For the subject, yes, and this subject can easily understand that it isn't the objective truth. — ssu

Hmm … thinking about this. A person’s history and circumstances might after all be considered an objective truth.

You don't need a law to say it's NOT OK to say " Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex". — ssu

What do you believe was the purpose of Florida's anti-WOKE law?

How about a law that says that it's NOT OK to educate children that pedophiles have the right to sexually molest children? — ssu

Well, I am sure that is already illegal. But, what does it have to do with the teaching of history?

Look, American workplace has a lot of intimidation going around already. You might be fired really the most absurd things. It is really astonishing how little job security there is in the American workplace (thanks to non existent labour unions). That's the real vulnerability. Otherwise it's just political sides accusing the other side of intimidation. — ssu

Here in Canada, we have laws that protect workers from wrongful termination. In Ontario, we have the Employment Standards Act and the Human Rights Code.

Nevertheless, the stop-WOKE law has specifically infringed on free speech.

Yet there's something wrong in the US work culture. If similarly there would be a movement for "happiness" in the workplace, meaning that workplaces should better for everybody and motivated friendly, happy employees are more productive than unhappy ones, then in the US model a fucking executive "Happiness Director" would be put to be a mandatory position in the executive branch. And to improve workplace happiness, this person would go around firing people that make others unhappy. The Kafkaesque idea of this should be obvious to everybody, but for American corporate culture, I'm not so sure. Just imagine that someone has made a complaint about you that you haven't been friendly, perhaps not said hello, and have made them feel sad. And thus you need to seek counseling or commit to course or you will be fired. So, will the threat of being fired make you be more nice and happy? — ssu

Your analogy misrepresents and diminishes the goals of progressive policy, which in part seek to address systemic racism.

Systemic racism is a fact:

... most people of colour continue to be routinely discriminated against or otherwise unfairly treated in both public and private spheres, as demonstrated by numerous social indicators. African Americans and Hispanic Americans (Latinxs), for example, are on average more likely than similarly qualified white persons to be denied loans or jobs; they tend to pay more than whites for a broad range of products and services (e.g., automobiles); they are more likely than whites to be unjustly suspected of criminal behaviour by police or private (white) citizens; and they are more likely than whites to be victims of police brutality, including the unjustified use of lethal force. If convicted of a crime, people of colour, particularly African Americans, are generally imprisoned more often and for longer periods than whites who are found guilty of the same offenses. Many Blacks and Hispanics continue to live in racially segregated and impoverished neighbourhoods, in part because of zoning restrictions in many predominantly white neighbourhoods that effectively exclude lower-income residents. Predominantly Black or Hispanic neighbourhoods also tend to receive fewer or inferior public services, notably including public education. The lack of quality education in turn limits job opportunities, which makes it even more difficult to leave impoverished neighbourhoods. On average, Blacks and Hispanics also receive less or inferior medical care than whites and consequently lead shorter lives.

How best to address this?

But coming back to education. As I said, politicians just love interfering in education content and what they emphasize to be something important, which their opponents try to portray in the worst possible light. And it's simply absolute nonsense that politicians make laws about what the curriculum should have or shouldn't have. Talk about useless micromanagement. — ssu

Of course there needs to be educational standards set by the government, or we would have a mish-mash, and they should be made in consultation with experts and educators.

Was that a Freudian slip? Diversity, not diversion. — ssu

Whoops! Corrected. Thanks.

Objective truth isn't relative. — ssu

Oh, I see you edited your answer to add "objective." Well, yes, in that case.

But subjective truth is true.

We each of us have our own truth – made up of our history and current circumstances. Different segments of the population have different truths. A descendent of enslaved people, for example, may very well have a different truth than, say, Ron DeSantis. And to each of us, our life is true.

What's so wrong about Florida Bill? — ssu

It might look good on paper, but in practice it is having a very chilling effect on education and freedom of speech. Teachers are being intimidated. They fear for their jobs if they even broach the true history of the country, or race in any context. How can you teach the country’s history without teaching the truths of slavery, for example, or systemic racism? In the wake of the law, schools and colleges around the country cancelled events related to civil rights or courses covering race, fearing backlash.

It's all designed to protect White students from “discomfort” (born of entitlement and superiority) without any regard to the “discomfort” of Black Americans. It’s deeply divisive. A quote from the law:

“… classroom instruction and curriculum may not be used to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles of this subsection or state academic standards.”

That phrase – “indoctrinate or persuade” – is so wide open it could lead to banning virtually anything.

History being silenced is never a good thing.

What do you think is more beneficial, if we had to choose, teaching young people about the Holocaust or teaching them, for example, about the efforts being made to include diverse cultures from around the world? — Alonsoaceves

I don’t see any reason why it should be an either/or situation. Why can’t we teach both?
And – what do you mean by “include diverse cultures?” Include them in what?

I understand your point and why, but I believe that this way of educating by revisiting horrors is not the most effective way to create a change in mindset. — Alonsoaceves

Whose mindsets are we concerned with? Certainly not those who may have become disadvantaged by past wrongs.

Consider in Canada – the legacy of Indigenous residential schools. The hurt caused by that system must be addressed, and it cannot be addressed unless it is acknowledged. Only then can healing occur. This has led to the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada.

In the US, the First Amendment protects free speech, and it was used to strike down Florida’s Stop WOKE Act’s prohibition against certain workplace Inclusion, Equity and Diversity trainings and teachings - as a violation of free speech. The employers who brought the suit understood they had to be able talk about the past in order to discuss critical issues that affected their workplace.

I believe reducing complex geopolitical issues to simplistic 'us vs. them' dichotomies can be misleading and ignores the nuances of international relations. — Alonsoaceves

But an unwillingness to talk about past wrongs specifically creates “us vs. them” scenarios. Such as in the case of Florida’s Stop WOKE Act – which is based on this premise: This is our truth, and it is the truth that matters, and your truth doesn’t matter, so shut up.

How does international relations figure into this?

Of course we should celebrate peace! At the same time, we must not forget the horrors of what has gone on in the past.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

Consider the Holocaust.

As of June of 2022, laws mandating education in the Holocaust were on the books in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

In the United States, the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin. In total, 23 states have mandatory Holocaust education.

We need to acknowledge what has happened in the past before we can heal and learn from it.

Oh hello. — NOS4A2

That honor is bestowed on the person who has wielded the greatest influence "for good or for ill."

Creative imagination is then required to form an inferential story (hypothesis) out of those observations and measurements. — Janus

Thank you, yes. We tend to think of science as a pursuit of analytical thinking, but of course creativity and imagination are required, too. Here’s an interesting quote from Albert Einstein (1929):

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.

https://aeon.co/ideas/science-is-deeply-imaginative-why-is-this-treated-as-a-secret

What, then, is the requirement? — Vera Mont

The stimulation of and the processing by the following brain structures involved in theory of mind functioning:

Functional neuroimaging and structural connectivity studies have identified dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) and temporoparietal junction (TPJ) as the core regions of the neural substrate for ToM, extending to regions that include the precuneus (PCu), anterior temporal cortex, anterior cingulate and posterior cingulate (PostCing), medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and amygdala, to constitute an extended ToM neural network

Also copied from the same webpage:

The theory of the mind (ToM), also known as mentalizing, is defined as the ability to attribute mental states to others (Premack and Woodruff, 1978; Frith and Frith, 2006) and to obtain knowledge about others' perspectives at a given moment or in a particular situation, including intentions, hopes, expectations, fantasies, desires, or beliefs. This ability is essential for successful navigation in social life (Leslie, 2000; Krawczyk, 2018). These mental states can be divided into two components, an affective one, which involves the understanding of emotions, feelings or affective states and a cognitive component that implies beliefs, thoughts or intentions (Henry et al., 2015).

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.618630/full

No they have not. No person of faith living today has conceived of a god independently. They've been told by their priest, and read in the book thrust upon them by priests, and they accept that as gospel.... selectively. — Vera Mont

A theory of mind does not “pop” into the head independently. We learn by what we see, hear, experience, do, and read, and then our brains, with its hypersocial focus and filters, ascribe mental states to that which is not us – and believe in them.

From the beginning, the Book of Genesis tells us God both deliberately and mindfully created all of Creation.

It is only a pastor’s highly evolved theory of mind that allows that pastor to preach about the contents of God’s mind (for example, what God expects from us), and our highly evolved theory of mind to believe that message. It is only a highly evolved theory of mind that allows the religious to believe they have a “personal relationship” with Jesus. When people pray, who are they praying to?

Consider -

In the movie Castaway, Tom Hanks' character befriends a volleyball that he calls “Wilson” – his only friend and companion during the years that he is on the island. The character ascribed mental states to the volleyball.

Or any fiction novel ever written with well-developed characters and we get right inside their heads. These characters are fictional, but they become real to us. We know what they are thinking and how they are feeling, and even anticipate their moves. This could not be possible without a well-developed theory of mind.

Scientific theories come from the imagination, just as other kinds of stories do — Janus

No, they don't. Scientific theories are formed as the result of many repeated experiments and the gathering of observations. They are characterized by repeated testing, strong evidence and consensus.

abductive reasoning) side of science. — Janus

Abduction still requires observation and measure of the physical existence.

I completely agree. The book *Why Nations Fail* by Nobel in economics, Acemoglu, explains that the progress of nations depends on certain conditions, which, in essence, are provided by democracy. I am still reading it, but it seems to me that the conditions for progress identified by Acemoglu align with the framework defined by evolutionary trends, while autocracies, which do not progress, violate that framework. It’s an interesting topic to delve deeper into. — Seeker25

It seems you are saying modern democratic trends are more in line with our evolutionary trends than is autocracy. Yet, for most of human history, rule was by autocracy. We haven’t significantly evolved in the last two hundred years, the time during which we see the rise of the modern democracy (free and fair elections, mass suffrage, executive accountability, political liberties and human rights). I think it is more likely that we overcame some of our baser instincts – tribalism, attraction to the strongman, an “us vs. them” mentality, fear – to accomplish this.

The question becomes – why are we witnessing a regression to those states?

I am surprised that while democracies are in decline, and according to the Nobel, progress will also be affected, no established power is taking action to counteract this. — Seeker25

To get political for a minute, that is why it is so important that the US, as the world leader in the protection of democracy, not falter with Ukraine.

Global problems require global solutions, which cannot come from politicized and discredited supranational institutions. I see no other solution than to turn to individuals united around an idea that benefits them and that they can understand: The world must respect the trends of evolution: life, diversity, beauty, freedom, the development of intelligence, balance, etc — Seeker25

Significant change usually originates with the intellectuals and the poets. I posted elsewhere, the first to be persecuted when an autocrat comes to power are the intellectuals and the great thinkers.

If Trump, by telling many falsehoods, managed to gather 77 million people to his project, — Seeker25

Mostly, he appeals to their baser instincts, and not their rationality.

Their power has the same justification as the power of citizens in any democratic state, but with three fundamental differences:
A) The scope of the vote is not national but global;
B) Citizens who do not have this right in their own country can also vote;
C) It does not have any of the three traditional powers of a state, only a small structure that honestly receives and distributes relevant information, periodically collects opinions, and informs the world of the results. — Seeker25

You are a visionary! We need more like that.

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.