Get the Wikipedia app today. Downloading is easy on your phone and only takes a minute.

It's
free and ad-free.

Wikipedia
Wikimedia Foundation

★★★★
★
☆
Available on the Play store

Install
Home
Random
Nearby
Log in
Settings
About Wikipedia

Disclaimers
Open main menu
Wikipedia
Search
Mind
Language
Download PDF
Watch
Edit
For other uses, see Mind (disambiguation).
Learn more
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

A phrenological mapping[1] of the brain. Phrenology was among the first attempts to correlate
mental functions with specific parts of the Brain

René Descartes' illustration of mind/body dualism. Descartes believed inputs are passed on by
the Sensory organs to the epiphysis in the brain and from there to the immaterial spirit.[2]
The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception,
thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain (sometimes including
the central nervous system). It is usually defined as the faculty of an entity's thoughts and
consciousness.[3] It holds the power of imagination, recognition, and appreciation, and is
responsible for processing feelings and emotions, resulting in attitudes and actions.[citation
needed]
There is a lengthy tradition in philosophy, religion, psychology, and cognitive science about what
constitutes a mind and what are its distinguishing properties.

One open question regarding the nature of the mind is the mind–body problem, which
investigates the relation of the mind to the physical brain and nervous system.[4] Older
viewpoints included dualism and idealism, which considered the mind somehow non-physical.[4]
Modern views often center around physicalism and functionalism, which hold that the mind is
roughly identical with the brain or reducible to physical phenomena such as neuronal activity[5]
[need quotation to verify], though dualism and idealism continue to have many supporters.
Another question concerns which types of beings are capable of having minds (New Scientist 8
September 2018 p10).[citation needed] For example, whether mind is exclusive to humans,
possessed also by some or all animals, by all living things, whether it is a strictly definable
characteristic at all, or whether mind can also be a property of some types of human-made
machines.[citation needed]

Whatever its nature, it is generally agreed that mind is that which enables a being to have
subjective awareness and intentionality towards their environment, to perceive and respond to
stimuli with some kind of agency, and to have consciousness, including thinking and feeling.
[citation needed]

The concept of mind is understood in many different ways by many different cultural and
religious traditions. Some see mind as a property exclusive to humans whereas others ascribe
properties of mind to non-living entities (e.g. panpsychism and animism), to animals and to
deities. Some of the earliest recorded speculations linked mind (sometimes described as
identical with soul or spirit) to theories concerning both life after death, and cosmological and
natural order, for example in the doctrines of Zoroaster, the Buddha, Plato, Aristotle, and other
ancient Greek, Indian and, later, Islamic and medieval European philosophers.

Important philosophers of mind include Plato, Patanjali, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley,
Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Searle, Dennett, Fodor, Nagel, and Chalmers.[6]
Psychologists such as Freud and James, and computer scientists such as Turing and Putnam
developed influential theories about the nature of the mind. The possibility of nonbiological
minds is explored in the field of artificial intelligence, which works closely in relation with
cybernetics and information theory to understand the ways in which information processing by
nonbiological machines is comparable or different to mental phenomena in the human mind.[7]

The mind is also portrayed as the stream of consciousness where sense impressions and
mental phenomena are constantly changing.[8][9]

Etymology Edit
The original meaning of Old English gemynd was the faculty of memory, not of thought in
general.[citation needed] Hence call to mind, come to mind, keep in mind, to have mind of, etc.
The word retains this sense in Scotland.[10] Old English had other words to express "mind",
such as hyge "mind, spirit".[11]
The meaning of "memory" is shared with Old Norse, which has munr. The word is originally from
a PIE verbal root *men-, meaning "to think, remember", whence also Latin mens "mind",
Sanskrit manas "mind" and Greek μένος "mind, courage, anger".
Home
Random
Nearby
Log in
Settings
About Wikipedia

Disclaimers
Open main menu
Wikipedia
Search
Self-knowledge (psychology)
Language
Download PDF
Watch
Edit
Learn more
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
Self-knowledge is a term used in psychology to describe the information that an individual draws
upon when finding an answer to the question "What am I like?".

While seeking to develop the answer to this question, self-knowledge requires ongoing self-
awareness and self-consciousness (which is not to be confused with consciousness). Young
infants and chimpanzees display some of the traits of self-awareness[1] and
agency/contingency,[2] yet they are not considered as also having self-consciousness. At some
greater level of cognition, however, a self-conscious component emerges in addition to an
increased self-awareness component, and then it becomes possible to ask "What am I like?",
and to answer with self-knowledge.

Self-knowledge is a component of the self or, more accurately, the self-concept. It is the
knowledge of oneself and one's properties and the desire to seek such knowledge that guide
the development of the self-concept. Self-knowledge informs us of our mental representations of
ourselves, which contain attributes that we uniquely pair with ourselves, and theories on
whether these attributes are stable or dynamic.

The self-concept is thought to have three primary aspects:

The cognitive self[3]

The affective self[4]
The executive self[5]
The affective and executive selves are also known as the felt and active selves respectively, as
they refer to the emotional and behavioral components of the self-concept. Self-knowledge is
linked to the cognitive self in that its motives guide our search to gain greater clarity and
assurance that our own self-concept is an accurate representation of our true self;[citation
needed] for this reason the cognitive self is also referred to as the known self. The cognitive self
is made up of everything we know (or think we know about ourselves). This implies
physiological properties such as hair color, race, and height etc.; and psychological properties
like beliefs, values, and dislikes to name but a few.

Relationship with memory Edit

Self-knowledge and its structure affect how events we experience are encoded, how they are
selectively retrieved/recalled, and what conclusions we draw from how we interpret the memory.
The analytical interpretation of our own memory can also be called meta memory, and is an
important factor of meta cognition.

The connection between our memory and our self-knowledge has been recognized for many
years by leading minds in both philosophy[6] and psychology,[7][8] yet the precise specification
of the relation remains a point of controversy.[9]

Specialized memory Edit

Studies have shown there is a memory advantage for information encoded with reference to the
self.[10]
Patients with Alzheimer's who have difficulty recognizing their own family have not shown
evidence of self-knowledge.[11]
The division of memory Edit
Self-theories have traditionally failed to distinguish between different source that inform self-
knowledge, these are episodic memory and semantic memory. Both episodic and semantic
memory are facets of declarative memory, which contains memory of facts. Declarative memory
is the explicit counterpart to procedural memory, which is implicit in that it applies to skills we
have learnt; they are not facts that can be stated.

A basic schematic representation of memory showing the 'locations' of semantic and episodic
memory.
Episodic memory Edit
Main article: Episodic memory
Episodic memory is the autobiographical memory that individuals possess which contains
events, emotions, and knowledge associated with a given context.

Semantic memory Edit

Main article: Semantic memory
Semantic memory does not refer to concept-based knowledge stored about a specific
experience like episodic memory. Instead it includes the memory of meanings, understandings,
general knowledge about the world, and factual information etc. This makes semantic
knowledge independent of context and personal information. Semantic memory enables an
individual to know information, including information about their selves, without having to
consciously recall the experiences that taught them such knowledge.

Semantic self as the source Edit

People are able to maintain a sense of self that is supported by semantic knowledge of personal
facts in the absence of direct access to the memories that describe the episodes on which the
knowledge is based.

Individuals have been shown to maintain a sense of self despite catastrophic impairments in
episodic recollection. For example, subject W.J., who suffered dense retrograde amnesia
leaving her unable to recall any events that occurred prior to the development of amnesia.
However, her memory for general facts about her life during the period of amnesia remained
intact.
This suggests that a separate type of knowledge contributes to the self-concept, as W.J.'s
knowledge could not have come from her episodic memory.[12]
A similar dissociation occurred in K.C. who suffered a total loss of episodic memory, but still
knew a variety of facts about himself.[13][14]
Evidence also exists that shows how patients with severe amnesia can have accurate and
detailed semantic knowledge of what they are like as a person, for example which particular
personality traits and characteristics they possess.[15][16]
This evidence for the dissociation between episodic and semantic self-knowledge has made
several things clear:

Episodic memory is not the only drawing point for self-knowledge, contrary to long-held beliefs.
Self-knowledge must therefore be expanded to include the semantic component of memory.[17]
[18]
Self-knowledge about the traits one possesses can be accessed without the need for episodic
retrieval. This is shown through study of individuals with neurological impairments that make it
impossible to recollect trait-related experiences, yet who can still make reliable and accurate
trait-ratings of themselves, and even revise these judgements based on new experiences they
cannot even recall.[19]
Motives that guide our search Edit
People have goals that lead them to seek, notice, and interpret information about themselves.
These goals begin the quest for self-knowledge. There are three primary motives that lead us in
the search for self-knowledge:

Self-enhancement
Accuracy
Consistency
Self-enhancement Edit
Main article: Self-enhancement
Self-enhancement refers to the fact that people seem motivated to experience positive
emotional states and to avoid experiencing negative emotional states. People are motivated to
feel good about themselves in order to maximize their feelings of self-worth, thus enhancing
their self-esteem.
The emphasis on feelings differs slightly from how other theories have previously defined self-
enhancement needs, for example the Contingencies of Self-Worth Model.[20]
Other theorists have taken the term to mean that people are motivated to think about
themselves in highly favorable terms, rather than feel they are "good".[21][22]
In many situations and cultures, feelings of self-worth are promoted by thinking of oneself as
highly capable or better than one's peers. However, in some situations and cultures, feelings of
self-worth are promoted by thinking of oneself as average or even worse than others. In both
cases, thoughts about the self still serve to enhance feelings of self-worth. The universal need is
not a need to think about oneself in any specific way, rather a need to maximize one's feelings
of self-worth. This is the meaning of the self enhancement motive with respect to self-
knowledge.

Arguments Edit
In Western societies, feelings of self-worth are in fact promoted by thinking of oneself in
favorable terms.

In this case, self-enhancement needs lead people to seek information about themselves in such
a way that they are likely to conclude that they truly possess what they see as a positive
defining quality.
See "Self-verification theory" section.

Accuracy Edit
Accuracy needs influence the way in which people search for self-knowledge. People frequently
wish to know the truth about themselves without regard as to whether they learn something
positive or negative.[23] There are three considerations which underlie this need:[24]

Occasionally people simply want to reduce any uncertainty. They may want to know for the
sheer intrinsic pleasure of knowing what they are truly like.
Some people believe they have a moral obligation to know what they are really like. This view
holds particularly strong in theology and philosophy, particularly existentialism.
Knowing what one is really like can sometimes help an individual to achieve their goals. The
basic fundamental goal to any living thing is survival, therefore accurate self-knowledge can be
adaptive to survival.[25]
Accurate self-knowledge can also be instrumental in maximizing feelings of self-worth.[26]
Success is one of the number of things that make people feel good about themselves, and
knowing what we are like can make successes more likely, so self-knowledge can again be
adaptive. This is because self-enhancement needs can be met by knowing that one can not do
something particularly well, thus protecting the person from pursuing a dead-end dream that is
likely to end in failure.

Consistency Edit
Many theorists believe that we have a motive to protect the self-concept (and thus our self-
knowledge) from change.[27][28] This motive to have consistency leads people to look for and
welcome information that is consistent with what they believe to be true about themselves;
likewise, they will avoid and reject information which presents inconsistencies with their beliefs.
This phenomenon is also known as self-verification theory. Not everyone has been shown to
pursue a self-consistency motive;[29] but it has played an important role in various other
influential theories, such as cognitive dissonance theory.[30]

Self-verification theory Edit

Main article: Self-verification theory
This theory was put forward by William Swann of the University of Texas at Austin in 1983 to put
a name to the aforementioned phenomena. The theory states that once a person develops an
idea about what they are like, they will strive to verify the accompanying self-views.[31]

Two considerations are thought to drive the search for self-verifying feedback:[32]

We feel more comfortable and secure when we believe that others see us in the same way that
we see ourselves. Actively seeking self-verifying feedback helps people avoid finding out that
they are wrong about their self-views.
Self-verification theory assumes that social interactions will proceed more smoothly and
profitably when other people view us the same way as we view ourselves. This provides a
second reason to selectively seek self-verifying feedback.
These factors of self-verification theory create controversy when persons suffering from low-
self-esteem are taken into consideration. People who hold negative self-views about themselves
selectively seek negative feedback in order to verify their self-views. This is in stark contrast to
self-enhancement motives that suggest people are driven by the desire to feel good about
themselves.

Sources Edit
There are three sources of information available to an individual through which to search for
knowledge about the self:

The physical world

The social world
The psychological world
The physical world Edit
The physical world is generally a highly visible, and quite easily measurable source of
information about one's self. Information one may be able to obtain from the physical world may
include:

Weight - by weighing oneself.

Strength - by measuring how much one can lift.
Height - by measuring oneself.
Limitations Edit
Many attributes are not measurable in the physical world, such as kindness, cleverness and
sincerity.
Even when attributes can be assessed with reference to the physical world, the knowledge that
we gain is not necessarily the knowledge we are seeking. Every measure is simply a relative
measure to the level of that attribute in, say, the general population or another specific
individual.
This means that any measurement only merits meaning when it is expressed in respect to the
measurements of others.
Most of our personal identities are therefore sealed in comparative terms from the social world.
The social world Edit
The comparative nature of self-views means that people rely heavily on the social world when
seeking information about their selves. Two particular processes are important:

Social Comparison Theory[25]

Reflected Appraisals
Social comparison Edit
Main article: Social comparison theory
People compare attributes with others and draw inferences about what they themselves are like.
However, the conclusions a person ultimately draws depend on whom in particular they
compare themselves with. The need for accurate self-knowledge was originally thought to guide
the social comparison process, and researchers assumed that comparing with others who are
similar to us in the important ways is more informative.[33]

Complications of the social comparison theory Edit

People are also known to compare themselves with people who are slightly better off than they
themselves are (known as an upward comparison);[34] and with people who are slightly worse
off or disadvantaged (known as a downward comparison).[35] There is also substantial
evidence that the need for accurate self-knowledge is neither the only, nor most important factor
that guides the social comparison process,[36] the need to feel good about ourselves affects the
social comparison process.

Reflected appraisals Edit

Reflected appraisals occur when a person observes how others respond to them. The process
was first explained by the sociologist Charles H. Cooley in 1902 as part of his discussion of the
"looking-glass self", which describes how we see ourselves reflected in other peoples' eyes.[37]
He argued that a person's feelings towards themselves are socially determined via a three-step
process:

"A self-idea of this sort seems to have three principled elements: the imagination of our
appearance to the other person; the imagination of his judgment of that appearance; and some
sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification. The comparison with a looking-glass hardly
suggests the second element, the imagined judgment which is quite essential. The thing that
moves us to pride or shame is not the mere mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an imputed
sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon another's mind." (Cooley, 1902, p. 153)
In simplified terms, Cooley's three stages are:[37]

We imagine how we appear in the eyes of another person.

We then imagine how that person is evaluating us.
The imagined evaluation leads us to feel good or bad, in accordance with the judgement we
have conjured.
Note that this model is of a phenomenological nature.

In 1963, John W. Kinch adapted Cooley's model to explain how a person's thoughts about
themselves develop rather than their feelings.[38]

Kinch's three stages were:

Actual appraisals - what other people actually think of us.

Perceived appraisals - our perception of these appraisals.
Self-appraisals - our ideas about what we are like based on the perceived appraisals.
This model is also of a phenomenological approach.

Arguments against the reflected appraisal models Edit

Research has only revealed limited support for the models and various arguments raise their
heads:

People are not generally good at knowing what an individual thinks about them.[39]
Felson believes this is due to communication barriers and imposed social norms which place
limits on the information people receive from others. This is especially true when the feedback
would be negative; people rarely give one another negative feedback, so people rarely conclude
that another person dislikes them or is evaluating them negatively.
Despite being largely unaware of how one person in particular is evaluating them, people are
better at knowing what other people on the whole think.[40]
The reflected appraisal model assumes that actual appraisals determine perceived appraisals.
Although this may in fact occur, the influence of a common third variable could also produce an
association between the two.
The sequence of reflected appraisals may accurately characterize patterns in early childhood
due to the large amount of feedback infants receive from their parents, yet it appears to be less
relevant later in life. This is because people are not passive, as the model assumes. People
actively and selectively process information from the social world. Once a person's ideas about
themselves take shape, these also influence the manner in which new information is gathered
and interpreted, and thus the cycle continues.

The psychological world Edit

The psychological world describes our "inner world". There are three processes that influence
how people acquire knowledge about themselves:
Introspection
Self-perception processes
Causal attributions
Introspection Edit
Introspection involves looking inwards and directly consulting our attitudes, feelings and
thoughts for meaning. Consulting one's own thoughts and feelings can sometimes result in
meaningful self-knowledge. The accuracy of introspection, however, has been called into
question since the 1970s. Generally, introspection relies on people's explanatory theories of the
self and their world, the accuracy of which is not necessarily related to the form of self-
knowledge that they are attempting to assess.[41]

A stranger's ratings about a participant are more correspondent to the participant's self-
assessment ratings when the stranger has been subject to the participant's thoughts and
feelings than when the stranger has been subject to the participant's behavior alone, or a
combination of the two.[42]
Comparing sources of introspection. People believe that spontaneous forms of thought provide
more meaningful self-insight than more deliberate forms of thinking. Morewedge, Giblin, and
Norton (2014) found that the more spontaneous a kind of thought, the more spontaneous a
particular thought, and the more spontaneous thought a particular thought was perceived to be,
the more insight into the self it was attributed. In addition, the more meaning the thought was
attributed, the more the particular thought influenced their judgment and decision making.
People asked to let their mind wander until they randomly thought of a person to whom they
were attracted to, for example, reported that the person they identified provided them with more
self-insight than people asked to simply think of a person to whom they were attracted to.
Moreover, the greater self-insight attributed to the person identified by the (former) random
thought process than by the latter deliberate thought process led those people in the random
condition to report feeling more attracted to the person they identified.[43]

Arguments against introspection Edit

Whether introspection always fosters self-insight is not entirely clear. Thinking too much about
why we feel the way we do about something can sometimes confuse us and undermine true
self-knowledge.[44] Participants in an introspection condition are less accurate when predicting
their own future behavior than controls[45] and are less satisfied with their choices and
decisions.[46] In addition, it is important to notice that introspection allows the exploration of the
conscious mind only, and does not take into account the unconscious motives and processes,
as found and formulated by Freud.

Self-perception processes Edit

Main article: Self-perception theory
Wilson's work is based on the assumption that people are not always aware of why they feel the
way they do. Bem's self-perception theory[47] makes a similar assumption. The theory is
concerned with how people explain their behavior. It argues that people don't always know why
they do what they do. When this occurs, they infer the causes of their behavior by analyzing
their behavior in the context in which it occurred. Outside observers of the behavior would reach
a similar conclusion as the individual performing it. The individuals then draw logical conclusions
about why they behaved as they did.

"Individuals come to "know" their own attitudes, emotions, and other internal states partially by
inferring them from observations of their own overt behavior and/or the circumstances in which
this behavior occurs. Thus, to the extent that internal cues are weak, ambiguous, or
uninterpretable, the individual is functionally in the same position as an outside observer, an
observer who must necessarily rely upon those same external cues to infer the individual's inner
states." (Bem, 1972, p.2)

The theory has been applied to a wide range of phenomena. Under particular conditions, people
have been shown to infer their attitudes,[48] emotions,[49] and motives,[50] in the same manner
described by the theory.

Similar to introspection, but with an important difference: with introspection we directly examine
our attitudes, feelings and motives. With self-perception processes we indirectly infer our
attitudes, feelings, and motives by analyzing our behavior.

Causal attributions Edit

Causal attributions are an important source of self-knowledge, especially when people make
attributions for positive and negative events. The key elements in self-perception theory are
explanations people give for their actions, these explanations are known as causal attributions.

Causal attributions provide answers to "Why?" questions by attributing a person's behavior

(including our own) to a cause.[51]

People also gain self-knowledge by making attributions for other people's behavior; for example
"If nobody wants to spend time with me it must be because I'm boring".

Activation Edit
Individuals think of themselves in many different ways, yet only some of these ideas are active
at any one given time. The idea that is specifically active at a given time is known as the Current
Self-Representation. Other theorists have referred to the same thing in several different ways:

The phenomenal self[52]

Spontaneous self-concept[53]
Self-identifications[54]
Aspects of the working self-concept[55]
The current self-representation influences information processing, emotion, and behavior and is
influenced by both personal and situational factors.

Personal factors that influence current self-representation Edit

Self-concept Edit
Self-concept, or how people usually think of themselves is the most important personal factor
that influences current self-representation. This is especially true for attributes that are important
and self-defining.

Self-concept is also known as the self-schema, made of innumerable smaller self-schemas that
are "chronically accessible".[55]

Self-esteem Edit
Self-esteem affects the way people feel about themselves. People with high self-esteem are
more likely to be thinking of themselves in positive terms at a given time than people suffering
low self-esteem.[56]

Mood state Edit

Mood state influences the accessibility of positive and negative self-views.

When we are happy we tend to think more about our positive qualities and attributes, whereas
when we are sad our negative qualities and attributes become more accessible.[57]

This link is particularly strong for people suffering low self-esteem.

Goals Edit
People can deliberately activate particular self-views. We select appropriate images of
ourselves depending on what role we wish to play in a given situation.[58]

One particular goal that influences activation of self-views is the desire to feel good.[59]

Situational factors that influence current self-representationEdit

Social roles Edit
How a person thinks of themselves depends largely on the social role they are playing. Social
roles influence our personal identities.[60]

Social context and self-description Edit

People tend to think of themselves in ways that distinguish them from their social surroundings.
[61]

The more distinctive the attribute, the more likely it will be used to describe oneself.
Distinctiveness also influences the salience of group identities.

Self-categorization theory[62] proposes that whether people are thinking about themselves in
terms of either their social groups or various personal identities depends partly on the social
context.
Group identities are more salient in the intergroup contexts.
Group size Edit
The size of the group affects the salience of group-identities. Minority groups are more
distinctive, so group identity should be more salient among minority group members than
majority group members.

Group status Edit

Group status interacts with group size to affect the salience of social identities.

Social context and self-evaluation Edit

The social environment has an influence on the way people evaluate themselves as a result of
social-comparison processes.

The contrast effect Edit

People regard themselves as at the opposite end of the spectrum of a given trait to the people
in their company.[63] However, this effect has come under criticism as to whether it is a primary
effect, as it seems to share space with the assimilation effect, which states that people evaluate
themselves more positively when they are in the company of others who are exemplary on
some dimension.

Whether the assimilation or contrast effect prevails depends on the psychological closeness,
with people feeling psychologically disconnected with their social surroundings being more likely
to show contrast effects. Assimilation effects occur when the subject feels psychologically
connected to their social surroundings.[64]
Significant others and self-evaluations Edit
Imagining how one appears to others has an effect on how one thinks about oneself.[65]

Recent events Edit

Recent events can cue particular views of the self, either as a direct result of failure, or via
mood.

The extent of the effect depends on personal variables. For example people with high self-
esteem do not show this effect, and sometimes do the opposite.[66]
Memory for prior events influence how people think about themselves.[67]

Fazio et al. found that selective memory for prior events can temporarily activate self-
representations which, once activated, guide our behavior.[68]
Deficiencies Edit
Specific types Edit
Misperceiving Edit
Deficiency in knowledge of the present self.
Giving reasons but not feelings disrupts self-insight.
Misremembering Edit
Deficiency of knowledge of the past self.
Knowledge from the present overinforms the knowledge of the past.
False theories shape autobiographical memory.
Misprediction Edit
Deficiency of knowledge of the future self.
Knowledge of the present overinforms predictions of future knowledge.
Affective forecasting can be affected by durability bias.
Miswanting Edit
See also
References
Further reading
External links
Last edited 2 months ago by Lopifalko
RELATED ARTICLES
Psychology of self
The study of either the cognitive, conative or affective representation of one's identity, or the
subject of experience

Adaptive unconscious
Autonoetic consciousness
Wikipedia
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Terms of UsePrivacyDesktop

The generalization of mind to include all mental faculties, thought, volition, feeling and memory,
gradually develops over the 14th and 15th centuries.[12]

Definitions Edit
The attributes that make up the mind are debated. Some psychologists argue that only the
"higher" intellectual functions constitute mind, particularly reason and memory.[13] In this view
the emotions — love, hate, fear, and joy — are more primitive or subjective in nature and should
be seen as different from the mind as such. Others argue that various rational and emotional
states cannot be so separated, that they are of the same nature and origin, and should therefore
be considered all part of it as mind.[citation needed]

In popular usage, mind is frequently synonymous with thought: the private conversation with
ourselves that we carry on "inside our heads."[14] Thus we "make up our minds," "change our
minds" or are "of two minds" about something. One of the key attributes of the mind in this
sense is that it is a private sphere to which no one but the owner has access. No one else can
"know our mind." They can only interpret what we consciously or unconsciously communicate.
[15]

Mental faculties Edit

See also: Nous, Reason, Modularity of mind, and Mental process
Broadly speaking, mental faculties are the various functions of the mind, or things the mind can
"do".
Thought is a mental act that allows humans to make sense of things in the world, and to
represent and interpret them in ways that are significant, or which accord with their needs,
attachments, goals, commitments, plans, ends, desires, etc. Thinking involves the symbolic or
semiotic mediation of ideas or data, as when we form concepts, engage in problem solving,
reasoning, and making decisions. Words that refer to similar concepts and processes include
deliberation, cognition, ideation, discourse and imagination.

Thinking is sometimes described as a "higher" cognitive function and the analysis of thinking
processes is a part of cognitive psychology. It is also deeply connected with our capacity to
make and use tools; to understand cause and effect; to recognize patterns of significance; to
comprehend and disclose unique contexts of experience or activity; and to respond to the world
in a meaningful way.

Memory is the ability to preserve, retain, and subsequently recall, knowledge, information or
experience. Although memory has traditionally been a persistent theme in philosophy, the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also saw the study of memory emerge as a subject of
inquiry within the paradigms of cognitive psychology. In recent decades, it has become one of
the pillars of a new branch of science called cognitive neuroscience, a marriage between
cognitive psychology and neuroscience.

Imagination is the activity of generating or evoking novel situations, images, ideas or other
qualia in the mind. It is a characteristically subjective activity, rather than a direct or passive
experience. The term is technically used in psychology for the process of reviving in the mind
percepts of objects formerly given in sense perception. Since this use of the term conflicts with
that of ordinary language, some psychologists have preferred to describe this process as
"imaging" or "imagery" or to speak of it as "reproductive" as opposed to "productive" or
"constructive" imagination. Things imagined are said to be seen in the "mind's eye". Among the
many practical functions of imagination are the ability to project possible futures (or histories), to
"see" things from another's perspective, and to change the way something is perceived,
including to make decisions to respond to, or enact, what is imagined.

Consciousness in mammals (this includes humans) is an aspect of the mind generally thought
to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, sentience, and the ability to perceive the relationship
between oneself and one's environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind,
psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science. Some philosophers divide consciousness into
phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective experience itself, and access consciousness,
which refers to the global availability of information to processing systems in the brain.[16]
Phenomenal consciousness has many different experienced qualities, often referred to as
qualia. Phenomenal consciousness is usually consciousness of something or about something,
a property known as intentionality in philosophy of mind.

Mental content Edit

Mental contents are those items that are thought of as being "in" the mind, and capable of being
formed and manipulated by mental processes and faculties. Examples include thoughts,
concepts, memories, emotions, percepts and intentions. Philosophical theories of mental
content include internalism, externalism, representationalism and intentionality.[17]

Memetics Edit
Memetics is a theory of mental content based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution, which
was originated by Richard Dawkins and Douglas Hofstadter in the 1980s. It is an evolutionary
model of cultural information transfer. A meme, analogous to a gene, is an idea, belief, pattern
of behaviour (etc.) "hosted" in one or more individual minds, and can reproduce itself from mind
to mind. Thus what would otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt
a belief, is seen memetically as a meme reproducing itself.

Relation to the brain Edit

See also: Cognitive neuroscience
In animals, the brain, or encephalon (Greek for "in the head"), is the control center of the central
nervous system, responsible for thought. In most animals, the brain is located in the head,
protected by the skull and close to the primary sensory apparatus of vision, hearing,
equilibrioception, taste and olfaction. While all vertebrates have a brain, most invertebrates have
either a centralized brain or collections of individual ganglia. Primitive animals such as sponges
do not have a brain at all. Brains can be extremely complex. For example, the human brain
contains around 86 billion neurons, each linked to as many as 10,000 others.[18][19]

Understanding the relationship between the brain and the mind – mind–body problem is one of
the central issues in the history of philosophy – is a challenging problem both philosophically
and scientifically.[20] There are three major philosophical schools of thought concerning the
answer: dualism, materialism, and idealism. Dualism holds that the mind exists independently of
the brain;[21] materialism holds that mental phenomena are identical to neuronal phenomena;
[22] and idealism holds that only mental phenomena exist.[22]

Through most of history many philosophers found it inconceivable that cognition could be
implemented by a physical substance such as brain tissue (that is neurons and synapses).[23]
Descartes, who thought extensively about mind-brain relationships, found it possible to explain
reflexes and other simple behaviors in mechanistic terms, although he did not believe that
complex thought, and language in particular, could be explained by reference to the physical
brain alone.[24]

The most straightforward scientific evidence of a strong relationship between the physical brain
matter and the mind is the impact physical alterations to the brain have on the mind, such as
with traumatic brain injury and psychoactive drug use.[25] Philosopher Patricia Churchland
notes that this drug-mind interaction indicates an intimate connection between the brain and the
mind.[26]
In addition to the philosophical questions, the relationship between mind and brain involves a
number of scientific questions, including understanding the relationship between mental activity
and brain activity, the exact mechanisms by which drugs influence cognition, and the neural
correlates of consciousness.

Theoretical approaches to explain how mind emerges from the brain include connectionism,
computationalism and Bayesian brain.

Evolutionary history of the human mind

Philosophy of mind Edit
Main article: Philosophy of mind
Philosophy of mind is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental
events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and their relationship to the physical
body. The mind–body problem, i.e. the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen
as the central issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the
nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body.[32] José Manuel
Rodriguez Delgado writes, "In present popular usage, soul and mind are not clearly
differentiated and some people, more or less consciously, still feel that the soul, and perhaps
the mind, may enter or leave the body as independent entities."[33]

Dualism and monism are the two major schools of thought that attempt to resolve the mind–
body problem. Dualism is the position that mind and body are in some way separate from each
other. It can be traced back to Plato,[34] Aristotle[35][36][37] and the Nyaya, Samkhya and
Yoga schools of Hindu philosophy,[38] but it was most precisely formulated by René Descartes
in the 17th century.[39] Substance dualists argue that the mind is an independently existing
substance, whereas Property dualists maintain that the mind is a group of independent
properties that emerge from and cannot be reduced to the brain, but that it is not a distinct
substance.[40]

The 20th century philosopher Martin Heidegger suggested that subjective experience and
activity (i.e. the "mind") cannot be made sense of in terms of Cartesian "substances" that bear
"properties" at all (whether the mind itself is thought of as a distinct, separate kind of substance
or not). This is because the nature of subjective, qualitative experience is incoherent in terms of
– or semantically incommensurable with the concept of – substances that bear properties. This
is a fundamentally ontological argument.[41]

The philosopher of cognitive science Daniel Dennett, for example, argues there is no such thing
as a narrative center called the "mind", but that instead there is simply a collection of sensory
inputs and outputs: different kinds of "software" running in parallel.[42] Psychologist B.F.
Skinner argued that the mind is an explanatory fiction that diverts attention from environmental
causes of behavior;[43] he considered the mind a "black box" and thought that mental
processes may be better conceived of as forms of covert verbal behavior.[44][45]
Philosopher David Chalmers has argued that the third person approach to uncovering mind and
consciousness is not effective, such as looking into other's brains or observing human conduct,
but that a first person approach is necessary. Such a first person perspective indicates that the
mind must be conceptualized as something distinct from the brain.

The mind has also been described as manifesting from moment to moment, one thought
moment at a time as a fast flowing stream, where sense impressions and mental phenomena
are constantly changing.[9][8]

Mind/body perspectives Edit

Monism is the position that mind and body are not physiologically and ontologically distinct kinds
of entities. This view was first advocated in Western Philosophy by Parmenides in the 5th
Century BC and was later espoused by the 17th Century rationalist Baruch Spinoza.[46]
According to Spinoza's dual-aspect theory, mind and body are two aspects of an underlying
reality which he variously described as "Nature" or "God".

Physicalists argue that only the entities postulated by physical theory exist, and that the mind
will eventually be explained in terms of these entities as physical theory continues to evolve.
Idealists maintain that the mind is all that exists and that the external world is either mental
itself, or an illusion created by the mind.
Neutral monists adhere to the position that perceived things in the world can be regarded as
either physical or mental depending on whether one is interested in their relationship to other
things in the world or their relationship to the perceiver. For example, a red spot on a wall is
physical in its dependence on the wall and the pigment of which it is made, but it is mental in so
far as its perceived redness depends on the workings of the visual system. Unlike dual-aspect
theory, neutral monism does not posit a more fundamental substance of which mind and body
are aspects.
The most common monisms in the 20th and 21st centuries have all been variations of
physicalism; these positions include behaviorism, the type identity theory, anomalous monism
and functionalism.[47]

Many modern philosophers of mind adopt either a reductive or non-reductive physicalist

position, maintaining in their different ways that the mind is not something separate from the
body.[47] These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences, e.g. in the fields
of sociobiology, computer science, evolutionary psychology and the various neurosciences.[48]
[49][50][51] Other philosophers, however, adopt a non-physicalist position which challenges the
notion that the mind is a purely physical construct.

Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained
by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states.[52][53][54]
Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the brain is all there is to the mind, the
predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and
cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science.[55][56]
Continued progress in neuroscience has helped to clarify many of these issues, and its findings
have been taken by many to support physicalists' assertions.[57][58] Nevertheless, our
knowledge is incomplete, and modern philosophers of mind continue to discuss how subjective
qualia and the intentional mental states can be naturally explained.[59][60] Then, of course,
there is the problem of Quantum Mechanics, which is best understood as a form of
perspectivism.

Scientific study Edit

Simplified diagram of Spaun, a 2.5-million-neuron computational model of the brain. (A) The
corresponding physical regions and connections of the human brain. (B) The mental
architecture of Spaun.[61]
Neuroscience Edit
See also: Cognitive neuroscience and Thought identification
Neuroscience studies the nervous system, the physical basis of the mind. At the systems level,
neuroscientists investigate how biological neural networks form and physiologically interact to
produce mental functions and content such as reflexes, multisensory integration, motor
coordination, circadian rhythms, emotional responses, learning, and memory. The underlying
physical basis of learning and memory is likely dynamic changes in gene expression that occur
in brain neurons. Such expression changes are introduced by epigenetic mechanisms.
Epigenetic regulation of gene expression ordinarily involves chemical modification of DNA or
DNA-associated histone proteins. Such chemical modifications can cause long-lasting changes
in gene expression. Epigenetic mechanisms employed in learning and memory include the
methylation and demethylation of neuronal DNA as well as methylation, acetylation and
deacetylation of neuronal histone proteins (see Epigenetics in learning and memory; also [62]).

At a larger scale, efforts in computational neuroscience have developed large-scale models that
simulate simple, functioning brains.[61] As of 2012, such models include the thalamus, basal
ganglia, prefrontal cortex, motor cortex, and occipital cortex, and consequentially simulated
brains can learn, respond to visual stimuli, coordinate motor responses, form short-term
memories, and learn to respond to patterns. Currently, researchers aim to program the
hippocampus and limbic system, hypothetically imbuing the simulated mind with long-term
memory and crude emotions.[63]

By contrast, affective neuroscience studies the neural mechanisms of personality, emotion, and
mood primarily through experimental tasks.

Cognitive Science Edit

See also: Cognitive Science
Learn more
This section needs expansion.
Cognitive science examines the mental functions that give rise to information processing,
termed cognition. These include perception, attention, working memory, long-term memory,
producing and understanding language, learning, reasoning, problem solving, and decision
making. Cognitive science seeks to understand thinking "in terms of representational structures
in the mind and computational procedures that operate on those structures".[64]

Psychology Edit
See also: Neuropsychology, Psyche, and Unconscious mind
Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior, mental functioning, and experience. As
both an academic and applied discipline, Psychology involves the scientific study of mental
processes such as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, as well as environmental
influences, such as social and cultural influences, and interpersonal relationships, in order to
devise theories of human behavior. Psychological patterns can be understood as low cost ways
of information processing.[65] Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to
various spheres of human activity, including problems of individuals' daily lives and the
treatment of mental health problems.

Psychology differs from the other social sciences (e.g. anthropology, economics, political
science, and sociology) due to its focus on experimentation at the scale of the individual, or
individuals in small groups as opposed to large groups, institutions or societies. Historically,
psychology differed from biology and neuroscience in that it was primarily concerned with mind
rather than brain. Modern psychological science incorporates physiological and neurological
processes into its conceptions of perception, cognition, behaviour, and mental disorders.

Mental health Edit

Main article: Mental health
By analogy with the health of the body, one can speak metaphorically of a state of health of the
mind, or mental health. Merriam-Webster defines mental health as "A state of emotional and
psychological well-being in which an individual is able to use his or her cognitive and emotional
capabilities, function in society, and meet the ordinary demands of everyday life." According to
the World Health Organization (WHO), there is no one "official" definition of mental health.
Cultural differences, subjective assessments, and competing professional theories all affect how
"mental health" is defined. In general, most experts agree that "mental health" and "mental
disorder" are not opposites. In other words, the absence of a recognized mental disorder is not
necessarily an indicator of mental health.

One way to think about mental health is by looking at how effectively and successfully a person
functions. Feeling capable and competent; being able to handle normal levels of stress,
maintaining satisfying relationships, and leading an independent life; and being able to "bounce
back," or recover from difficult situations, are all signs of mental health.

Psychotherapy is an interpersonal, relational intervention used by trained psychotherapists to

aid clients in problems of living. This usually includes increasing individual sense of well-being
and reducing subjective discomforting experience. Psychotherapists employ a range of
techniques based on experiential relationship building, dialogue, communication and behavior
change and that are designed to improve the mental health of a client or patient, or to improve
group relationships (such as in a family). Most forms of psychotherapy use only spoken
conversation, though some also use various other forms of communication such as the written
word, art, drama, narrative story, or therapeutic touch. Psychotherapy occurs within a structured
encounter between a trained therapist and client(s). Purposeful, theoretically based
psychotherapy began in the 19th century with psychoanalysis; since then, scores of other
approaches have been developed and continue to be created.

Non-human minds
In religion
In pseudoscience
See also
References
Further reading
External links
Last edited 19 days ago by InternetArchiveBot
RELATED ARTICLES
Eliminative materialism
Philosophical view that states-of-mind as commonly understood do not exist

Mind–body problem
Open question in philosophy of how abstract minds interact with physical bodies

Irreducible Mind
book by Bruce Greyson