Knowing other Minds: A Scorekeeping Model

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Knowing other Minds : A Scorekeeping Model. / Lo Presti, Patrizio Ulf Enrico.

In: Review of Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. 14, 2023, p. 1279-1308.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Lo Presti, PUE 2023, 'Knowing other Minds: A Scorekeeping Model', Review of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. 14, pp. 1279-1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-022-00642-0

APA

Lo Presti, P. U. E. (2023). Knowing other Minds: A Scorekeeping Model. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14, 1279-1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-022-00642-0

Vancouver

Lo Presti PUE. Knowing other Minds: A Scorekeeping Model. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 2023;14:1279-1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-022-00642-0

Author

Lo Presti, Patrizio Ulf Enrico. / Knowing other Minds : A Scorekeeping Model. In: Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 2023 ; Vol. 14. pp. 1279-1308.

Bibtex

@article{2f75e972039b4caba0419e26fcd946ac,
title = "Knowing other Minds: A Scorekeeping Model",
abstract = "The prepositional {\textquoteleft}in{\textquoteright} and possessive pronouns, e.g., {\textquoteleft}my{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}mine,{\textquoteright} in the context of attributions of mental states, such as “in my mind” or “in your mind,” threaten to confuse attempts to account for knowledge of other minds. This paper distinguishes proper from improper uses of such expressions. I will argue that proper use of the prepositional {\textquoteleft}in{\textquoteright} and possessive pronouns in the context of mental state attributions presupposes capacities to properly track and attribute what are really, in a sense to be specified, intersubjectively articulated and inferentially interrelated normative statuses. What we call “mental states” or “minds,” in as far as primarily cognitive states such as beliefs are concerned, are intersubjectively constituted. As opposed to being inner and private, something we must learn to intersubjectively discover, minds and mental states are intersubjectively articulated and we learn to attribute them as inner and private. A scorekeeping-model is used to illustrate how the privacy of mind presupposes intersubjectivity. Using that model, I argue that the traditional problem of knowing other minds can be re-framed as a problem of learning how to pursue intersubjective practices of acknowledging, attributing and undertaking mental states.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, Other minds, intersubjectivity, normativity, scorekeeping, me-ness, developmental psychology",
author = "{Lo Presti}, {Patrizio Ulf Enrico}",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1007/s13164-022-00642-0",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "1279--1308",
journal = "Review of Philosophy and Psychology",
issn = "1878-5158",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Knowing other Minds

T2 - A Scorekeeping Model

AU - Lo Presti, Patrizio Ulf Enrico

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - The prepositional ‘in’ and possessive pronouns, e.g., ‘my’ and ‘mine,’ in the context of attributions of mental states, such as “in my mind” or “in your mind,” threaten to confuse attempts to account for knowledge of other minds. This paper distinguishes proper from improper uses of such expressions. I will argue that proper use of the prepositional ‘in’ and possessive pronouns in the context of mental state attributions presupposes capacities to properly track and attribute what are really, in a sense to be specified, intersubjectively articulated and inferentially interrelated normative statuses. What we call “mental states” or “minds,” in as far as primarily cognitive states such as beliefs are concerned, are intersubjectively constituted. As opposed to being inner and private, something we must learn to intersubjectively discover, minds and mental states are intersubjectively articulated and we learn to attribute them as inner and private. A scorekeeping-model is used to illustrate how the privacy of mind presupposes intersubjectivity. Using that model, I argue that the traditional problem of knowing other minds can be re-framed as a problem of learning how to pursue intersubjective practices of acknowledging, attributing and undertaking mental states.

AB - The prepositional ‘in’ and possessive pronouns, e.g., ‘my’ and ‘mine,’ in the context of attributions of mental states, such as “in my mind” or “in your mind,” threaten to confuse attempts to account for knowledge of other minds. This paper distinguishes proper from improper uses of such expressions. I will argue that proper use of the prepositional ‘in’ and possessive pronouns in the context of mental state attributions presupposes capacities to properly track and attribute what are really, in a sense to be specified, intersubjectively articulated and inferentially interrelated normative statuses. What we call “mental states” or “minds,” in as far as primarily cognitive states such as beliefs are concerned, are intersubjectively constituted. As opposed to being inner and private, something we must learn to intersubjectively discover, minds and mental states are intersubjectively articulated and we learn to attribute them as inner and private. A scorekeeping-model is used to illustrate how the privacy of mind presupposes intersubjectivity. Using that model, I argue that the traditional problem of knowing other minds can be re-framed as a problem of learning how to pursue intersubjective practices of acknowledging, attributing and undertaking mental states.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - Other minds

KW - intersubjectivity

KW - normativity

KW - scorekeeping

KW - me-ness

KW - developmental psychology

U2 - 10.1007/s13164-022-00642-0

DO - 10.1007/s13164-022-00642-0

M3 - Journal article

VL - 14

SP - 1279

EP - 1308

JO - Review of Philosophy and Psychology

JF - Review of Philosophy and Psychology

SN - 1878-5158

ER -

ID: 333306627