Toward an explanatory framework for mental ownership
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 11 (2):251-286 (2012)
| Abstract | Philosophical and scientific investigations of the proprietary aspects of self—mineness or mental ownership—often presuppose that searching for unique constituents is a productive strategy. But there seem not to be any unique constituents. Here, it is argued that the “self-specificity” paradigm, which emphasizes subjective perspective, fails. Previously, it was argued that mode of access also fails to explain mineness. Fortunately, these failures, when leavened by other findings (those that exhibit varieties and vagaries of mineness), intimate an approach better suited to searching for an explanation. Having an alternative in hand, one that shows promise of achieving explanatory adequacy, provides an additional reason to suspend the search for unique constituents. In short, a negative and a positive thesis are developed: we should cease looking for unique constituents and should seek to explain mineness in accord with the model developed here. This model rejects attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of either a narrative or a minimal sense of self; it seeks to explain at a “molecular” level, one that appeals to multiple, interacting dimensions. The molecular-level model allows for the possibility that subjective perspective is distinct from a stark perspective (one that does not imply mineness). It proposes that the confounding of tacit expectations plays an important role in explaining mental ownership and its complement, disownership. But the confounding of tacit expectations is not sufficient. Because we are able to be aware of the existence of mental states that do not belong to self, we require a mechanism for determining degree of self-relatedness. One such mechanism is proposed here, and it is shown how this mechanism can be integrated into a general model of mental ownership. In the spirit of suggesting how this model might be able to help resolve outstanding problems, the question as to whether inserted thoughts belong to the patient who reports them is also considered. | |||||||||
| Keywords | mental ownership principle of confounded expectations self-specificity self-relatedness level of explanation minimal self disownership | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesTimothy Lane & Caleb Liang (2010). Mental Ownership and Higher-Order Thought: Response to Rosenthal. Analysis 70 (3):496-501.
Kari L. Theurer (forthcoming). Compositional Explanatory Relations and Mechanistic Reduction. Minds and Machines:1-21.
Lea Ypi (2011). Self-Ownership and the State: A Democratic Critique. Ratio 24 (1):91-106.
M. Synofzik, G. Vosgerau & A. Newen (2008). Beyond the Comparator Model: A Multi-Factorial Two-Step Account of Agency. Consciousness and Cognition 17 (1):219-239.
Garry Young (2006). Kant and the Phenomenon of Inserted Thoughts. Philosophical Psychology 19 (6):823-837.
Gottfried Vosgerau & Albert Newen (2007). Thoughts, Motor Actions, and the Self. Mind and Language 22 (1):22–43.
Sanneke de Haan & Leon de Bruin (2010). Reconstructing the Minimal Self, or How to Make Sense of Agency and Ownership. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (3):373-396.
Dwayne Moore (2009). Explanatory Exclusion and Extensional Individuation. Acta Analytica 24 (3):211-222.
Don Locke (1964). The Privacy of Pains. Analysis 24 (March):147-152.
Sophie C. Gibb (2009). Explanatory Exclusion and Causal Exclusion. Erkenntnis 71 (2):205 - 221.
Rex Welshon (forthcoming). Searching for the Neural Realizers of Ownership Unity. Philosophical Psychology:1-24.
Matthis Synofzik, Gottfried Vosgerau & Albert Newen (2008). I Move, Therefore I Am: A New Theoretical Framework to Investigate Agency and Ownership. Consciousness and Cognition 17 (2):411 - 424.
Alessandro Zattoni (2011). Who Should Control a Corporation? Toward a Contingency Stakeholder Model for Allocating Ownership Rights. Journal of Business Ethics 103 (2):255-274.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2012-02-18Total downloads169 ( #1,933 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,324 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
