The Extended Mind and its Implications:
Clark and Chalmers’ Extended Mind hypothesis presents the idea that objects external to the body within an environment can function as a part of the mind. For them, they claim that cognitive functions do not need to take place entirely the head and can occur in the physical world (Clark, Chalmers, 1998). In taking this stance they emphasize that the mind is not confined between the arbitrary internal boundaries of an individual’s head They emphasize the distinction between the body, the mind, and the environment in that they are three separate parts, but all work with each other. The three parts working together exists more as a cognitive system of its own rather than each part working separately. Objects …show more content…
However, if we accept this hypothesis then it means that that the mind can be accessible to others as an external thing. Otto’s mind, in this sense is a tangible item that could be handed off to someone else, easily obtained and opened. If this is the case, then Inga’s mind should then be treated in the same way. The notebook is an object of storage for his knowledge, just as her internal mind is for her. If this is the case that Otto’s notebook does qualify for consisting of the mind then all minds should then be treated in the same manner. Given this, the legal implications would need to fit this understanding. Because of the mind being recognized as a physical thing, in this instance, treating the information obtained from it would then be more like that of a home in which a warrant would be needed regarding legal procedures. The mind, in regards to this reasoning, is physical, containing information that one can clearly go through and search. If this is the case, then having consent to go through a person’s mind for information is not needed. This is because a person does not give consent for a warrant of their own home, therefore, the consent portion to consider the …show more content…
Pseudo-mind reading in this instance refers to the ability to glean an understanding of a person’s thoughts without necessarily having to explore the mind. While one does not get a clear picture from talking to another they can infer a person’s thoughts from the body language. Ryberg does not believe that natural mind reading is morally problematic (Ryberg, 2016). Mind reading is only considered wrong in relation to a right of mental privacy – the deliberate attempt to gain information by considering a person’s
Clark and Chalmers’ Extended Mind hypothesis presents the idea that objects external to the body within an environment can function as a part of the mind. For them, they claim that cognitive functions do not need to take place entirely the head and can occur in the physical world (Clark, Chalmers, 1998). In taking this stance they emphasize that the mind is not confined between the arbitrary internal boundaries of an individual’s head They emphasize the distinction between the body, the mind, and the environment in that they are three separate parts, but all work with each other. The three parts working together exists more as a cognitive system of its own rather than each part working separately. Objects …show more content…
However, if we accept this hypothesis then it means that that the mind can be accessible to others as an external thing. Otto’s mind, in this sense is a tangible item that could be handed off to someone else, easily obtained and opened. If this is the case, then Inga’s mind should then be treated in the same way. The notebook is an object of storage for his knowledge, just as her internal mind is for her. If this is the case that Otto’s notebook does qualify for consisting of the mind then all minds should then be treated in the same manner. Given this, the legal implications would need to fit this understanding. Because of the mind being recognized as a physical thing, in this instance, treating the information obtained from it would then be more like that of a home in which a warrant would be needed regarding legal procedures. The mind, in regards to this reasoning, is physical, containing information that one can clearly go through and search. If this is the case, then having consent to go through a person’s mind for information is not needed. This is because a person does not give consent for a warrant of their own home, therefore, the consent portion to consider the …show more content…
Pseudo-mind reading in this instance refers to the ability to glean an understanding of a person’s thoughts without necessarily having to explore the mind. While one does not get a clear picture from talking to another they can infer a person’s thoughts from the body language. Ryberg does not believe that natural mind reading is morally problematic (Ryberg, 2016). Mind reading is only considered wrong in relation to a right of mental privacy – the deliberate attempt to gain information by considering a person’s