Search Results

This chapter argues that knowledge of one's intentional action can also be understood as knowledge of a transparent fact, which constitutes an entitlement to the belief this knowledge involves. It describes some differences between this account and the above account of the second-order knowledge involved in visual knowledge. It elucidates the connection between knowledge of intentional action and the above account of the value of knowledge. Finally, the present account of knowledge of intentional action is compared with Anscombe's account of such knowledge. According to both accounts, knowledge of this sort is not only knowledge without observation, but practical knowledge, on account of (i) the kind of entitlement it involves; (ii) the fact that it is acquired ‘in intention’; and (iii) the fact that it has a mind-to-world and a world-to-mind direction of fit.

Knowledge is a standard more demanding than justified true belief. In section 1, the more demanding standard is justified in the face of apparent Gettier-style counterexamples. The second section returns to the case of expert performance. One might worry that if knowing how to do something is a kind of propositional knowledge, it should take the form of codified maxims that provide clear instructions for action in every situation. But expert knowledge how often requires adjusting appropriately to novel situations, ones not covered by previously codified instructions. The third section explains the role knowledge how has in explaining knowledge of action, and in particular how we know without observation what we are doing.

Fredérique de Vignemont has argued that there is a positive quale of bodily ownership. She thinks that tactile and other forms of somatosensory phenomenology incorporate a distinctive feeling of myness and takes issue with my defense in Bermúdez of a deflationary approach to bodily ownership. That paper proposed an argument deriving from Elizabeth Anscombe’s various discussions of what she terms knowledge without observation. De Vignemont is not convinced and appeals to the Rubber Hand Illusion to undercut my appeal to Anscombe. Section 1 of this article restates the case against the putative quale of ownership. Section 2 explains why de Vignemonts’ objections miss the mark. Section 3 discusses in more detail how to draw a principled distinction between bodily awareness and ordinary perceptual awareness.

We are embodied, and we are aware of our bodies ‘from the inside’ through different forms of bodily awareness. But what is the relation between these two facts? Are these forms of bodily awareness types of self-consciousness, on a par, say, with introspection? In this paper I argue that bodily awareness is a basic form of self-consciousness, through which perceiving agents are directly conscious of the bodily self. The first two sections clarify the nature of bodily awareness. Sections III to V I explore how bodily awareness functions as a form of self-consciousness and how this is connected to the property of being immune to error through misidentification relative to the first person pronoun. In section IV I consider, and remain unconvinced by, an argument to the effect that bodily awareness cannot have first person content (and hence cannot count as a form of self-consciousness). Finally, section V sketches out an account of the spatial content of bodily awareness and explores the particular type of awareness of the bodily self that it provides.

Several authors deny that the senses of agency and of bodily ownership have distinctive phenomenology. This is in line with a general principle of phenomenal parsimony, according to which one should not posit additional phenomenal properties in one’s mental ontology when one can explain them by appealing to other properties. The crucial question is then to determine what reasons there can be to enrich our phenomenal ontology. This debate has recently turned to cognitive science to find answers. Those who defend a liberal or rich view of phenomenology have taken pathological disorders and illusions as evidence in favor of the existence of a distinctive phenomenology, but even in these borderline cases there is room for interpretation, and where the liberals see feelings, the proponents of a more conservative view see cognitive attitudes. The argument then becomes an inference to the best explanation. But whose side offers the best explanation?

Does it feel different when I am aware that these arms are my own and when I am not? Advocates of the liberal view reply positively and claim that we have a primitive nonconceptual awareness of bodily ownership, whereas advocates of the conservative view reject a distinctive experiential signature for the sense of bodily ownership: ownership is something that we believe in, and not something that we experience. How to adjudicate the debate? This chapter appeals to the method of phenomenal contrast to argue that feelings of ownership are not philosophical fictions, contrary to what some have claimed. To do so, the chapter analyses in detail the rubber hand illusion and syndromes of disownership and rejects a cognitive interpretation of these cases.