Actions and Intentions

Sofia Bonicalzi
{"title":"Actions and Intentions","authors":"Sofia Bonicalzi","doi":"10.1163/9789004409965_008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Results in the cognitive neuroscience of volition and action have been often dismissed as ultimately irrelevant, or too week at best, to legitimately tackle the philosophical issues of free will and intentional agency. By contrast, this chapter seeks to promote a more constructive perspective regarding how philosophy and cognitive neuroscience can jointly improve our comprehension of intentional agency. The chapter is divided into seven sections. In Section 2, I present the causal theory of action as the best attempt to provide a reductive philosophical characterisation of intentional action, introducing some early and ongoing debates concerning the causal role of conscious mental states. In Section 3, I discuss how specific problems for the understanding of intentional agency, as inherited from the causal theory, originate from widely discussed pieces of empirical evidence on how voluntary processes unfold. In Section 4, I go through some of the counter-arguments that have been put forward in order to defend the classic view of intentional agency. To a various extent, these counter-arguments target the lack of ecological validity of widely employed experimental paradigms. In Section 5, I present counter-arguments of a different type, which are based on the underlying claim that no clear causal link between unconscious neural antecedents and actions can be established on the basis of neuroscientific data. The preoccupation expressed by some of these criticisms is shareable. Nonetheless, I will suggest that the following argument is unwarranted: Because it does not straightforwardly rule out the causal theory, the neuroscientific angle is irrelevant to understanding intentional agency. In Section 6, I in fact argue in favour of a different approach concerning the relation between experimental research and philosophical analysis. In particular, I suggest that the former does not simply have the role of validating the latter, but plays a more constructive part in defining the common research target. I articulate these claims with some proposals and examples (Subsections 6.1 and 6.2). Some final remarks are presented in Section 7.","PeriodicalId":333678,"journal":{"name":"Free Will, Causality, and Neuroscience","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Free Will, Causality, and Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004409965_008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Results in the cognitive neuroscience of volition and action have been often dismissed as ultimately irrelevant, or too week at best, to legitimately tackle the philosophical issues of free will and intentional agency. By contrast, this chapter seeks to promote a more constructive perspective regarding how philosophy and cognitive neuroscience can jointly improve our comprehension of intentional agency. The chapter is divided into seven sections. In Section 2, I present the causal theory of action as the best attempt to provide a reductive philosophical characterisation of intentional action, introducing some early and ongoing debates concerning the causal role of conscious mental states. In Section 3, I discuss how specific problems for the understanding of intentional agency, as inherited from the causal theory, originate from widely discussed pieces of empirical evidence on how voluntary processes unfold. In Section 4, I go through some of the counter-arguments that have been put forward in order to defend the classic view of intentional agency. To a various extent, these counter-arguments target the lack of ecological validity of widely employed experimental paradigms. In Section 5, I present counter-arguments of a different type, which are based on the underlying claim that no clear causal link between unconscious neural antecedents and actions can be established on the basis of neuroscientific data. The preoccupation expressed by some of these criticisms is shareable. Nonetheless, I will suggest that the following argument is unwarranted: Because it does not straightforwardly rule out the causal theory, the neuroscientific angle is irrelevant to understanding intentional agency. In Section 6, I in fact argue in favour of a different approach concerning the relation between experimental research and philosophical analysis. In particular, I suggest that the former does not simply have the role of validating the latter, but plays a more constructive part in defining the common research target. I articulate these claims with some proposals and examples (Subsections 6.1 and 6.2). Some final remarks are presented in Section 7.
行动和意图
关于意志和行动的认知神经科学的研究结果常常被认为与自由意志和有意行为的哲学问题根本无关,或者充其量也就是太不相关。相比之下,本章旨在促进一种更具建设性的观点,即哲学和认知神经科学如何共同提高我们对意向代理的理解。本章共分为七个部分。在第2节中,我提出了行为的因果理论,作为提供有意行为的还原哲学特征的最佳尝试,介绍了一些关于意识心理状态因果作用的早期和正在进行的辩论。在第3节中,我讨论了从因果理论继承而来的理解故意代理的具体问题是如何起源于广泛讨论的关于自愿过程如何展开的经验证据。在第4节中,我将回顾一些为了捍卫经典的意向性代理观点而提出的反对意见。在不同程度上,这些反论点针对的是广泛使用的实验范式缺乏生态有效性。在第5节中,我提出了一种不同类型的反论点,其基础是在神经科学数据的基础上无法建立无意识神经前因和行为之间的明确因果关系。其中一些批评所表达的担忧是可以分享的。尽管如此,我认为下面的论点是没有根据的:因为它没有直接排除因果理论,神经科学的角度与理解故意代理无关。在第6节中,我实际上主张采用一种不同的方法来处理实验研究与哲学分析之间的关系。特别是,我认为前者不仅具有验证后者的作用,而且在确定共同研究目标方面起着更具建设性的作用。我用一些建议和例子来阐明这些主张(小节6.1和6.2)。最后一些备注将在第7节中提出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信