this article. We also thank Denise Hatton, Tisha Baldwin, Joshua Nathan, Helen Sullivan, and Julia Wenzlaff for collecting data. Some of the stimulus materials used in Experiments 1 and 2 are adapted from the stimulus materials used in Rehder and Hastie (1997) and we thank them for inspiring many of the features and objects used in these studies. This project was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant (NSF-SBR 9515085) and a National Institute of Mental Health Grant (RO1 MH57737) given to Woo-kyoung Ahn, a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship to Nancy Kim, and a National Institute of Mental Health Postdoctoral Fellowship (MH10888-01A1) to Mary Lassaline

Abstract: It is widely believed that what distinguishes the social cognition of humans from that of other animals is the belief-desire psychology of four-year-old children and adults (so-called theory of mind). We argue here that this is actually the second ontogenetic step in uniquely human social cognition. The first step is one year old children’s understanding of persons as intentional agents, which enables skills of cultural learning and shared intentionality. This initial step is ‘the real thing ’ in the sense that it enables young children to participate in cultural activities using shared, perspectival symbols with a conventional/normative/reflective dimension—for example, linguistic communication and pretend play—thus inaugurating children’s understanding of things mental. Understanding beliefs and participating in collective intentionality at four years of age—enabling the comprehension of such things as money and marriage—results from several years of engagement with other persons in perspective-shifting and reflective discourse containing propositional attitude constructions. By all appearances, the cognitive skills of human beings are very different from those of other animal species, including our nearest primate relatives. Human

We introduce symbolic dynamics to cognitive scientists with the aim of furthering constructive debate on representation. Symbolic dynamics is a mathematical framework in which both continuous and discrete states of a system can be considered jointly. We discuss a number of theoretical implications this framework has for cognitive science, and offer some consideration of the way in which it might be employed for comparing or conciliating discrete and continuous representational theories. Symbolic dynamics may thus serve as a common, level playing field for debate in theories of cognitive representation.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are

The current study directly investigates the similarities and differences in theory of mind for moral judgment versus aesthetic evaluation. We target the role of intent, the mind of the moral agent or the artist, i.e. whether the moral act or work of art was intentional or accidental, for objective judgments (e.g., quality) versus subjective judgments (e.g., preference). We show that (1) intent matters more for objective versus subjective judgments, in ethics and aesthetics, and (2) overall, intent matters more for moral judgments than aesthetic evaluations. These findings suggest that an objective-subjective dimension may similarly describe judgments in both ethics and aesthetics, and that in general we may be more influenced by the mind of the moral agent than by the mind of the artist when evaluating their impact on the world.