'Theory Of Mind?'

I do not subscribe to most of the ideas to be found in the Wikipedia entry on “Theory Of Mind” that attempt to explain what the human intelligent mind is.

As usual, the Wikipedia scientific folklore in question here starts off once again with some amazing words: “because the (mind) is not directly observable, this understanding is called a 'theory.'”

That is a rather silly assertion because there are numerous things in science and human intellectual endeavours that are in the abstract form as a set of rules or unchanging principles and are also not directly observable – but are far from being regarded as mere 'theory.' I think maths professors and all logicians might be inclined to agree with me on this. I would like to see some mathematicians apologizing that the intangible and unseen principles upon which all physical mathematical phenomena are based and some only observed in reality as quantum physical systems and structures – are merely theory.

The abstract principles and the rules themselves of logic are unable to be actually visually 'seen' outside of their actual practical physical examples, but they are not mere 'theories.'

Too many mediocre notions today are being passed off as 'knowledge' and 'knowns' and 'scientific understandings' with the consequence that real advancements are not being attained. Superficial observations are being promoted as 'high science.'

The self-reflectived person - in Balenciaga

The fallacy being presented quite assertively and confidently as strong 'scientific consensus' if not 'truth' exactly, comes about by the essayists being tricked by the attractively powerful truism that 'no one has direct access to the mind of another...' And that makes it seem as if a thing therefore cannot be known as a scientific fact.

Indeed, no one has direct access to the intangible principles behind all of observed mathematics or the rigorous and unchanging rules of Logic either – but that is far from a reason to call such things 'mere theories.'

There is a lot in modern philosophies of, and scientific discourse about, the mind, that indulges itself in semantics albeit with much strident assertion that such semantic statements are somehow to be taken as scientific knowledge. They are actually jargon emotionally loaded with a lot of professional territoriality.

And there is a lot of laziness and facile argument behind many of the modern approaches to knowledge. Yes, 'Mind' is a very complex thing to get a genuine focus on. But it doesn't make it impossible to come to terms with in a logically consistent and systematically reliable way.

Once you accept that the idea of 'Mind' has clear definitional fundamental rules for its being able to be described as 'Mind' at all, then you can certainly realize that such rules and definitional principles likely also have their 'geometrical' relationships, and their calculus, even their trigonometry and their dynamics. The basis for 'Mind' is mathematical. And there is a great deal of power to be had in comprehending the mathematical relationships behind how 'Mind' functions.

Awareness of the awareness of other people, is a presupposition to the often rhetorical question that is asked about politicial leaders, and leaders of the world of capital and banking: “Are they aware of what they are doing to people...?” And the real questions are more along the lines of “where is their focus since we know that they are aware, and if we know where their focus is we might understand why they are doing what they doing.”

Levels of awareness change depending on the foci of attention and the responses to immediate pressures from neurochemical sensations. Yet the presence of 'Mind' depends on the degree of abstract thinking genuinely available – that is, processing involving neurons not reacting to immediate sense stimuli but nevertheless linked to those stimuli – and the more distantly concertina'd outwards from the sensory stimulations, the more capable the individual is of truly determining their own actions over time.

My question is – are modern leaders genuinely capable of abstract thinking, or is this now the theoretical part; they once did have that capability, but now it is only a theoretical capability.

In theory new Chairman Yellen will slowly taper off... But in practice, not only will the immediate self-gratifications demanded by the banks by too forcefully pressing, but in fact, any immediate reaction to any new incident in the markets or in economies generally will demonstrate how little in control modern leaders really are. The western world has been getting away with the enduring momentum from the initial huge China market influence in the complete absence of coherent growth ideas. This only means that a single flaw in this model's behaviour will show up as a massive crisis to all market economies worldwide. Human beings, being what they are, will prompt those flaws into real present facts that will have to be faced, and coped with using the best of what human 'Mind' is capable of. Richard Dawkins believes in evolution; I believe in devolution. There are clearly rough times ahead. Very clearly.