@Neodarwinian “That criteria, the first sentence, is not the criteria that defines mind.”
I never said it was a definition. I presented it as a property of human mindfulness.
@Neodarwinian “Looks like your definition…”
Not a definition. A property of human mindfulness, separate and apart from other “organisms”, as you put it.
@Neodarwinian “I won’t address the second paragraph because I do not think you understood this”
If I didn’t understand it, then why not address it? I presented an example of how I understood it based upon the limited sentence you provided. I even agreed with you saying “No doubt”, and then presented an example of why I agreed, and how it is tied to the “morality” suggested in the OP.
So, what’s not to understand here? What am I missing? How did my example not fit the criteria of your statement?
And seriously, in the spirit of the OP, would refusal to “address the second paragraph” not be an immoral act if based upon your thinking that I did not “understand this” from the position you enjoy? Similar to human services helping my uncle out of a moral duty, instead of allowing him to remain stupid. Will you allow me to remain stupid to your position? Or even worse, would you silently consider me stupid without actually saying it? Consider the morality of that please.
@Neodarwinian “This is logical to you?!?”
Stupidity is the failure to develop the mind.
Therefore, stupidity is the failure to do “the right thing”.
Therefore, stupidity is immoral.
Yes, even more so now. If you possess knowledge that I do not, and consider me stupid because of it, then as I express a desire to develop my mind, in order to do the right thing, and you are the vehicle to accomplish such a task, then my stupidity may be resting on the shoulders of your immorality. You can fix this by “doing the right thing” and schooling me with more detail to your position.
For what I’ve discovered thus far of your “Theory of Mind” has done nothing more than convince me further that it is a subjective notion. As the Wiki clearly states:
“The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of his/her own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another. It is typically assumed that others have minds by analogy with one’s own, and based on the reciprocal nature of social interaction, as observed in joint attention…”
There is nothing objective here to base a theory upon, except the caveat of the next line:
“the functional use of language”…
Which contradicts the first part of the definition. As it says, “no one has direct access to the mind of another”.
Am I the only one to see the fallacy of this statement? “The functional use of language IS the mechanism which allows organisms to have “direct access to the mind of another”.
We’re doing it right now… with language.
@Neodarwinian “I suggest you review the literature here.”
Here’s some literature on Premack and Woodruffs original paper: Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later.
“Our conclusion for the moment is, thus, that chimpanzees understand others in terms of a perception-goal psychology, as opposed to a full-fledged, human-like belief-desire psychology.”
This does seem to fit with my earlier assessment:
“I do not believe that when @josie claimed that only humans have minds, that he meant no other organism was capable of expressing mindfulness. I believe he intended that no other organism could express the mindfulness of humans, capable of expressing such notions as morality and intelligence.”
And let me clarify. When I say “morality and intelligence”, I don’t mean that some organisms are incapable of exhibiting such attributes in the limited manner they are capable of. What I mean is that they cannot discuss notion of “morality and intelligence” because they’re too stupid to express abstract reasoning to the same degree that humans are.