ToM: Culture & beyond


                                       PSY277 Theory of Mind




                                    Barbora Chvátalová, 330167
















Guarantor: Mgr. Michaela Porubanová                                          Date of submission:
30.11.2012






                             Faculty of Social Studies, MU, 2012/2013



Culture can be basically viewed from two main viewpoints: Firstly, as distinct ways people live in
different parts of the world, this means in geographical point of view. This encompasses such
phenomena as language, local customs, religion and so on. On the other hand, we can talk about
culture in terms of physical artifacts created by the society, so called material culture. This
includes for example literature, movies and art in general, but also architecture and actually,
every material object created by humans.(Macionis & John, 2010).


In my essay, I will point out four different concepts, which originate from both of these fields,
and which are closely related to the Theory of mind (further as „ToM“). Namely, in the framework of
geographical culture, I will introduce different behavioral attributions people have developed as
part of their local customs; and will ponder about relationship of ToM and concept of God as this
evidently exists in both religious and spiritual people. Regarding the material culture, I will
muse on the effect ToM may have played on the genesis of material culture as such; and also will
briefly mention one of the physical artifacts created by humans – a robot, and will meditate on the
hypothetical possibility of them developing their own ToM.


It is interesting to realize where all ToM can play a role for us. It´s not just living people who
we attribute mental states to. We sometimes happen to see intentions and beliefs that obviously
don´t possess any mind at all. Especially in case non-living objects seem to „have a mind of their
own“ (do unexpected/ unwanted things), we have a tendency to think of them the same way we do about
misbehaving people. For example kicking a vehicle, beating a computer or throwing down a cell
phone. We don´t really think they wanted to do it but we act towards them as if they had their own
ToM and decided to do so. These situations can arouse similar emotions and behaviors in us. The
objects which can cause these reactions don´t necessarily have to be three-dimensional. In 1944
experiment by Heider and Simmel (as cited in Bering, 2011), it has been shown that people have a
tendency to attribute mental states even to animated geometric objects. People were describing
their „behavior“ in the same words we describe the people´s one. If we read a book or watch a
movie, we also imagine various minds of the characters and create our representation of their ToM.
To go further, there are many abstract concepts in society, where God is probably the most ultimate
one. Here, too, we create our own representation of the mind of God itself. What if God doesn´t
actually exist and resides only within our minds? People have a tendency to believe there is
something greater than themselves, something they can pray to with their innermost wishes, and
something that can possibly judge and punish them in case they misbehave or fail. But it might turn
out it is afterall just an overactive ToM. Nevertheless, a very important one for society´s
survival. Without people´s faith into something higher – whatever it is – which might one day
reward or punish them, people would probably act much more animally. ToM of God closely corresponds
to Freud´s superego, or a part of ourselves aiming for self- perfection. It comprises one´s ego
ideals, spiritual goals and conscience, that prevents us from turning our inner drives and
fantasies (which can be harmful) into reality (Myers, 2010)


But, what if God has created us with a concept of itself already engraved into our minds? This
would help explain why there have been various religious or spiritual practices ever since the dawn
of humankind. Or, even further, what if God isn´t an autonomous, independent agent that lives
outside human brain cells, but rather we –ourselves – are infinite particles and manifestations of
God, and the ToM of God is a reflection upon our own mind? And we all define how we want to be – so
to say, how we want the God to be; what we want to relate to. This would help explain endless
variety of representation of God in different cultures/societies, where this image is
ever-changing. Each of us can come with our own theory how the God might/should be and this can add
up to the whole picture. This way, we can influence the nature of society. Humans possess an innate
tendency to create their ideal self, and then, even if unconsciously, use this image as an
relational framework for their decision making processes. They try to shape up their selves to
become as much in accordance with their ideal self-image a possible. The picture of God plays a
major role in this ideal self-picture development. Therefore, it is as if that within our minds, we
create an ideal picture of God-like ourselves, and then, with modifications possible, try to become
one with our inner concept.


There is an interesting scientific evidence supporting the above claim: Recent research of
Kapogiannisa et al. (2009) has shown that, regarding representation of God´s ToM, we use mainly the
same recently evolved brain structures as we use to represent other people´s believes and feelings.
Exposure to different belief statements caused an activation of the same parts of brain as those
used for everyday interpretation of the world and people living in it. These parts are those which
have evolved most recently – especially various parts of the cortex. According to a British
anthropologist Robin Dunbar (as cited in Coghlan, 2009), "it's not surprising that religious
beliefs engage mainly the theory-of-mind areas, as they are about virtual beings who are treated as
having essentially human mental traits, just as characters in a novel or play are".


Another interesting notion is that we can have a ToM of people who don´t exist anymore. If a person
dies, we still keep a representation of their mind within ours, therefore can assume what the
person would have thought or done. Many people, especially older ones, would use their inner speech
to talk to the deceased partner, and sometimes even make this silent conversation audible. We use
the same mental system as we do when we read literature or watch a movie, and later are able to
recall and imagine mental states of characters introduced there. Not only we are able to represent
the ToM of made-up of real characters, but at the same time, we can think of ToM of author himself.
ToM is a critical tool, which enables us to understand creations of other people – through their
(art)work, we can contemplate on the personality of its author. Without this ability, the whole
human culture would be non-existent. For example, much of the drama and humor relies on our ability
not only to create visions of character´s mind but also to imagine how each of these imaginary
minds might view the minds of others (Leverage, Mancing, Schweickert & Williams, 2010).


Regarding the future, there is a remarkable area of researchers´ interest: robots. Currently,
scientists are trying to create not only an artificial intelligence, but they are tempting
artificial consciousness, too. Is it conceivable that there could be a thing that appears to be
human but in fact has no conscious experience? Is it possible to elicit ToM in an artificial
object? Is consciousness an inevitable precursor of ToM, or could ToM exist independently on it?
According to Scassellati (2011), if we are about to build machines that will interact naturally
with people, they must be able to both interpret the behavior of others according to valid social
rules and display the social cues that will allow people to naturally interpret the machine’s
behavior.


In the field of computer science (where it hasn´t received much attention yet), ToM is the attempt
to represent the hidden state maintained by another agent based upon the observable behavior of
that agent. By „agent“ we mean any entity capable of volitional, independent behavior. In terms of
ToM, we expect from an agent a purposeful behavior, and we conform to our expectations (Henig,
2007). If a robot would have its own ToM, it would be able to draw conclusions of other people´s
ToM the same way people do. It would be able to express its internal states, as for example
emotions (if there would be any „real“?), goals and wishes. Overall, it would make the nowadays
interaction between humans and robots much easier.


This attempt to create an artificial ToM in non-human systems makes scientists to define more
precisely what ToM is, and how it develops. In computer science, a study of the foundations of a
theory of mind is an attempt to link low-level perceptual capabilities with a high-level cognitive
model. The researchers are trying to link complex cognitive skills with actual behavioral triggers.
This goal forces the researchers to nail the abstract cognitive concepts down to very concrete
skills (e.g. gaze direction; pointing to a desired object etc.), which they later attempt to teach
the robots (Henig, 2007). Construction of the foundational skills for a ToM will enable us to look
closer into the link between these two realms. In a way, it´s yet another possibility how to
specify the definition and understanding of ToM, except (for example) the study of ToM in people
with autism spectrum disorders. Let´s conclude the „robot topic“ with the opinion of an American
philosopher, writer and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett (1992) who thinks, that the best reason
for believing that robots might some day become conscious is that human beings themselves are
conscious, and that we are a sort of robot ourselves.


I have introduced various, less common ways of viewing the relationship of ToM and culture. Each of
these various topics would deserve its own essay, but my aim was to present the variety of possible
views on ToM, and to show where all ToM plays a huge role in our daily lives. In my essay, it is
evident that sometimes science and philosophy don´t have to be separate disciplines, but can be
interwoven. Next essay on similar theme could focus on just one of these topics, and expand on the
philosophical depth and scientific evidence and implications.


Word count: 1697












References:


Bering, J. (2011). The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Coghlan, A. (2009). 'Theory of mind' could help explain belief in God. Retrieved on 29.11.2012 from
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16725-theory-of-mind-could-help-explain-belief-in-god.html


Dennett, D.C. (1992). Consciousness explained. USA: Back Bay Books

Henig, R.M. (2007). Darwin’s God. Retrieved on 30.11.2012 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=1%27s%20God%20by%20Robin%2
0Marantz%20Henig&_r=0&ei=5090&en=43cfb46824423cea&ex=1330664400%20Darwin


Kapogiannisa, D., Barbeya, A.K., Sua, M., Zambonia, G., Kruegera, F., Grafmana, J. (2009).

Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 106(12), 4876–4881.

Leverage, P., Mancing, H., Schweickert, R., Williams, J.M. (2010). Theory of Mind and Literature.
USA: Purdue University Press.


Macionis, G., John, L. (2010). Sociology. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.

Myers, D.G. (2010). Exploring Psychology, Eighth Edition, In Modules. New York: Worth Publishers.


Scassellati, B.M. (2001). Foundations for a Theory of Mind for a Humanoid Robot. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology