The DOI matches its Crossref record.
‘Radical’ simulationism
Abstract
The theory outlined in this chapter is what has sometimes been called the ‘radical’ form of the simulation theory. It conceives simulation as more than just a heuristic for finding out the mental states of others and predicting their behaviour quickly and economically, using a minimum of specially dedicated brain power. Beyond this, the theory holds that even our ability to grasp the concepts of mind and the various mental states depends on our having the capacity to simulate others. Before discussing the radical position, I present a broad characterisation of the simulation theory in general and a new argument that clearly favours it over competitors. Hot and cold methodologies contrasted Concerning the ‘theory of mind’, or more broadly the methodology, by which people anticipate and predict one another's actions, there are basically two kinds of theory. One kind holds that we use what I call a cold methodology: a methodology that chiefly engages our intellectual processes, moving by inference from one set of beliefs to another, and makes no essential use of our own capacities for emotion, motivation, and practical reasoning. So-called ‘theory’ theories are of this kind, both those that hold we develop or somehow acquire something comparable to a scientific theory and those that say the work is done by a ‘theory’ in an extended sense, a set of rules of symbol manipulation embodied, like a Chomskian universal grammar, in an innate module.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Embodied simulation: from neurons to phenomenal experience
Gallese, V. (2005) · Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11097-005-4737-z · Cited by 947
Simulationist models of face-based emotion recognition
Goldman, A. I., & Sripada, C. S. (2005) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.005 · Cited by 647
What Makes Human Cognition Unique? From Individual to Shared to Collective Intentionality
Tomasello, M., & Rakoczy, H. (2003) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00217 · Cited by 579
Hurley, S. (2008) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x07003123 · Cited by 512
Intentional attunement: Mirror neurons and the neural underpinnings of interpersonal relations
Gallese, V., Eagle, M. N., & Migone, P. (2007) · Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association · doi:10.1177/00030651070550010601 · Cited by 496
Metadata
- Authors
- Gordon, R. M.
- Venue
- Theories of Theories of Mind
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1996-02-23
- Pages
- 11-21
- OpenAlex
- W2128272668
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.91
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ‘Radical’ simulationism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511597985.003
- The paper
- Gordon, R. M. (1996). ‘Radical’ simulationism. Theories of Theories of Mind. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511597985.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.