Question about Metacognition

Question

Im a little confused about metacognition. I understand that is the ability to think about thinking but I cant get over the fact that if you know this fact then you are thinking about thinking about thinking. Wont this pattern keep going infinity long?

Answer 1

Think of this analogy. In chess, say I can think about my next move, AND about how my opponent might respond, but I find it a mental stretch to think how s/he might respond to that. With training, maybe I can track one or two steps further ahead. Similarly, I really can sit here looking at what's on my screen, and then think more self-consciously ABOUT the fact that I'm doing this; maybe with effort I can also "wrap my head around" the idea "Ah, now I'm thinking ABOUT that meta-process of my awareness-of-my-awareness" ... but at some point what most of us get now is just kind of a mental blur. LOGICALLY there's no reason there can't be an infinite nest of meta-meta-meta-cognitions; psychologically, it can't happen.

But the important point is that this is completely distinct from a true infinite regress - the problem that an idea doesn't make sense because it turns out that it *requires* an infinite iteration. Suppose you theorize that we move and perceive because of a little guy - a "homunculus" - who sits inside our heads at a kind of control panel, like the captain of a ship. But then doesn't explaining the action of the homunculus require that it has its own homunculus ... and so on, forever? So this is a bad theory!