Instead of Introspection

Do we have direct introspective access into our own minds, or (if you believe in distinguishing, say, between ego and id) into some portion of our own minds?

In The Opacity of Mind (2011), Peter Carruthers offered a "no," answer, along with an explanation of why we think we do.

Carruthers argues that natural selection has bred into us an ability to read each other's minds. My ability to infer that an acquaintance is angry at me, and perhaps scheming up an ambush to kill me, is of obvious survival significance, and the gene lines that led to such an ability were naturally the ones that account for our dedicated mental subsystem for understanding one another. This system involves observations of behavior, facial expressions, tones of voice, etc.

The SAME system, which of course relies upon behavior, facial expressions, etc., is also responsible for our understanding of our selves, Carruthers submits. There is no "inner sense" to it, though the subsystem does have direct access to our sensory states, including the feelings of pleasure and pain.

Why do we think we have direct access to our own thoughts? Because we do in fact know our own thoughts best. Why is that? Simply because we have more sensory dara to draw on, including pain, perspiration, and a steady stream of inner speech -- we're aware of our own mutterings. But this is a difference of degree, not of kind. Away with the inner sense!

And so away, I gather, with the above mentioned distinction between ego and id, although some facts about ourselves may be more difficult to infer from such data than others.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog