

is it not possible that humans are under-determined by evolution? This would mean that, while certainly not denying the facts of evolution, it is legitimate to question the sense in which the human condition might be understood solely through the lens of biological theory. — Wayfarer

Not just genetics, as the environment definitely plays a role. We are a responsive creature. Even our brains grow in response to the stimuli they receive, especially in the first years of life. (But of course this is biology.)

The main drivers of adaptive behaviour are the ability to compete — Wayfarer

Not necessarily. There's a whole theory about inclusive fitness, which posits that an organism’s genetic success is derived from cooperation and altruistic behavior. Genes that are related to you then have better fitness.

there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense. — Richard Polt, Anything but Human

I'm not sure we have to put them in an hierarchy. They both played a role in our evolution.

the very idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory. — Richard Polt, Anything but Human

Maybe that's why I had trouble with the word. Natural selection has no goals.

You do not need to appeal to evolution to maintain this. That you are writing using a language shows that you are embedded in a culture, along with all that implies. — Banno

Our need to belong to a group goes way further back than the dawn of culture and language.

So we still have the question, "what to do?"

But freed from the irrelevance of both god and evolution — Banno

We can never be free of our evolution. it's like taking the cream out of ice cream.

But, to address your question:

Are we talking about limits on behavior? Then, how to define the limits? By what is immoral? then how do we define moral? Or do we define good behavior by what is not disgusting? then, how to define disgust? So, not only do we need parameters, we need to define those parameters.

What is your claim here? That there is no variation in out behaviour? Or perhaps that we do not make choices? If either of these were true, then the question of "what ought we do?" is meaningless, because we just do as evolution dictates. — Banno

My claim is that we are the result of our evolution - but it produced wide spectrums of behavior, emotions, aptitudes, perspectives, intellect, abilities, ways of thinking, etc. etc.

My claim (belief) is that there is not a supernatural cause for our behavior.

There are tons of variation in our behavior - but it all represents genetic activity subject to environmental stimuli. That's one big umbrella.

I am not ready to give up on the question, "What ought we do?"

Because clearly, there are things we should do and things we should not do.

And returning to my main point, the need to belong to the group in deciding what we should do cannot be underestimated.

But you are now choosing whether and how to reply to this post. You remain confronted by choice.

What will you do?

You will choose. — Banno

I'm sorry if I gave the impression we humans have no choice. Of course we have choice.

I return to the story I told earlier about the sons of an alcoholic.

One son became an alcoholic. When asked why, he replied, "My father was an alcoholic."

The other son never drank. When asked why, he replied, "My father was an alcoholic."

How else to explain the difference than by a differing influence between the two sons' genes?

But how is that empathy? — Vera Mont

I didn't equate theory of mind to empathy. I said empathy is one trait that depends on theory of mind.

It doesn't have to be dramatic; people also yawn when they see others doing it; a giggle fit can engulf the entire table. Mirror neurons firing at random. Still not empathy. — Vera Mont

I never said it was. You are the one conflating emotional contagion for empathy.

Whatever. Gods have been used as stop-gap observations for lots of things we didn't know, and are still used as a explanation for misfortune, the weather, altruism and the supremacy of man over all of creation. — Vera Mont

Yes, our belief instinct is strong.

And that is why humans can lie so much more elaborately and sustainably (sometimes an entire lifetime, sometimes even to themselves) than any other species. But false signals, feigning and play-acting are not exclusively human; we inherited the instinct and motivations to preverication from a long line of ancestors. — Vera Mont

This is unconnected to any discussion about theory of mind.

Why should we do as evolution says? — Banno

Well, there are times when we don't, at least not the initial response, I guess. When we think through that initial reaction that tells us "I should punch him in the head." But then we think about it, and other factors come into play, and we decide it is not a good idea to punch him in the head.

But - I wonder - are not those second and third thoughts a result of our evolution, too?

Being able to read thoughts and feelings are very different attributes. Humans discern the thoughts of other humans through choice of words, tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the little 'tells' when we're bluffing or lying. — Vera Mont

cultural mannerisms — Vera Mont

read our emotions — Vera Mont

It has nothing to do with theory; — Vera Mont

No, you’re right, “theory of mind” does not have to do with reading sensory clues, or recognizing emotional states, which is what you are describing. The theory is something we create in our minds about the mental state of another, by making inferences about these sensory clues that we pick up. Because we have a theory of mind, we don’t stop at “He’s sad.” Or “He’s mad.” We take it further and form theories in our minds about what the sensory clues mean > “He’s mad about this….” Or “He’s sad about this …” Or “He wants me to do this …” Or “He doesn’t want me to do this …”

You use your theory of mind every time you make an inference about the mental state of another – like reading a mind. Sometimes, these inferences are correct, and sometimes they are not.

Sneaking in the requirement to "fully understand" makes it exclusively human — Vera Mont

You’re right, it was a poor choice of word, unless it is limited to “our personal understanding.”

(Lol, I’m not trying to be sneaky.)

Like human mobs at a lynching or cattle in a stampede? No, that's not very much like empathy. — Vera Mont

It doesn’t have to be that dramatic. Smiles are contagious.

It's one explanation. And gods are one explanation for why humans exist. We're good at making up explanations, either from fact or fantasy; other animals are not. That's another distinction to add to the list. — Vera Mont

Why humans exist? Or the entire universe?

And when we make up an explanation for existence that involves a supernatural being with specific characteristics – whether we imagine he is a loving god, or a vengeful god, or whatever – we are using our theory of mind to infer what is in the mind of that god.

We can read the thoughts and feelings of a fictional character from the speech and manner of an actor, while the actor himself thinks and feels quite differently. — Vera Mont

Interesting observation. Yes, if the signals sent are false, then your inference about what is in the mind of another will most likely also be false.

Clearly, you have never had a dog console you in grief or ask you anxiously why you are on the ground with your head in the kitchen cabinet. — Vera Mont

Thank you for the opportunity to expand on my answer.

First – I have had dogs comfort me! I always looked on my dogs as my babies.

But the “theory of mind” (and the empathy related to it) I described allows a human to understand what another is thinking or feeling. Rather than empathy, what a dog is experiencing when he responds to your grief is emotional contagion, which is a response to emotions without fully understanding what the other individual is feeling.

Emotional contagion lacks the process of individuation required for empathy – the emotions mirrored are not seen as distinct from the other.

Much has been proposed about "God", usually without reference to all the various conceptions of deity in all the various cultures that invariably project some aspect of their own version of human onto their gods. — Vera Mont

Theory of Mind is not a set of proposals to explain the characteristics specific to any one religion, but rather an explanation for why religion exists at all.

we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

An important way in which humans differ from all other animals is our highly evolved "theory of mind" - a mental capacity that allows us to make inferences about the mental states of others.

We, each of us, have a "theory of mind" about others - We can understand the beliefs, emotions, intentions and thoughts of others. Such a capacity is vital for complex social interactions.

For example, empathy could not exist without a theory of mind.

It has been proposed that religion is a by-product of this mental capacity we call theory of mind, as we evolved to make inferences about what is in the mind of God.

Hilarious. A waste of money and a perversion of justice. A witch hunt, a hoax, a scam on Americans. — NOS4A2

No, Jack Smith's immunity filing in the case of The United States v. Donald J. Trump, if nothing else, becomes an important historical document for future historians.

It preserves the words and the deeds of Trump in trying to overturn a legal election.

I have read the entire 165-page filing (it's easily found online), and recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the depth and danger of Trump's corruption and lies.

A variant of the chariot of the passions - Phaedrus? — Banno

Good catch, but an important difference in Phaedrus is vitalism - the existence of the soul - which opens up a whole new category of questions.

The chariot = the soul
The two horses = moral impulses and irrational passions
The charioteer = the intellect

and now you are starting to do ethics... — Banno

But there is nothing else to us, except our evolution.

Becasue it isthe right thing to do... — Banno

Yes.

Evolution does not tell us what we ought do. — Banno

I really like Jonathan Haidt's metaphor of the elephant and the rider. The elephant is our instinctual, emotional self, and our rationality is the rider. The rider steers, but the elephant provides the power for the journey.

If evolution does not tell us what to do, what does?