April 27, How we generate empathy remains a subject of intense debate in cognitive science. Some scientists now believe they may have finally discovered its root. We're all essentially mind readers, they say.
An acquaintance, Anita, tells him that she knows just how he feels. No one can know how anyone else feels. But here lies the paradox. If he claims that she cannot know how he feels, he is necessarily making an assertion about how she feels! His position is self-defeating.
If he is right, he is wrong. While it will be claimed by logical purists that this is not a genuine paradox, it does qualify as a paradox in a broader, less technical sense. We have two contrary claims that both seem to be true. One is widely accepted, and the other is the conclusion of a seemingly sound argument.
The first is intuitively true — no one can ever know how another person feels or thinks. After all, everyone is unique and has unique experiences, and further, it does not seem possible for any person to have epistemic access to the thoughts and feelings of another. The second deductively follows from the first — since no one knows how anyone else feels, no one can know that others have not had identical feelings.
To deny that empathy is possible is a problem, since it is highly valued in the fields of ethics, medicine, education, and elsewhere. Without empathy for others, it is not clear why we would ever be motivated by anything other than selfishness. Indeed, a person with a complete lack of empathy might rightly be classified as an amoral sociopath.
Empathy enables teachers and other educators to grasp the particular problems and needs of students.
To presume to know how another person feels is to strip that person of his or her separateness and uniqueness. It is especially offensive to people who have been victims of one form or another of oppression when members of the privileged group claim to know how they feel.
For example, Diana Meyers states: If so, he might think that no matter how she feels, it must be different than how he feels. Or does he mean that she has no idea how he feels? In other words, that she does not have an adequate understanding of his mental state.
Regardless of which sort of claim Hector is making, the logic of that claim falls apart. But what reason could he possibly give? Therefore, he does not have access to her mind either.
Sadly, his only recourse would seem to be to appeal to the notion that since every person is unique, no two people can ever feel exactly the same way or understand precisely how the other feels.
Well, once again, we can ask him for evidence. It might be argued that no proof is needed to establish that uniqueness between all humans entails the impossibility of any two people feeling precisely the same way. It could be claimed, in other words, that it is necessarily true that no two people could have identical feelings.
But that is a tautology. While the fact that people are unique establishes that the sums of their feelings would differ, it does not entail that two people cannot have identical feelings with regard to some specific issue.
So, can Hector prove that Anita and he cannot have a single identical thought? Can Hector establish that since people are necessarily unique, it is impossible for them to have an identical thought with regard to some certain subject or issue? No, since proving such a claim would once again require access to the mind of another.
If Hector is only claiming that Anita does not know his exact state of mind, then one wonders why he would speak up in the first place. First, he cannot even provide any evidence for his claim, and second, his claim seems irrelevant.
I adequately understand your feelings. And how can he get that? And if he can justifiably make a claim about what is going on in her mind, then it seems she should be able to make a claim about what is going on in his mind as well.The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living is an artwork created in by Damien Hirst, an English artist and a leading member of the "Young British Artists" (or YBA).
It consists of a tiger shark preserved in formaldehyde in a srmvision.com: Tiger shark, glass, steel, 5% formaldehyde solution. Weirdly enough, in psychology there is no proper evidence proving that it is possible to map someone’s mind accurately through their emotions, words and body language.
But the lack of research-backed evidence does not totally deny the fact that it is, in fact, possible to develop sharp skills of reading minds.
|LEARN TO READ MINDS IN 10 MINUTES | Weekly World News||Check Prices Tips for Beginners If you want to learn to read minds, you can follow some simple tips to get you started.|
|Why Is Reading Important?||Introduction The Theaetetus, which probably dates from about BC, is arguably Plato's greatest work on epistemology.|
|How to Read Minds Like A Psychic (Is it POSSIBLE?) - RB||From anticipating the needs of a client to knowing how to approach your boss, developing an inner intuition about what others value can help you get ahead.|
|Chuang-Tzu and Empathy||The Carcass Near the Gift Shop:|
|The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, by Stock Photo: - Alamy||George Miller The following is a paper written and given by George Miller:|
Suppose someone could enumerate the letters of “Theaetetus,” and could give their correct order, and yet knew nothing about syllables. This person wouldn't count as knowing “Theaetetus” because he would have no understanding of the principles that get us from ordered letters to names.
The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living is the 16th episode of the second season of Switched at Birth. Bay meets some of Ty's soldier friends, including an army medic name srmvision.comus: Ecce Mono. Now while the above-explained techniques are more to do with daily mind reading, these days the evolution of brain scanning technology (neuro-imaging) has led the researchers to debate on what.
The Paradox of Empathy On the other hand, the impossibility of empathy, and the importance of uniqueness of experience is a highly treasured ‘truth’ in current education and social justice theory. The key issue here is whether a person can know what is going on in another person’s mind, be it feelings, thoughts or anything else.