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
Post a Comment