Theory of mind/theory of love

Greetings I have been working on this theory with my "higher self" and we have come to the point were opinion drive the argument, so I hope to get some opinions regarding my thoughts and maybe a perspective that I didn't look over.

Theory of mind develops in children between the ages of four and eight, and varies child to child. But during these years that such development takes place we see that the brain is wired differently than when adolescence and puberty starts. Say if the neural pathways that allow this development no longer exist after the rewiring during adolescence, the individual will never be able to properly develop theory of mind.

One might say hold on, there aren't adult running around thinking they are the only one perspective. Really? I believe serial killers have said this such thing and what about people whom can't show and sympathy or empathy. They may present something you call sympathy but have you talked to someone who replied in a way Ex: why didn't he just blank? and you may reply he couldn't for blank reason and you get a response that still implies that instead of put them self in there shoes that are replacing them all together.

And these people probably won't just say "I am the only perspective." this bring up the second point, in society it is literally taught to children that other people perceive that theory of mind exists. so what if it never develops? they still say that it is there, it is all most like some one saying that they know an animal exists say from Africa like a lion but they haven't seen one in Africa or at a zoo, they hear about see pictures and trust accounts. the concept of the lion is now real to them. but if they do see one they see say "WOW!" at this point the information in their mind has been rewritten.

But say theory of mind is only developed at this certain stage in a child's life what could be presented to complete the concept, the brain I think would have to change path ways to allow this concept to develop into a proper application. I believe I have seem this happen and they reevaluate there lives. it has been done through logic, love and lost.

And what if a child is raised spoiled? why would they need to develop such a theory their perspective has given everything that it needs, and what if the spoiled attitude suggests that they don't really care for someone else.

This is were it become complicated. what if love develops in the same way that theory of mind develops? First let us look at development. exposure, well what is the relationship of the parents is it that of love? or will it be perceived as love as it develops that way. Boy is raise watching his father beat his mother, you might ask him if it is right to do so and he may or may not agree but does her still hit the women he feels "love" for? Does he still love them?

What if there is no love in the family during this time? I am a romantic and I wish to believe that Love is universal. this is very hard to deal with when I see all these thing that are called love.

I could go on for hours about this development but it seem to mirror minds development so for now I will not bore you.

So some you who has a theory of love that is say wrong as in hurting to some one or has never developed a stable theory at all how would one help them. this is where So a Shima (My higher self) and I disagree.

I believe being a romantic that Love triumphs all, but giving love has only pushed always the people close to me. Now So a Shima tells me that the Love I try to share is more than what humans are ready for but I don't like to believe that. But I see in many people that love have say developed the is a deep insecurity and how can you love another if they can't love themselves is another philosophy I have hung on to. when some one is as insecure as some of the people I have met the insecurity is home, and to try to help them out of it is taking them away from what they call home. I try not to push but we some doesn't like it when you even compliment them anything I do would be a threat to home.

So Love is how I wish to heal this, But So a Shima says that mind and love are developed at the same time and if they aren't developed with the same level of comprehension there will be a stress on the health of the development. I would like to agree with this but he continues to say that love's development is one that a rewiring will not help because he say with in the brain it is nothing more than an electro-chemical process.

But with that said I would like to argue that it would take rehabilitation sessions that I would like to believe include love. and this presents the idea that some one can't be help before they understand they have a problem.

This is what I will say for now, I will appreciate any input

With Love, Kimi

[wstein]

First your theory of mind actuality and analogy has some flaws. I am familiar with the current scientific evidence regarding the normal human development and the development of theory of mind typically about age 4-5 years. Some are obviously late developers and a few never develop those brain circuits. It might be possible for some to be taught theory of mind or some reasonable facsimile of it.

Being exposed to a concept does not in any way guarantee that one can internalize that concept (as per rewiring the brain). The problem with most mind stuff is that there is often no way to verify if the internalized concept is actually the concept others possess. This issue is much discussed in color perception literature. And in fact there are variations in biology where people have 0-4 different color receptors (in addition to the black and white). Even those with the same nominal anatomy have slight genetic variations affecting the exact frequencies of light the visual system responds to. So if someone says they perceive the pure color yellow, that can be verified to some extent. However, what they experience and interpret about yellow light striking the eye is far from uniform. As all this relates to theory of mind and theory of love is that it personal, non-uniform, and inexact.

The bigger issue here seems to be about behaviors enabled for those that have a ‘theory of love’. Presumably all those with a theory of love and a generally functional overall state of being want the best for those they love. Ideas about what is ‘best’ is not an absolute but rather highly cultural and conditioned by childhood experience. (some of) Those who grew up in abusive situations get the idea that hitting your mate shows you that you love them (ignoring them being the non-love case). Consequently when they want to show love, they do what they perceive shows that. For those who grew up in a different situation, they would call that abuse. The abusive love is not necessarily a case of failed theory of love, but rather a suspect concept of showing love. Those with more accurate perception may realize that physically damaging another is not ‘best’ for them. The reality is that not everyone can easily see that.

As perhaps you can see from these examples, while the underlying theory of love may be similar in most people, the expression of that can result in diametrically opposed actions.

-----

As to love itself, there are many things that fall under that banner. The principle two being referred to here are romantic live and divine love.

Romantic love greatly helps people bond to form a larger functional unit (commonly a couple). While this does provide a more robust survival structure in general, in no way conquers all problems. The idea of love conquering all is pretty much a myth.

Divine love does affect all things, but contrary to popular perception, does not make all the undesirable situations go away. People will still be human, be shorter, be taller, still make mistakes, still disagree, have accidents, etc. Divine love does not take away one’s basic nature. For example one may still get jealous when someone they like is getting intimate with another person. What is removed by divine love is the prejudgment that either getting jealous or being intimate with more than one person is necessarily wrong. Both being jealous and being intimate are perfectly normal, expected, and acceptable actions (if you are human).

Sad to say that you missed my key points. And I find it funny that you had such a problem with my time frame and believe that my idea of the theory is flawed, so provided a cited definition that conveniently provides the age of four as the beginning which we agreed and does not continue to provide a end range. which I do not call my self an expert but for many years have I studied quantum processing and you did not disagree that there are late developers. But what really gets me is that you felt it necessary to "correct" my idea of perception by providing a sensual example.

the capacity to imagine or form opinions about the cognitive states of other people: What does the other person know? What behavior is that person most probable to take? Theory of mind is an vital element of crediting beliefs, aims, and wishes to other people, particularly in effort to foretell their actions. It starts to show up around 4 years of age in humans; there has been substantial controversy about whether non-human animals retain this capacity.

(Psychology Dictionary) http://psychologydictionary.org/theo...#ixzz2WrrOLlbU


I understand perception and the fact the it is held by the perceiver. And this argument you gave only support my idea that development is different, obviously bases off both nature and nurture. You never explained your Idea in reference but you did say that you believe in a multi form of love, I did explain that My ideology is that of romanticism and therefore believe the their is a universal unconditional love that is to be attained.

This here is part of my argument, by definition if you have developed theory of mind to complete comprehension than you would be able to see that my idea come from a different perspective. and I believe would not have made such an absurd argument because it is based off your own ideas, so what I was trying to say is that with a incomplete development of such one would not be able to truly understand to difference. and again you support me by saying that

"The problem with most mind stuff is that there is often no way to verify if the internalized concept is actually the concept others possess."

I say that you must not have developed the theory to the extant as I believe that is possible but I have now way to prove that and you may read this and be offended that I say such a thing and might disagree that your concept is fine, not to say there is something wrong with it, it just didn't get you very far.

Now to further explain theory of love as I present it. As a romantic believing in an universal Love, in development which I believe coincides with theory of mind is effected such as by nature and nurture, and a development to universal unconditional love may not be achieved but I believe was the goal as I be live the goal of the theory of mind is understanding without misconception. the "theory" can be developed, but two people can have a disagreement of fact, and this in name is a theory it become difficult to concrete individual definition.

I do not mean to offend by any means, or say I think less of you or anyone to whom I might argue their lace of development in said area, I believe that it is sad, and as an intelligent race I would like to think there are certain levels of understanding that we wish to obtain and theory of mind and my proposed theory of love I believe are important to the continued evolution of man kind and the human race.

I propose this theory of love as to develop in a child between the ages of four to eight along side theory of mind. during development children begin to question the subject of love, whether conscious or unconscious. because the human bodies five physical senses are best developed and used, and Love and Mind are both intangible related theory comes from experience and example and perfected in an individual mind with logic.

During this path of development many factors can detour the mind from what I believe to be the goal as a romantic as understanding without misconception (ToM) and universal unconditional Love (ToL). (those who believe in a multi range of love can substitute their idea and there shouldn't be a conflict) Parents being a large source of information and philosophy these theory easily can grow to reflect their parent's theory whether it is openly discussed or not.

Things such as a lost or abandonment of a parent can greatly affect this theory, with out a developed theory of mind children are unable to understand the perspective of one who cased them loss and pain and ultimately affects their theory of Love. This is a crustal point in my theory that say that ToM and ToL develop side by side.

I don't see a flaw in my theory based of my ideology intelligent input is nice to have, but my biggest concern is with whether or not these theories can truly be obtained later in life. like I said before I feel I have seen it happen but only though pain, which I understand is a part of life but I also think that it is sad and I wish that there was a way to help development with Love rather than pain.

But then again who am I to say that this is something to be "corrected" my godfather tells me that the earth is a world that is meant to be in a permanent state of development to provide a different perspective to those who live in more evolved parts of the universe. I don't know how I feel about that though.

I thank you for reading my ideas and any constructive input is appreciated.

With Love Kimi

[wstein]

I was not attempting or intending to disagree with a lot of what you said. The age brackets of typical development being one such point i don't disagree with. Also I don't disagree that the typical window is also a critical window in some way. If one does not develop during that time, later acquisition may be significantly more difficult/painful, incomplete or may not be possible at all.

Theory of mind, which you use as a reference, is about prediction of others actions primarily for use in determining our own actions in relation to them. One could consider love and actions of love as just one more aspect or extension of theory of mind (without need for a separate theory of love).

Best I can tell, you are suggesting that theory of love is different than theory of mind. Though its not altogether clear, your theory of love speaks about one's internal idea of love rather than a model for others. The statement "I believe being a romantic that Love triumphs all" seems to represent this. If I have in any way divined what you meant, the theory of love is about one's ideal of love and how that might be influenced by experience.

As to your personal situation, one of my observations about romantics is that they try to impose their model of love on others. This can be subtle in just acting with assumption that others are romantics too or more aggressive in expecting others to be romantic towards them. Personally, all the emotional syrup is disagreeable and pushes me away. My style is more one of intimacy and realism. Its not more right or wrong than the romantic view, but largely incompatible in terms of having a partnership. FYI, my style pushes people away too, most desire more emotion and many find deep intimacy too uncomfortable.

----
Did not see any cause for being offended.