What Is It
In the Early Modern period many philosophers took ideas to be mental images of the objects they stood for. During the 20th century, that notion fell into considerable disrepute. Yet recent cognitive science has revived the idea that at least some of our mental representations are highly imagistic in character, not just mental representations tied to vision and perception generally. Join John, Ken, and noted cognitive psychologist Lera Boroditsky of Stanford University to explore the imagistic nature of mental representations.
Listening Notes
约翰和肯首先想知道思想在大脑中是如何表现的——是否有单词、句子和短语代表我们经常使用的单词、句子和短语?或者，在认知过程中，是否存在图片或符号的关系被我们存储和检索?约翰用笛卡尔的例子讨论了这一争论的历史，肯指出了为什么在20世纪，这些想法在很大程度上被拒绝，而支持更多的语言解决方案。肯认为，心理图像必须与我们的感知相似才能有意义，但我们没有可能知道外面到底是什么。John指出，使用“心理词汇”而不是“心理图像”并不能真正解决这个问题，但他承认，心理图像表征中存在某种内在的循环。
Ken introduces Lera Boroditsky, Assistant Professor of Cognitive Psychology at Stanford University, and John asks her about the debate between scientists who believe we represent thoughts using imagery and those that think we use some other kind of system. Ken jokingly asks why scientists need brain imaging for these kind of studies instead of simple philosophical introspection, and Lera points out that some people report that they think in images, and some people claim they think in words, so simple introspection is not definitive. John then tries to get at the real definition of mental imagery, since philosophers have interpreted this concept differently. Lera talks about how over the course of the debate the idea of mental images has been refined, and gives an interesting example concerning a penny and the level of detail in mental images.
In order to clarify the debate, Lera frames it as an argument over the currency of thought: what are thoughts made of on a fundamental level? There are many different views, some say that there are only symbolic representations, some claim there are solely mental images, and other, more reasonable scientists argue for a combination of the two types, although the degree to which one type dominates the other is still vigorously debated. John talks about the use of maps and directions as an analogy for brain representations, and Lera points out that people operate very differently when given maps or verbal directions. Ken asks Lera to discuss why she believes human beings use mental images, and Lera explains the scientific evidence that we use mental images and that they in fact preserve many aspects of real images like size, structural relationships, and can be transformed into other new images through rotation and combination.
John, Ken, and Lera move on to discuss different kinds of mental imagery, as well as examples of mental imagery and mental symbols, and callers put in their opinions and relate their experiences about using mental imagery in different situations. John, Ken, and Lera conclude by discussing imagination and dreams and the roles that language and imagery play in those phenomena.
- The Roving Philosophical Reporter(Seek to 4:23): Zoe Corneli discusses mental imagery and mental images with renowned Harvard Psychology Professor Stephen Kosslyn, one of the key figures in the mental image vs. mental symbol debate in cognitive neuroscience.
- Conundrum about Obligations after Betrayal(寻求章节47:56):约翰和肯试图帮助一个人决定她的义务是什么，这个人伤害了一个亲密的朋友，背叛了她，还碰巧借给她一些不错的扬声器。她应该把它们还给他，或者告诉他她不想要了吗?他后来的行为是否抵消了她之前的义务?
