ABSTRACT On the standard conception of self-control, self-control entails the resolution of a motivational conflict in favour of the option ranked better, loftier, or otherwise more valuable, and behaving accordingly. Sometimes, however, we appear to use self-control under ambivalence, or against our better judgment. In this paper, I seek to eliminate the apparent paradox induced by these cases by defending and developing a value-deflationist conception of self-control. For the value-deflationist conception of self-control endorsed in this paper, self-control is that which is enacted to align one’s behaviour with intention in the face of a competing motivation. I develop the view further by showing that errant and ambivalent cases of self-control are not mere anomalies or theoretical curiosities but instead are important for understanding disruptions of agency due to motivational-executive double binds, where agents struggle both to rank options and to steer their behaviour. Adopting a value-deflationist account allows us to describe how ambivalence undermines self-control. Value-deflationism about self-control has faced a range of criticisms, such as the criticism that errant cases would turn out to be standard cases under a different description. The paper responds to these criticisms, showing that attempts to reconcile these cases with the standard conception fall short.

ABSTRACT This paper links mathematical consciousness science, particularly Integrated Information Theory (IIT), to Immanuel Kant's philosophy. Skeptics of IIT's theoretical foundation often target its fundamental identity between an experience and Φ-structure. My account brings in the Kantian notion that this identity is a constitutive a priori principle and responds to some objections by drawing on Michael Friedman's defense of similar principles in spacetime physics. As constitutive a priori, the 〈Experience = Φ -structure〉 principle serves various intra-theory functions: (i) enables the application of the intrinsic information formalism to the axioms' phenomenology; (ii) gives empirical meaning to phenomenological concepts; (iii) ensures the possibility of scientific assessment of theory's predictions and explanations; (iv) constructs the theory's explanandum: consciousness as structured, maximally irreducible, specific, intrinsic cause-effect power; and (v) makes possible other a priori explanatory principles. Generalizing beyond IIT, this paper advocates for using constitutive apriority tools to refine the epistemological foundations of other mathematical and scientific consciousness theories. Leveraging the neo-Kantian philosophy of consciousness science research program, it highlights the potential for connecting phenomenological descriptions, physical principles, and mathematical formalism to render current theories more transparent, rigorous, and empirically tractable – a move toward a more mature consciousness science.

ABSTRACT Misunderstanding other people can be interpreted as the result of an insufficient performance of people’s skills to understand other persons and their experiences. But what does understand mean in these contexts? And what are the relevant skills that need to be engaged to successfully understand other people? I argue that understanding other people is a form of recognition of the epistemic validity of another person’s perspective. I claim that minimal understanding does not require an endorsement of another person’s perspective. This makes the avoidance of lack of understanding a feasible achievement in almost all cases, though it often requires effort in the interactive process of understanding. I specifically analyse the epistemic and normative roles of empathy in this process. In pursuing this aim, I also defend empathy against recent philosophical arguments that point at moral dangers of empathic processes.

ABSTRACT The paper offers an account of luck, fate, and fortune. It begins by showing that extant accounts of luck are deficient because they do not identify the genus of which luck is a species. That genus of properties, the tychic, alert an agent to occasions on which the external world cooperates with or frustrates their goal-achievement. An agent’s sphere of competence is the set of goals that it is possible for them to reliably achieve. Luck concerns occasions on which there is a mismatch between attempt and result; in bad luck the external world thwarts goal-achievement within the agent’s sphere of competence, in good luck the external world assists goal-achievement beyond the agent’s sphere of competence. Fateful events are those where, more passively, the agent finds the external world achieving or frustrating their goals. Fortune concerns the contraction and expansion of the agent’s sphere of competence. Eight reasons are given for accepting the account; its theoretical virtues and various things it explains. Lastly, three objections are answered; that the tychic properties relate to well-being rather than agency, that there are alternative theories of fortune available in the contemporary literature, that the account draws arbitrary distinctions between synonyms.

ABSTRACT It is a widely-held thesis that the content of intentions can be characterized in terms of the truth of a proposition. In this paper I try to reject this idea. First, I argue that, at least for ordinary cases of intention, there cannot be any proposition such that the intention is fulfilled if, and only if, such a proposition is true. After that, I propose an alternative account for the content of intentions. I argue that this content must ultimately involve a particular acting by the agent. IMPACT STATEMENT An important aspect of my conclusion is that we should revise some widespread assumptions in the current debate between ‘propositionalism' and ‘non-propositionalism'. The ultimate reasons for rejecting conventional forms of the former should also underpin the rejection of the most common understanding of the latter.

ABSTRACT Suppose that Paul, while looking at a tree, sees that that thing over there is a red bird. Paul is having what we may call a ‘singular’ perceptual experience. How should we characterise the representational content of his perceptual experience? I will sketch an original answer to this question, building on the internalist accounts propounded by Searle (1983. Intentionality. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 2) and Recanati (2007. Perspectival Thought. Oxford University Press. Ch. 17). Pace Searle, the content of Paul's experience is not a (general) proposition. Pace Recanati, whose account draws on Lewis’s (1979. “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se.” Philosophical Review 88 (4): 513–543) internalist view of de se attitudes, it is not a property of the perceiving subject. Instead, I submit, it is a property of the perceived object. The content is the property of being a red bird, which determines a set of centred worlds whose centre (an object taken at a time) is a red bird; the object (here, the bird) is part of the relevant situation of evaluation for the experience; and the experience is veridical only if the actual world centred on the object belongs to the set of centred worlds determined by that property. I will argue that this view retains the benefits of Searle's and Recanati's accounts while improving on them.

ABSTRACT Virtue reliabilists argue that an agent can only gain knowledge if she responsibly employs a reliable belief-forming process. This in turn demands that she is either aware that her process is reliable or is sensitive to her process’s reliability in some other way. According to a recent argument in the philosophy of mind, sometimes a cognitive mechanism (i.e. precision estimation) can ensure that a belief-forming process is only employed when it’s reliable. If this is correct, epistemic responsibility can sometimes be explained entirely on the subpersonal level. In this paper, I argue that the mechanism of precision estimation–the alleged new variety of epistemic responsibility–is a more ubiquitous phenomenon than epistemic responsibility. I show that precision estimation operates at levels that are not always concerned with the epistemic domain. Lastly, I broaden this argument to explain how all subpersonal epistemologies are likely to fall prey to the problem of demarcating cognitive agency and the problem of attributing beliefs.

ABSTRACT Self-illness ambiguity is a difficulty to distinguish the ‘self’ or ‘who one is’ from one's mental disorder or diagnosis. Although self-illness ambiguity in a psychiatric context is often deemed to be a negative phenomenon, it may occasionally have a positive role too. This paper investigates whether and in what sense self-illness ambiguity could have a positive role in the process of recovery and self-development in some psychiatric contexts by focusing on a specific case of mental disorder – anorexia nervosa.

ABSTRACT What representational state mediates between perception and action? Bence Nanay says pragmatic representations, which are outputs of perceptual systems. This commits him to the view that optic ataxics face difficulty in performing visually guided arm movements because the relevant perceptual systems output their pragmatic representations incorrectly. Here, I argue that it is not enough to say that pragmatic representations are output incorrectly; we also need to know why they are output that way. Given recent evidence that optic ataxia impairs peripersonal space representation, I argue that pragmatic representations are output incorrectly because the organizing principle of the vision-for-action system is blocked by optic ataxia. I then show how this means that this principle, not pragmatic representations, is the representational state that mediates between perception and action, i.e. the principle, not pragmatic representations, is the immediate mental antecedent of action.

ABSTRACT Difficulty is often treated as blame-mitigating, and even exculpating. But on some occasions difficulty seems to have little or no bearing on our assessments of moral responsibility, and can even exacerbate it. In this paper, I argue that the relevance (and irrelevance) of difficulty with regard to assessments of moral responsibility is best understood via Quality of Will accounts. I look at various ways of characterising difficulty – including via sacrifice, effort, skill and ‘trying’ – and set out to demonstrate that these factors are only blame-mitigating where, and to the extent that, they complicate ascriptions of insufficient concern. Matters become more complex, however, when we turn to difficult circumstances that seem to generate such objectionable attitudes. This is arguably the case with epistemic difficulty and certain instances of moral ignorance. Here I argue that certain difficult circumstances diminish the sense in which false moral beliefs are genuinely revelatory of the agents who hold them. In particular, I draw on the distinction between difficulty that generates objectionable attitudes, and objectionable attitudes that generate difficulty. I argue that the former, but not the latter, can plausibly be viewed as blame mitigating, and that this would apply to (limited) cases of moral ignorance.