Our Wayward Minds

1. Brain, Mind, and Belief: The Quest for Truth Our Wayward Minds Mind, Knowledge, and Belief Course Website “We are not trapped in some kind of original sin, only original stupidity. And stupidity can be overcome by a determined effort of intelligence.”                                    Colin Renfrew 

2. Topics • The mind and its quest for truth • Can we rely on our minds? • Processes of the mind   • Linguistic relativity   • Language, thought, and reality: Words, concepts, things • The transparency illusion • Mental models of the world • Tricks played by the mind that distort its operation

3. Can we rely on our minds? • We think we are the smart animals • “Homo sapiens” • Large brains • We like to rely on our minds • What else have we got? • For thinking • For seeking the truth about • the world • who we are • what are we doing here? • But trusting our minds can be dangerous

4. The quest for truth • A natural activity of humans • The means/instrument: our minds • Is this instrument reliable? • Seeing the world through tinted glasses • What if you don’t even know you are wearing glasses? It is perfectly possible that the truth is beyond our reach, in virtue of our intrinsic cognitive limitations, and not merely beyond our grasp in humanity’s present stage of intellectual development. But I believe that we cannot know this, and that it makes sense to go on seeking a systematic understanding of how we and other living things fit into the world.       Thomas Nagel

5. Processes of the Mind • Perceiving • Thinking • Managing activity • Remembering • Learning • Managing beliefs • Acquiring • Maintaining • Modifying Language plays a big role in all these processes

6. Some ways language influences thought • Allows formulation of precise thoughts • Bacon: “Writing maketh an exact man” • Allows communication of thoughts • The medium of scientific, commercial, legal, philosophical, educational, etc. exchange, agreement, formulation • Provides conceptual categories for organizing thoughts

7. Linguistic Relativity Language and Thought Different Languages, Different Thoughts? Question: Do people who speak different languages think differently?

8. Questions about Linguistic Relativity • Does language influence thought? • Does thought influence language? • What is the difference between language and thought? • Is there a difference between language and thought? • Can we have thinking without language? • What is thought/thinking?

9. A Common Assumption Expressions in language directly describe (or ask about, or otherwise make statements about) the world Is this assumption correct?

10. This Assumption is not Supported • We do not talk about the world directly, but.. • About our internal (mental) models of the world • I.e., about our construals • about our conceptual systems • about “virtual reality” • Virtual reality: one’s mental model of reality

11. The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis • Also known as • The Whorf hypothesis • The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis • Edward Sapir (1884-1939) • Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941) • Every language has its own way of categorizing experience • People who speak different languages think differently • People who speak different languages live in different (mental-social) worlds

12. And before Sapir and Whorf.. • Nineteenth Century • Max Müller (Germany, U.K.) • Wilhelm von Humboldt (Germany) • William Dwight Whitney (U.S.A.) • Early twentieth century • Franz Boas (Germany, U.S.A.)

13. Benjamin Lee Whorf, 1897-1941 “…the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds…. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way — an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified by the patterns of our language.” Benjamin Lee Whorf

14. Whorf on relativity From this fact proceeds what I have called the “linguistic relativity principle,” which means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers, but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world. Benjamin Lee Whorf (1945)

15. Another quote We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated. Benjamin Lee Whorf (1945) Whorf 1956:214

16. Reactions to Whorf’s Ideas • … have been controversial from the start • Whorf may be better known outside linguistics than any other linguist (except Chomsky) • Prevailing opinion in linguistics has been opposed to Whorf’s ideas • But there has also been a minority view all along, that he was really on to something • An enormous amount of publication has resulted, pro and con

17. The argument for linguistic relativity • Thinking is inextricably bound up with language • Different languages conceptualize human experience differently • Different grammars point peoples to different observations and different evaluations of similar external phenomena • Therefore, thinking patterns vary from one language to another. • People who speak different languages live in different worlds

18. The argument against linguistic relativity • Thinking follows universal patterns • There is a universal ‘language of thought’ • Basic thought patterns come from • Universal properties of the human body • Universal properties of orientation in space and time • Universal features of the environment • Sky, land, sun, rain, water, etc. • Universal properties of perception and cognition • Therefore, thought patterns do not vary from language to language • Thought gets ‘translated’ into different languages

19. Pro Thinking is inextricably bound up with language Thinking patterns vary from one language to another People who speak different languages live in different worlds Con Thinking follows universal patterns Thinking is independent of particular languages Differences between different languages are actually pretty superficial, don’t affect thinking Linguistic Relativity: Pro & Con

20. The Naive Theory of Meaning • Words in a one-one correspondence with reality • The world is made up of objects, and for every type of object there is a word • Different peoples use different languages to speak about same world

21. Alternative Theory • Words represent reality only indirectly • Every language has its own way of categorizing the objects of the world • People who speak different languages live in different worlds

22. Rocks English rockrocks tyhpityhtyhpi Mono

23. Plural vs. Distributive In Mono, what matters is not how many, but in how many places

24. Compare… ’fruit’ ‘fruit’

25. Types of Rocks Large or Medium rock Small, One Piece pebble Small, Many Pieces gravel

26. Types of Rocks – Mono Rough or jagged Smooth (as in streambed) Large or Medium Small, One Piece tyhpi pa’oohpy Small, Many Pieces

27. Exercise: Beards • Questions • What are asking about?

28. Three distinct levels • The World • The Conceptual System • The Linguistic System External Internal

29. The internal and the external Conception Language Perception Sensing In the mind Interface

30. The World • Infinitely varied • No boundaries • No two things exactly alike • Everything changes • “Kaleidoscopic flux”

31. The meaning of “dog” In the Mind Conceptual properties of dogs The World Outside Perceptual properties of dogs Dogs in the world and their properties

32. Meaning is conceptualization • The meanings of linguistic forms are in our conceptual systems, not in the outside world

33. Our mental models of the world All imposition of structure in our mental models is accomplished at the cost of ignoring some properties of the phenomena modeled (Compare the map)

34. Direct experience What we apprehend as direct experience of reality is actually being filtered by the mind The only thing we experience directly is our own mental activity

35. Direct Knowledge ”…since the activity of our mind is the only part of Nature directly known to us, its laws are the only ones that we can justifiably call laws of Nature.” Jakob von Uexkull Theoretical Biology (1928)

36. Its not just things • Social Relationships • Processes • Qualities • Perceptual properties • Space, Time • Etc. The same for all people, or different for speakers of different languages?

37. Techniques of Simplification • Categorization • Segmentation • Requires assumption of boundaries • The illusion of enduring objects

38. Categories and Boundaries • How do categories and boundaries get built? • By emphasizing some properties while ignoring other properties This is not only simplification — it is distortion of reality

39. Categories • There are no categories in nature • All categories are in the mind – in our internal mental microcosms • Making/assuming categories seems to be a universal property of mind

40. Segmentation • Some features and combinations of features are distinguished – mentally separated from – the “kaleidoscopic flux” • Often involves the assumption of boundaries (to aid the distinction)

41. Boundaries • Mountain and Valley • Land and Sea • Automobiles • The Human Body • The Sun

42. Boundaries • There are no boundaries in nature • All boundaries are in the mind – in our internal mental microcosms • Making/assuming boundaries seems to be a universal property of mind

43. The Illusion of Enduring Objects A.k.a. The illusion of self-identity through time • Sunshine • A River • Boston • Cape Cod • Joe Biden • Your Body

44. Three Worlds? • As we have seen, there are two worlds to consider • External (the real world) • Internal (the microcosm, the mental world) • Categories • Boundaries • Enduring objects • And there is another..

45. Three Worlds • 1. The real world • 2. Our internal microcosm • 3. The projected world • Projected from our minds to the outside world • Therefore, appears to be “out there” • We tend to equate it with the real world • It takes special effort not to do so

46. The World we See (#3) • The world we see is projected from our mental models • Categorization necessarily entails ignoring some properties • As a distorted world it is also to some extent an illusion • Inevitably our representations of reality are filled with illusions

47. The Real World • Infinitely varied • No boundaries • No two things exactly alike • Everything changes • “Kaleidoscopic flux”

48. The Transparency Illusion • The illusion that the cognitive system is transparent, hence gives us an undistorted view of the world • Actually, it not only simplifies, it hides from us the fact that it is doing so

49. The Linguistic System • Means of talking/thinking about the conceptual system • Also provides means of thinking to oneself about • The world (?) • Our conceptual system • Illusion: we think we are talking about the world directly • The Transparency Illusion • The illusion that our minds are transparent, hence that we see the world as it is

50. The Conceptual System • Organizes the phenomena of the world • Inevitably, it simplifies • Boundaries • Categories • Enduring Objects • Virtual Reality • Example: Fictive motion • That highway goes to Providence