I. Our Wayward Minds
Mind, Knowledge, and Belief
Course Website
Brain, Mind, and Belief: The Quest for Truth
“We are not trapped in some kind of original sin, only original stupidity. And stupidity can be overcome by a determined effort of intelligence.” Colin Renfrew
Topics
The mind and its quest for truth Can we rely on our minds? Processes of the mind Linguistic relativity Language, thought, and reality: Words, concepts, things The transparency illusion Mental models of the world Tricks played by the mind that distort its operation
2
Can we rely on our minds?
We think we are the smart animals• “Homo sapiens”• Large brains
We like to rely on our minds What else have we got?
• For thinking• For seeking the truth about
the world who we are what are we doing here?
But trusting our minds can be dangerous
3
The quest for truth
A natural activity of humans The means/instrument: our minds Is this instrument reliable? Seeing the world through tinted glasses What if you don’t even know you are
wearing glasses?
4
It is perfectly possible that the truth is beyond our reach, in virtue of our intrinsic cognitive limitations, and not merely beyond our grasp in humanity’s present stage of intellectual development. But I believe that we cannot know this, and that it makes sense to go on seeking a systematic
understanding of how we and other living things fit into the world. Thomas Nagel
Processes of the Mind
Perceiving Thinking Managing activity Remembering Learning Managing beliefs
• Acquiring• Maintaining• Modifying
5
Language plays a big role in all these processes
Some ways language influences thought
Allows formulation of precise thoughts• Bacon: “Writing maketh an exact man”
Allows communication of thoughts The medium of scientific, commercial, legal,
philosophical, educational, etc. exchange, agreement, formulation
Provides conceptual categories for organizing thoughts
6
Linguistic Relativity
Language and ThoughtDifferent Languages, Different Thoughts?
Question:Do people who speak different languages think differently?
Questions about Linguistic Relativity
Does language influence thought? Does thought influence language? What is the difference between language
and thought? Is there a difference between language
and thought? Can we have thinking without language? What is thought/thinking?
8
A Common Assumption
Expressions in language directly describe (or ask about, or otherwise make statements about) the world
Is this assumption correct?
9
This Assumption is not Supported
We do not talk about the world directly, but..• About our internal (mental) models
of the world• I.e., about our construals
about our conceptual systems about “virtual reality”
• Virtual reality: one’s mental model of reality
10
The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
Also known as• The Whorf hypothesis• The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Edward Sapir (1884-1939) Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941)
Every language has its own way of categorizing experience
People who speak different languages think differently
People who speak different languages live in different (mental-social) worlds
11
And before Sapir and Whorf..
Nineteenth Century• Max Müller (Germany, U.K.)• Wilhelm von Humboldt (Germany)• William Dwight Whitney (U.S.A.)
Early twentieth century• Franz Boas (Germany, U.S.A.)
12
Benjamin Lee Whorf, 1897-1941
“…the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized byour minds…. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do,because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way — an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified by the patterns of our language.”
Benjamin Lee Whorf 13
Whorf on relativity
From this fact proceeds what I have called the “linguistic relativity principle,” which means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers, but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world.
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1945)
14
Another quote
Whorf 1956:214
We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated.
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1945)
15
Reactions to Whorf’s Ideas
… have been controversial from the start Whorf may be better known outside linguistics
than any other linguist (except Chomsky) Prevailing opinion in linguistics has been
opposed to Whorf’s ideas But there has also been a minority view all
along, that he was really on to something An enormous amount of publication has
resulted, pro and con
16
The argument for linguistic relativity
Thinking is inextricably bound up with language
Different languages conceptualize human experience differently
Different grammars point peoples to different observations and different evaluations of similar external phenomena
Therefore, thinking patterns vary from one language to another.
People who speak different languages live in different worlds
17
The argument against linguistic relativity
Thinking follows universal patterns There is a universal ‘language of thought’ Basic thought patterns come from
• Universal properties of the human body• Universal properties of orientation in space and time• Universal features of the environment
Sky, land, sun, rain, water, etc.• Universal properties of perception and cognition
Therefore, thought patterns do not vary from language to language
Thought gets ‘translated’ into different languages
18
Linguistic Relativity: Pro & Con
Pro
Thinking is inextricably bound up with language
Thinking patterns vary from one language to another
People who speak different languages live in different worlds
Con
Thinking follows universal patterns
Thinking is independent of particular languages
Differences between different languages are actually pretty superficial, don’t affect thinking
19
The Naive Theory of Meaning
Words in a one-one correspondence with reality
The world is made up of objects, and for every type of object there is a word
Different peoples use different languages to speak about same world
20
Alternative Theory
Words represent reality only indirectly
Every language has its own way of categorizing the objects of the world
People who speak different languages live in different worlds
21
Rocks
English rock rocks
tyhpi tyhtyhpi Mono 22
Plural vs. Distributive
In Mono, what matters is not how many, but in how many places
23
Compare…
’fruit’ ‘fruit’
24
Types of Rocks
Large orMedium
Small,One Piece
Small,Many Pieces
rock
pebble
gravel
25
Types of Rocks – Mono
Rough or jagged
Smooth (as instreambed)
Large orMedium
Small,One Piece
Small,Many Pieces
tyhpi pa’oohpy
26
Exercise: Beards
Questions
What are asking about?
27
Three distinct levels
The World
The Conceptual System The Linguistic System
External
Internal
28
The internal and the external
Conception
Language Perception
Sensing
In the mindInterface
29
The World
Infinitely varied
No boundaries
No two things exactly alike
Everything changes
“Kaleidoscopic flux”
30
The meaning of “dog”
Perceptual properties
of dogs Dogs in the world
and their properties
In the Mind
The World Outside
Conceptual
properties
of dogs
31
Meaning is conceptualization
The meanings of linguistic forms are in our conceptual systems, not in the outside world
32
Our mental models of the world
All imposition of structure in our mental models is accomplished at the cost of ignoring some properties of the phenomena modeled
(Compare the map)
33
Direct experience
The only thing we experience directly is our own mental activity
What we apprehend as directexperience of reality is actuallybeing filtered by the mind
34
Direct Knowledge
”…since the activity of our mind is the only part of Nature directly known to us, its laws are the only ones that we can justifiably call laws of Nature.”
Jakob von Uexkull Theoretical Biology (1928)
35
Its not just things
Social Relationships
Processes
Qualities
Perceptual properties
Space, Time
Etc.
The same for all people, or different for speakers of different languages?
36
Techniques of Simplification
Categorization Segmentation
• Requires assumption of boundaries The illusion of enduring objects
37
Categories and Boundaries
How do categories and boundaries get built? By emphasizing some properties while
ignoring other properties
This is not only simplification — it is distortion of reality
38
Categories
There are no categories in nature
All categories are in the mind – in our internal mental microcosms
Making/assuming categories seems to be a universal property of mind
39
Segmentation
Some features and combinations of features are distinguished – mentally separated from – the “kaleidoscopic flux”
Often involves the assumption of boundaries (to aid the distinction)
40
Boundaries
Mountain and Valley
Land and Sea
Automobiles
The Human Body
The Sun
41
Boundaries
There are no boundaries in nature
All boundaries are in the mind – in our internal mental microcosms
Making/assuming boundaries seems to be a universal property of mind
42
The Illusion of Enduring Objects
Sunshine A River Boston Cape Cod Joe Biden Your Body
A.k.a. The illusion of self-identity through time
43
Three Worlds?
As we have seen, there are two worlds to consider • External (the real world)• Internal (the microcosm, the mental world)
Categories Boundaries Enduring objects
And there is another..
44
Three Worlds
1. The real world 2. Our internal microcosm 3. The projected world
• Projected from our minds to the outside world Therefore, appears to be “out there”
• We tend to equate it with the real world It takes special effort not to do so
45
The World we See (#3)
The world we see is projected from our mental models
Categorization necessarily entails ignoring some properties
As a distorted world it is also to some extent an illusion
Inevitably our representations of reality are filled with illusions
46
The Real World
Infinitely varied
No boundaries
No two things exactly alike
Everything changes
“Kaleidoscopic flux”
47
The Transparency Illusion
The illusion that the cognitive system is transparent, hence gives us an undistorted view of the world
Actually, it not only simplifies, it hides from us the fact that it is doing so
48
The Linguistic System
Means of talking/thinking about the conceptual system
Also provides means of thinking to oneself about • The world (?)• Our conceptual system
Illusion: we think we are talking about the world directly• The Transparency Illusion
The illusion that our minds are transparent, hence that we see the world as it is
49
The Conceptual System
Organizes the phenomena of the world Inevitably, it simplifies
• Boundaries• Categories• Enduring Objects
Virtual Reality• Example: Fictive motion
• That highway goes to Providence
50
Every cognitive system is a model
Cognitive systems necessarily depend upon simplification:• boundaries, categories, etc.
everyone’s cognitive system is necessarily a system of illusions
It would be impossible for all people, despite their different languages and cultures, to share the same set of illusions
51
Different languages..
Have different categories Segment the world differently
• Example: kinds of rocks
52
Quotation from B.L. Whorf
… every language is a vast pattern system … in which are culturally ordained the forms and categories by which the personality not only communicates, but also analyzes nature, … channels his reasoning, and builds the house of his consciousness.
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1945)
53
Past, Present, Future
In the English way of thinking..• Time is linear
From past, thru present, to future Past and future extend from present
From a cognitive point of view..• Past is memory or hearsay• Future is prediction
and planning and/or worrying
54
Time as Metaphorical Space
In English.. • The future lies ahead• The past is behind us
Similarly, in Mandarin..• qiantu (front-road) ‘one’s future’• qianjing (front-scene) ‘prospect’’
But the metaphor provides a choice:• Future ahead, past behind• Past ahead, future behind
55
Time as Metaphorical Space
‘ahead ’ and ‘behind ’ are spatial terms Compare ‘future’ and ‘past’
• No spatial reference• They refer only to time
Using spatial terms for time is metaphor
56
Time as Metaphorical Space
The future is ahead
The past is behind us
PAST FUTURE
57
Time as Metaphorical Space
In Navajo and Aymara:
The future is behind
The past is ahead
PAST FUTURE
58
The Illusion of Mental Transparency
Illusion: We think we are talking and thinking about the world
Most people think that the future really is ahead, that it’s not just metaphor
We are actually talking and thinking about our conceptual systems
The transparency illusion• The illusion that our perceptual and
conceptual systems are transparent — they are showing us the world as it is
59
Implication of the Transparency Illusion
The illusion: The cognitive system is transparent, hence gives us an undistorted view of the world
Therefore, the mind is not only simplifying, it is hiding from us the fact that it is doing so
60
How far does linguistic relativity extend?
Different languages, different thinking• Thought is shaped by language• Thought is influenced by language
Also these?• Non-linguistic thinking influence by language• Perception is influenced by language• Behavior is influenced by language
Different languages, different worlds
61
Significant behavioral consequencesExample from B. L. Whorf
“Empty” gasoline drum• No longer contained fluid• But did contain fumes• Label on drum: “empty”
Lighted cigarette butt Tossed into drum Kaboom!!
Example from Whorf:
62
Another hypothesis of Whorf
Grammatical categories of a language influence the thinking of people who speak the language
Example: Grammatical gender
Does talking about inanimate objects as if they were masculine or feminine actually lead people to think of inanimate objects as having a gender?
Could the grammatical genders assigned to objects by a language influence people’s mental representation of objects?
Boroditsky (2003)
Experiment: Gender and Associations(Boroditsky et al. 2002)
Subjects: speakers of Spanish or German• All were fluent also in English• English used as language of experiment
Task: Write down the 1st 3 adjectives that come to mind to describe each object• All the (24) objects have opposite gender
in German and Spanish Raters of adjectives: Native English speakers
Examples:
Key (masc in German, fem in Spanish)• Adjectives used by German speakers:
Hard, heavy, jagged, metal, serrated, useful• Adjectives used by Spanish speakers:
Golden, intricate, little, lovely, shiny, tiny Bridge (fem in German, masc in spanish)
• Adjectives used by German speakers: Beautiful, elegant, fragile, peaceful, pretty
• Adjectives used by Spanish speakers: Big, dangerous, long, strong, sturdy, towering
Boroditsky’s Experiment: Results(Boroditsky et al. 2002)
Result: Adjectives were rated as masculine or feminine in agreement with the gender in subject’s native language
Conclusion I: Linguistic influence on mental processes
Different languages, different thinking• Thought is influenced by language• Thought is shaped by language
Systems of categories and boundaries are built by language
And not just linguistic thinking • Perception is influenced by language• Behavior is influenced by language
Stay tuned! Different languages, different worlds
68
Conclusion II: Mental models
We operate with mental models• not directly with the world
They all differ from one another• In different language communities• In different cultures• Also within communities
Interpersonal differences We each live in our own personal
world, different from all others At most one person in the world has it right Actually, they are all faulty
69
70