I talked in an earlier post about the idea that we come to understand other people's mental states through learning to project ourselves, through imagination, into the point of view of another person. In gaining a grasp of my mental states, Athena has to learn to novelise me, or run a mental simulation of my own beliefs, desires and intentions in order to predict and understand how I will act, think and feel. Simulation theory, as it is known, is seen as one of the main alternatives to the view that children develop a 'theory' of mind by framing hypotheses about how the mind works and then testing them out through action.
Proponents of simulation theory have frequently drawn parallels between the kind of biographical thinking involved in simulation and the creative processes through which novelists create characters. The psychologist and novelist Keith Oatley has been one of the most important advocates of the view that fiction itself is a kind of simulation—in his words, 'a simulation that runs on minds of readers'. In the blog OnFiction, which he co-authors with some other academics interested in the relation between psychology and fiction, he describes this position along with hinting at some of its implications. One such implication is that our reading of fiction can be expected to give our mind-reading abilities a thorough work-out. A similar view has been put forward by Lisa Zunshine, who has argued that one of the pleasures of fictional prose is the way it challenges our theory of mind. Working out who thinks what about whom is a mental challenge which constantly brings us, as expert readers and novices ones, back to storyworlds.
You can read Keith's post here.
Posts
2 comments:
I am a newcomer to your blog and find it both fascinating, to learn how experts regard the process of thinking, and exciting, to recognise that many of the processes you describe are very familiar to me.
I am not a father and have not had the pleasures or pains of bringing a child into the world, but my introverted nature seems to have resulted in my spending much time thinking about my own process of thinking, motivated by the belief that something was ‘wrong’ or at least ‘different’ about me. Of course, I can only speak as an adult, but it seems to me there maybe less difference than one might think, between the mind of a child and that of an adult.
Simulation theory seems particularly poignant to me, since I have long recognised my own internal figures of friends and family, as well as ‘imagined others’ that seem to represent ‘society’. These internal characters will often ‘speak’ (in my mind and on “my” behalf), guiding, helping or criticising me, through life.
Perhaps this is similar to the way God is unconsciously intended to work?
Thanks for your post. I think there are really interesting connections between the kinds of internal dialogues I have been writing about and the kinds involved in prayer. I hope to explore these connections much more deeply, but for the moment my hunch would be that we are able to engage in prayer because our minds are structured dialogically - as a result of the kind of social upbringings that we have. And the same would apply to our ability to engage in virtual dialogues with our own 'internal figures', as you nicely describe them.
Post a Comment