Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Immunity to Error through Misidentification
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Export citation
  • Recommend to librarian
  • Buy the print book

Book description

Immunity to error through misidentification is recognised as an important feature of certain kinds of first-person judgments, as well as arguably being a feature of other indexical or demonstrative judgments. In this collection of newly commissioned essays, the contributors present a variety of approaches to it, engaging with historical and empirical aspects of the subject as well as contemporary philosophical work. It is the first collection of essays devoted exclusively to the topic and will be essential reading for anyone interested in philosophical work on the self, first-person thought or indexical thought more generally.

Reviews

'… highly recommend[ed] … to those interested in this topic, and I consider it essential reading to those who follow and participate in recent discussions in self-knowledge.'

George Lăzăroiu Source: Review of Contemporary Philosophy

'This excellent volume offers thirteen new essays on IEM, which collectively attempt to get clearer on the nature and scope of the phenomenon … the volume as a whole stands as an important contribution to scholarship on immunity to error through misidentification and neighbouring philosophical questions. It will no doubt be a major source of ideas and inspiration for future work on these issues.'

Source: Philosophy in Review

Refine List

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
×

Contents

  • Chapter 7 - Action and immunity to error through misidentification
    pp 124-143
  • View abstract

    Summary

    The use we make of 'I' is not explained by the way in which it refers to an object. In this the first person contrasts sharply with other referring terms. There are deep connections between the way in which the reference of a term is fixed and the immunity to error though misidentification (IEM) of judgments containing that term. The first person operates on a quite different basis than a descriptive name. If the first person has a reference, it is specified by a simple rule, the token-reflexive rule: Any token of 'I' refers to whoever produced it. The aspect of the pattern of use of 'I' cannot be validated simply by appealing to the token-reflexive rule. In general, what happens ultimately is that we regard the pattern of use of 'I' as not standing in need of validation by an account of the nature of the self.
  • Chapter 8 - Explaining de se phenomena
    pp 144-157
  • View abstract

    Summary

    There is a deeper reason why immunity to error through misidentification cannot easily be discarded while trying to account for the illusions of transcendence. Although it has been widely remarked that self ascriptions based on somatic proprioception, perception and first personal memories are also immune to error through misidentification, it has somehow been overlooked. The logical immunity to error through misidentification characterises only psychological self-ascriptions based on introspective awareness. The logical immunity to error ultimately depends on the fact that in introspection one is presented to oneself as the subject of psychological properties only. Thus, it can be acknowledged that the de facto/logical distinction is totally compatible with holding that the relevant judgments are about a living human being with physical and psychological properties, who can be presented to himself either through his physical attributes or through his psychological ones.
  • Chapter 9 - Sources of immunity to error through misidentification
    pp 158-179
  • View abstract

    Summary

    This chapter considers, relying in part upon comparative semantic evidence from English and Romanian, two contrasting dimensions of the sense in which the authors' thoughts, including the contents of imagination and memory, and objects of fear, may be distinctively first-personal, or de se, to use the terminology introduced in Lewis, and exhibit the phenomenon of immunity to error through misidentification (IEM) in the sense of Shoemaker. There are de se triggers in Romanian, but they do not behave as uniformly as unpronounced (PRO) subject does in English. This difference suggests that context showing IEM or being intrinsically de se is to be explained by appealing to different linguistic considerations. The linguistic parameters of the de se are variable, and that elements of thought as reported in language may be de se, and so subject to IEM, where they are taken from other points of view than that of the experiencer.
  • Chapter 10 - Immunity to error through misidentification: what it is and where it comes from
    pp 180-201
  • View abstract

    Summary

    It is often claimed that there is a range of self-ascriptions that are immune to error through misidentification (IEM) relative to the first-person pronoun. The more abstract perspective allows us to see IEM as an instance of a much more general phenomenon having to do with the interaction between representational media. There is some dispute about which self-ascriptions are properly classed as IEM. Some claim that only mental self-ascriptions are IEM, others claim that some non-mental self-ascriptions are IEM. Among mental self-ascriptions, we can distinguish self-ascriptions of experiences and self-attribution of intentional states. IEM is a formal product of the translation between media with different representational scope, together with the representationally unmediated character of reflexive identification. It has nothing in particular to do with mental representation and carries no implication of a special ontology for the self.
  • Chapter 11 - I and I: immunity to error through misidentification of the subject
    pp 202-223
  • View abstract

    Summary

    This chapter first reviews Wittgenstein's distinction between use of 'I' "as subject" and use of 'I' "as object" in the Blue book. Then, it explains what Immanuel Kant meant by "consciousness of oneself as subject". The chapter argues that Kant's notion offers resources for understanding a heretofore unexplored aspect of the use of 'I' as subject. The chapter offers empirical-psychological support for the distinctions, and for the dependence relation suggested between the different kinds of self-consciousness grounding the uses of 'I' as subject. It draws on a clinical example borrowed from Oliver Sacks in his book The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat to illustrate the relation between the two quite different uses of 'I' as subject and the two corresponding kinds of immunity to error through misidentification (IEM) relative to the first-person pronoun analyzed in the first two parts of the chapter.
  • Chapter 12 - Bodily immunity to error
    pp 224-246
  • View abstract

    Summary

    The Simple Explanation just consists in the observation that a judgment will be immune to error through misidentification (IEM) when it is not based on an identification. The Simple Explanation does not itself rule out any candidate theory of de se thought. This chapter discusses IEM relative to the first person more than any other kind of error through misidentification. For convenience, the author uses fp-immunity as an abbreviation (and fp-immune as an abbreviation for the corresponding adjective). James Higginbotham and François Recanati mostly speak of 'thoughts' as exhibiting or failing to exhibit IEM. It is clear that both beliefs and judgments can exhibit IEM. The most plausible explanation of fp-immunity, the Simple Explanation, imposes no tight constraints on an account of the de se. Constraints on such an account need to be gathered from somewhere else.
  • Chapter 13 - Reflections on François Recanati's ‘Immunity to error through misidentification: what it is and where it comes from’
    pp 247-280
  • View abstract

    Summary

    This chapter examines a claim made about the kind of immunity to error through misidentification (IEM) relative to the first person that attaches to action self-ascriptions. The argument for transparent IEM (TIEM) for action self-ascriptions seems to rest on the assumption that information from bodily awareness is neutral between action and bodily movement. The feedback from bodily awareness was supposed to be insufficient for the subject to determine whether someone moved her body, or whether her body moved. The chapter also examines whether there are resources to construct better cross-wiring cases to challenge the claim that agents' awareness is TIEM than those that appeal to bodily awareness. It explores what direct arguments are there for or against the necessity of first-personal contents to agents' awareness. A helpful way to get at the character of an agent's awareness may be to consider a case in which it is missing.
  • Bibliography
    pp 281-290
  • View abstract

    Summary

    The rival approach to immunity does not come out of the blue, as an isolated proposal. Such proposals are of most interest when they are offered as an instance of the more general thesis, the thesis that there are no phenomena distinctive of ordinary uses of the first person, in a philosophical theory, to postulate a special de se notion or concept. The three salient issues in assessing the more general thesis are: the possibility of giving an account of a subject's file on himself that does not appeal to a first-person concept; the alleged dispensability of a first-person notion or concept in basic cases of action and perception; and the feasibility of treatments that attempt to explain away the role of the first-person concept or notion in imagination. The self-files and the phenomena they help to explain cannot be properly characterized without using the de se notion or concept.

Bibliography

Alboiu, G. 2009. ‘Null Expletives and Case: The View from Romance’, in Pascual José Masullo et al. (eds.), Romance Languages: Structure, Interfaces, and Microparametric Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–19.
Almog, J., Perry, J. and Wettstein, H. (eds.) 1989. Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press.
Anand, P. 2006. De De Se. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Anscombe, E. 1975. ‘The First Person’, in S. Guttenplan (ed.), Mind and Language: Wolfson College Lectures 1974. Oxford University Press, 45–64.
Bayne, T. and Levy, N. 2005. ‘Amputees by Choice: Body Integrity Identity Disorder and the Ethics of Amputation’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22(1): 75–86.
Bermudez, J. L. 1998. The Paradox of Self-Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Berthenthal, B. 1993. ‘Infant's Perception of Biomechanical Motions: Intrinsic Image and Knowledge-Based Constraints’, in C. Granrud (ed.), Visual Perception and Cognition in Infancy, Carnegie-Mellon Symposia of Cognition. Hillsdate, NL: Erlbaum, 175–214.
Bisiach, E., Rusconi, M. L. and Vallar, G. 1991. ‘Remission of Somatoparaphrenic Delusion through Vestibular Stimulation’, Neuropsychologia, 29: 1029–31.
Borg, E. 2000. ‘Complex Demonstratives’, Philosophical Studies, 97: 229–49.
Bottini, G., Bisiach, E., Sterzi, R. and Vallar, G. 2002. ‘Feeling Touches in Someone Else's Hand’, Neuroreport, 13: 249–52.
Botvinick, M. and Cohen, J. 1998. ‘Rubber Hands “Feel” Touch that Eyes See’, Nature, 391: 756.
Braun, D. 1994. ‘Structured Characters and Complex Demonstratives’, Philosophical Studies, 74: 193–219.
Brewer, B. 1995. ‘Bodily Awarenes and the Self ’, in J. L. Bermudez, A. Marcel and N. Eilan (eds.), The Body and the Self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buford, C. 2009. ‘Memory, Quasi-Memory and Pseudo Quasi-Memory’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87: 465–78.
Burge, T. 1973. ‘Reference and Proper Names’, The Journal of Philosophy, 70: 425–39.
Burge, T. 1977. ‘Belief De Re’, The Journal of Philosophy, 74: 338–62.
Calvert, G. A., Brammer, M. J. and Iversen, S. D. 1998. ‘Crossmodal Identification’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2: 247–53.
Campbell, J. 1993. ‘The Role of Physical Objects in Spatial Thinking’, in Eilan, McCarthy and Brewer (eds.), 1993, 65–95.
Campbell, J. 1994. Past, Space and Self. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Campbell, J. 1997. ‘Sense, Reference and Selective Attention’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 71: 55–98.
Campbell, J. 1998. ‘Joint Attention and the First Person’, in O'Hear (ed.), 1998, 123–36.
Campbell, J. 1999a. ‘Immunity to Error Through Misidentification and the Meaning of a Referring Term’, Philosophical Topics, 26: 89–104.
Campbell, J. 1999b. ‘Schizophrenia: The Space of Reasons and Thinking as a Motor Process’, Monist, 82: 609–25.
Campbell, J. 2002. Reference and Consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cappelen, H. and Hawthorne, J. 2009. Relativism and Monadic Truth. Oxford University Press.
Cassam, Q. 1997. Self and World. Oxford University Press.
Castañeda, H. -N. 1966. ‘“He”: A Study in the Logic of Self-Consciousness’, Ratio, 8: 130–57.
Castañeda, H -N. 1966/1994. ‘On the Phenomeno-Logic of the I’, in A. -Q. A. Cassam (ed.), Self-Knowledge. Oxford University Press, 160–6.
Chalmers, D. and Clark, A. 1998. ‘The Extended Mind’, Analysis, 58: 7–19.
Chen, C. K. 2010. ‘Bodily Awareness and Immunity to Error Through Misidentification’, European Journal of Philosophy, 18(2).
Chierchia, G. 1989. ‘Anaphora and Attitudes de se, in Renate Bartsch, John van Benthem and Peter van Emde Boas (eds.), Language and Contextual Expression. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications, 1–31.
Chisholm, R. 1979. ‘Objects and Persons: Revisions and Replies’, in E. Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm Amsterdam: Rodopi, 317–88.
Chisholm, R. 1981. The First Person. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Amsterdam: Foris.
Cole, J. 1995. Pride and a Daily Marathon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Coliva, A. 2002a. ‘Thought Insertion and Immunity to Error Through Misidentification’, Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology, 9: 27–34.
Coliva, A. 2002b. ‘On What There Really Is to Our Notion of the Ownership of a Thought’, Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology, 9: 41–6.
Coliva, A. 2003. ‘Error Through Misidentification, the Split Between Semantic and Speaker's Reference and the Real Guarantee’, The Journal of Philosophy, 100: 416–431.
Coliva, A. 2006. ‘Error Through Misidentification: Some Varieties’, The Journal of Philosophy, 103: 403–25.
Coliva, A. forthcoming. ‘Liberals and Conservatives: Is There a (Wittgensteinian) Third Way?’, in A. Coliva (ed.), Mind, Meaning and Knowledge: Themes from the Philosophy of Crispin Wright. Oxford University Press.
Coliva, A. and Sacchi, E. 2001. Singular Thoughts: Perceptual-Demonstrative and I-Thoughts. Macerata: Quodlibet.
Corazza, E. 2002. ‘“She” and “He”: Politically Correct Pronouns’, Philosophical Studies, 111: 173–96.
Damasio, A. 1999. The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Davies, M. 1982. ‘Individuation and the Semantics of Demonstratives’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11: 287–310.
Deneve, S. and Pouget, A. 2004. ‘Bayesian Multisensory Integration and Cross-modal Spatial Links’, Journal of Physiology Paris, 98(1–3): 249–58.
Dennett, D. C. 1978. ‘Where Am I’, in Dennett, Brainstorms. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.
Descartes, R. 1641/1984. Meditations on First Philosophy, trans. John Cottingham, in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Cambridge University Press, vol. ii, 3–62.
Descartes, R. 1648/1976. Conversations with Burman, trans. with a philosophical introduction and commentary by J. Cottingham. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Deschamps, L. -M. 1761, 1770–1772/1993. La Vérité, ou le Vrai Système, in Oeuvres philosophiques. ed. and introduced by B. Delhaume. Paris: Vrin.
Desmurget, M., Reilly, K. T., Richard, N., Szathmari, A., Mottolese, C. and Sirigu, A. 2009. ‘Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans’, Science, 324(5928): 811–13.
Dever, J. 2001. ‘Complex Demonstratives’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 24: 271–330.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian: Comparative Studies in Romance. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dokic, J. 2003. ‘The Sense of Ownership: An Analogy Between Sensation and Action’, in J. Roessler and N. Eilan (eds.), Agency and Self-Awareness: Issues in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford University Press, 321–44.
Donnellan, K. 1966. ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’, Philosophical Review, 75: 281–304.
Duhamel, J. R., Bremmer, F., Ben Hamed, S. and Graf, W. 1997. ‘Spatial Invariance of Visual Receptive Fields in Parietal Cortex Neurons’, Nature, 389: 845–8.
Dummett, Michael. 1970/1978. ‘Wang's Paradox’, reprinted in Dummett, Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 248–68.
Ehrsson, H. H., Holmes, N. P. and Passingham, R. E. 2005. ‘Touching a Rubber Hand: Feeling of Body Ownership Is Associated with Activity in Multisensory Brain Areas’, Journal of Neuroscience, 25: 10564–73.
Eilan, N., McCarthy, R. and Brewer, B. (eds.) 1993. Spatial Representation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ernst, M. O. and Bülthoff, H. H. 2004. ‘Merging the Senses into a Robust Percept’, Trends in Cognitive Science, 8: 162–9.
Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference, ed. J. McDowell. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Evans, G. 1985. Collected Papers. Oxford University Press.
Evans, G. 1981/1985. ‘Understanding Demonstratives’, in H. Parret and J. Bouveresse (eds.), Meaning and Understanding. Berlin: De Gruyter. Reprinted in Gareth Evans, Collected Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291–321.
Feinberg, T. E., DeLuca, J., Giacino J. T., Roane, D. M. and Solms, M. 2005. ‘Right Hemisphere Pathology and the Self: Delusional Misidentification and Reduplication’, in T. E. Feinberg and J. P. Keenan (eds.), The Lost Self: Pathologies of the Brain and Identity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fichte, J. G. 1794–1802/1982. The Science of Knowledge, ed. and trans. P. Heath and J. Lachs. Cambridge University Press.
Fine, K. 2007. Semantic Relationism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Flanagan, O. 2003. The Problem of the Soul. New York: Basic Books.
Floridi, Luciano. 2010. Information: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Forbes, Graeme. 1989. ‘Indexicals’, in D. Gabbay and F. Guenther (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume iv. Dordrecht: Reidel, 463–90.
Frege, Gottlob. 1892/1949. ‘Uber Sinn und Bedeutung’, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, 100. Translation by Herbert Feigl as ‘Sense and Nominatum’ in H. Feigl and W. Sellars (eds.), Readings in Philosophical Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 85–102.
Frege, Gottlob. 1984. ‘Thoughts’, in Frege, Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, ed. B. McGuiness, trans. P. Geach and R. H. Stoothoff. Oxford: Blackwell, 351–72.
Freud, Sigmund. 1923/1960. The Ego and the Id, trans. J. Riviere, revised and ed. J. Strachey. London: Norton.
Fried, I., Katz, A., McCarthy, G., Sass, K. J., Williamson, P., Spencer, S. S. and Spencer, D. D. 1991. ‘Functional Organization of Human Supplementary Motor Cortex Studied by Electrical Stimulation’, Journal of Neuroscience, 11: 3656–66.
Gallin, D. 1975. Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic. North-Holland Mathematics Studies, vol. 19. Amsterdam and Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Garber, D. and Longuenesse, B. (eds.) 2008. Kant and the Early Moderns. Princeton University Press.
Garcia-Carpintero, M. 1998. ‘Indexicals as Token-Reflexives’, Mind, 107: 529–63.
Gibson, E. J., Owsley, C. J. and Johnston, J. 1978. ‘Perception of Invariants by Five-month-old Infants: Differentiation of Two Types of Motion’, Developmental Psychology, 14: 407–16.
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Boston Mifflin.
Graziano, M. S., Cooke, D. F. and Taylor, C. S. 2000. ‘Coding the Location of the Arm by Sight’, Science, 290: 1782–6.
Guttenplan, S. 1975. Mind and Language: Wolfson College Lectures 1974. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Haggard, P. 2003. ‘Conscious Awareness of Intention and of Action’, in J. Roessler and N. Eilan (eds.), Agency and Self-Awareness: Issues in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford University Press, 111–27.
Hamilton, A. J. 1987. ‘The Self and Self-Consciousness’. Ph.D. thesis, St Andrews University.
Higginbotham, J. 2003. ‘Remembering, Imagining, and the First Person’, in Alex Barber (ed.), Epistemology of Language. Oxford University Press, 496–533.
Higginbotham, J. 2010. ‘On Words and Thoughts About Oneself ’, in F. Recanati, I. Stojanovic and N. Villanueva (eds.), Context-Dependence, Perspective, and Relativity. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 253–82.
Hume, David. 1888. A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge, 1st edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Husserl, E. 1921–8/1973. Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjectivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Zweiter Teil: 1921–8. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Ismael, Jenann. 2007. The Situated Self. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ismael, Jenann. (forthcoming). ‘Reflexivity, Fixed Points, and Senantic Descent: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Reflexivity’, Acta Analytica.
Ismael, Jenann. 2008. ‘Me, Again’, in J. Keim Campbell, M. O'Rourke and D. Shier (eds.), Topics in Contemporary Philosophy, Volume vi: Time and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
James, W. 1890/1950. The Principles of Psychology, 2 vols. New York: Dover.
James, W. 1892/1984. Psychology: Briefer Course. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johannson, G. 1977. ‘Studies on Visual Perception of Locomotion’, Perception, 6: 365–76.
Johnston, M. 2010. Surviving Death. Princeton University Press.
Kant, I. 1772/1967. ‘Letter to Marcus Herz, February 21, 1772’, in Kant: Philosophical Correspondence 1759–99, ed. and trans. Arnulf Zweig. University of Chicago Press.
Kant, I. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason, trans. and ed. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, D. 1978. ‘Dthat’, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 221–43.
Kaplan, D. 1989a. ‘Demonstratives’, in Almog, Perry and Wettstein (eds.), 481–563.
Kaplan, D. 1989b. ‘Afterthoughts’, in Almog, Perry and Wettstein (eds.), 565–614.
Kaplan, D. 1999. ‘Reichenbach's Elements of Symbolic Logic ’, unpublished. German translation in Maria Reichenbach and Andreas Kamlah (eds.), Hans Reichenbach: Gesammelte Werke, vol. vi. Frieder: Vieweg.
Kenny, A. 1988. The Self. Marquette University Press.
Kenny, A. 1989. The Metaphysics of Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
King, J. C. 2001. Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Kuroda, S. Y. 1972. ‘The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment’, Foundations of Language, 9: 153–85.
Lenggenhager, B., Tadi, T., Metzinger, T. and Blanke, O. 2007. ‘Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self-consciousness’, Science, 317: 1096–9.
Lepore, E. and Ludwig, K. 2000. ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives’, Mind, 109: 199–240.
Lewis, D. 1979. ‘Attitudes De Dicto and De Se’, The Philosophical Review, 88: 513–43.
Loar, B. 1976. ‘The Semantics of Singular Terms’, Philosophical Studies, 30: 353–77.
Locke, J. 1694 (1689–1700)/1975. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. P. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendan Press.
Longuenesse, B. 2006. ‘Self-Consciousness and Consciousness of One's Own Body: Variations on a Kantian Theme’, Philosophical Topics, 283–309.
Longuenesse, B. 2007. ‘Kant on the Identity of Persons,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. cvii, part 2: 149–68.
Longuenesse, B. 2008. ‘Kant's “I think” versus Descartes’ “I am a thing that thinks”’, in Garber and Longuenesse (eds.), 9–31.
Longuenesse, B.(forthcoming). ‘Kant and Freud on “I”’, Proceedings of the 11th Kant Congress.
MacNeice, L. 1941/2007. ‘Plant and Phantom’, in Collected Poems. London: Faber.
Marcel, A. 2003. ‘The Sense of Agency: Awareness and Ownership of Action’, in J. Roessler and N. Eilan (eds.), Agency and Self-Awareness: Issues in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford University Press, 48–93.
Martin, M. G. F. 1995. ‘Bodily Awareness: A Sense of Ownership’, in J. L. Bermudez, A. Marcel and N. Eilan (eds.), The Body and the Self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matthen, M. 2006. ‘On Visual Experience of Objects: Comments on John Campbell's “Reference and Consciousness”’, Philosophical Studies, 127: 195–220.
McDowell, J. 1990. ‘Peacocke and Evans on Demonstrative Content’, Mind, 99: 255–66.
McDowell, J. 1998. ‘Reductionism and the First Person’, in McDowell's Mind, Value and Reality. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 359–82.
McGinn, C. 1981. ‘The Mechanism of Reference’, Synthese, 49: 157–86.
Melzack, R. 1990. ‘Phantom Limbs and the Concept of a Neuromatrix’, Trends in Neuroscience, 13: 88–92.
Merian, J. 1793/1997. ‘On the Phenomenalism of David Hume’, Hume Studies, 23: 178–191.
Mizumoto, M. and Ishikawa, M. 2005. ‘Immunity to Error through Misidentification and the Bodily Illusion Experiment’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12: 3–19.
Moore, G. E. 1959. ‘Wittgenstein's Lectures in 1930–33’, in Moore's Philosophical Papers. London: Allen and Unwin.
Moro, V., Zampini, M. and Aglioti, S. M. 2004. ‘Changes in Spatial Position of Hands Modify Tactile Extinction but Not Disownership of Contralesional Hand in Two Right Brain-Damaged Patients’, Neurocase, 10: 437–43.
Nagel, T. 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.
Neta, R. 2010. ‘Liberalism and Conservatism in the Epistemology of Perceptual Belief ’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88: 685–705.
Nietzsche, F. 1883–5/1961. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, trans. R. J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin.
Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nozick, R. 1989/1990. The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations. New York: Touchstone.
O'Brien, L. 2007. Self-Knowing Agents. Oxford University Press.
O'Hear, A. (ed.) 1998. Current Issues in Philosophy of Mind: Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 43. Cambridge University Press.
Olson, E. 1997. The Human Animal. Oxford University Press.
Olson, E. 1997/1999. ‘There is No Problem of the Self ’, in S. Gallagher and J. Shear (eds.), Models of the Self. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.
Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
Peacocke, C. 1981. ‘Demonstrative Thought and Psychological Explanation’, Synthese, 49: 187–217.
Peacocke, C. 1985. ‘Imagination, Experience, and Possibility’, in J. Foster and H. Robinson (eds.), Essays on Berkeley. Oxford University Press.
Peacocke, C. 1991. ‘Demonstrative Content: A Reply to John McDowell’, Mind, 100: 123–33.
Peacocke, C. 1993. ‘How Are A Priori Truths Possible?’, European Journal of Philosophy, 1: 175–99.
Peacocke, C. 1999. Being Known. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Peacocke, C. 2000. ‘Explaining the A Priori: The Programme of Moderate Rationalism’, in P. Boghossian and C. Peacocke (eds.), New Essays on the A Priori. Oxford University Press, 255–85.
Peacocke, C. 2004. The Realm of Reason. Oxford University Press.
Peacocke, C. 2008. Truly Understood. Oxford University Press.
Peacocke, C. (forthcoming). ‘Subjects and Consciousness’, in A. Coliva (ed.), Self and Self-Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Perry, J. 1977. ‘Frege on Demonstratives’, Philosophical Review, 86: 474–97.
Perry, J. 1979. ‘The Problem of the Essential Indexical’, Noûs, 13: 3–21.
Perry, J. 1986. ‘Thought without Representation’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 60: 137–51.
Perry, J. 1997. ‘Indexicals and Demonstratives’, in R. Hale and C. Wright (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 586–612.
Perry, J. 2001. Reference and Reflexivity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Perry, J. 2002a. Identity, Personal Identity, and the Self. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Perry, J. 2002b. ‘The Self, Self-Knowledge and Self-Notions’, in Perry 2002a, 189–213.
Perry, J. 2002c. ‘The Sense of Identity’, in Perry 2002a, 296–320.
Petkova, V. I. and Ehrsson, H. H. 2008. ‘If I Were You: Perceptual Illusion of Body Swapping’, PLoS One, 3: 3832.
Pinillos, N. A. 2011. ‘Coreference and Meaning’, Philosophical Studies, 184: 301–24.
Platner, E. 1772. Anthropologie für Ärzte und Weltweise. Leipzig: Dyck.
Premack, D. 1990. ‘The Infant's Theory of Self-propelled Objects’, Cognition, 36: 1–16.
Prior, A. N. 1959. ‘Thank Goodness That's Over’, Philosophy, 34: 12–17.
Prosser, S. 2005. ‘Cognitive Dynamics and Indexicals’, Mind & Language, 20: 369–91.
Prosser, S. 2006. ‘Temporal Metaphysics in Z-Land’, Synthese, 149: 77–96.
Proust, J. 2003. ‘Perceiving Intentions’, in J. Roessler and N. Eilan (eds.), Agency and Self-Awareness: Issues in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Pryor, J. 1999. ‘Immunity to Error through Misidentification’, Philosophical Topics, 26: 271–304.
Pryor, J. 2000. ‘The Skeptic and the Dogmatist’, Noûs, 34: 517–49.
Pryor, J. 2004. ‘Is Moore's Argument an Example of Transmission-Failure?’, Philosophical Issues, 14: 349–78.
Recanati, F. 1993. Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
Recanati, F. 1997. ‘The Dynamics of Situations’, European Review of Philosophy, 2: 41–75.
Recanati, F. 2000. Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Recanati, F. 2007. Perspectival Thought: A Plea for (Moderate) Relativism. Oxford University Press.
Recanati, F. 2010. ‘Singular Thought: In Defence of Acquaintance’, in R. Jeshion (ed.), New Essays on Singular Thought. Oxford University Press, 141–89.
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan.
Richard, M. 1993. ‘Articulated Terms’, in James Tomberlin (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, 7, Language and Logic. Atascadero: Ridgeview, 207–30.
Rovane, C. 2006. ‘Personal Identity: Ethical not Metaphysical’, in C. MacDonald and G. MacDonald (eds.), McDowell and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell, 95–114.
Sacks, O. 1998/1970. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, and Other Clinical Cases. New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster.
Sathian, K., Prather, S. C. and Zhang, M. 2004. ‘Visual Cortical Involvement in Normal Tactile Tasks’, in G. Calvert, C. Spence and B. E. Stein (eds.), The Handbook of Multisensory Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schiffer, S. 1981. ‘Indexicals and the Theory of Reference’, Synthese, 57: 43–100.
Schlenker, P. 2003. ‘A Plea for Monsters’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 26: 29–120.
Searle, J. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge University Press.
Shoemaker, S. 1968. ‘Self-reference and Self-awareness’, Journal of Philosophy, 65/19: 555–67. Reprinted in Q. Cassam, Self-Knowledge. Oxford University Press, 80–93.
Shoemaker, S. 1970. ‘Persons and Their Pasts’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 7: 269–85.
Shoemaker, S. 1986. ‘Introspection and the Self ’, in S. Shoemaker, The First Person Perspective and Other Essays. Cambridge University Press, 3–24.
Shoemaker, S. 1994. ‘Phenomenal Character’, Noûs, 28: 21–38.
Shoemaker, S. 1996. The First Person Perspective and Other Essays. Cambridge University Press.
Shoemaker, S. 1999. ‘Review of The Human Animal by Eric Olson’, Noûs, 33: 496–504.
Sierra, M., Baker, D., Medford, N. and David, A. S. 2005. ‘Unpacking the Depersonalization Syndrome: An Exploratory Factor Analysis on the Cambridge Depersonalization Scale’, Psychological Medicine, 35: 1–10.
Smart, J. J. C. 1963. Philosophy and Scientific Realism. New York: Humanities Press.
Smeets, J. B., van den Dobbelsteen, J. J., de Grave, D. D., van Beers, R. J. and Brenner, E. 2006. ‘Sensory Integration Does Not Lead to Sensory Calibration’, Proceedings of National Academy of Science USA, 103, 49: 18781–6.
Smith, J. 2006. ‘Which Immunity to Error?’, Philosophical Studies, 130: 273–83.
Smith, Q. 1989. ‘The Multiple Uses of Indexicals’, Synthese, 78: 167–91.
Smith, Q. 1990. ‘Temporal Indexicals’, Erkenntnis, 32: 5–25.
Snowdon, P. 2012. ‘How to Think about Phenomenal Self-Knowledge’, in A. Coliva (ed.), The Self and Self-Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 243–262.
Strawson, G. 1999. ‘The Self and the Sesmpt’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6: 99–135.
Strawson, G. 2006. ‘Reply to Commentators, with a Celebration of Descartes’, in A. Freema (ed.), Consciousness and Its Place in Nature. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.
Strawson, G. 2009. Selves. Oxford University Press.
Strawson, G. 2010. ‘The Minimal Self ’, in S. Gallagher (ed.), Oxford Handbook of the Self. Oxford University Press.
Strawson, G. 2011. The Evident Connexion: Mind, Self and David Hume. Oxford University Press.
Strawson, P. F. 1959. Individuals. London: Methuen.
Strawson, P. F. 1966. The Bounds of Sense. London: Methuen.
Tye, Michael. 2000. Consciousness, Color and Content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Updike, J. 2000. Gertrude and Claudius. New York: Knopf.
Vallar, G. and Ronchi, R. 2009. ‘Somatoparaphrenia: A Body Delusion. A Review of the Neuropsychological Literature’, Experimental Brain Research, 192: 533–51.
Van Beers, R. J., Sittig, A. C. and Gon, J. J. 1999. ‘Integration of Proprioceptive and Visual Position-information: An Experimentally Supported Model’, Journal of Neurophysiology, 81: 1355–64.
Van Beers, R. J., Wolpert, D. M. and Haggard, P. 2002. ‘When Feeling Is More Important than Seeing in Sensorimotor Adaptation’, Current Biology, 12: 834–7.
Velleman, D. 1996/2006. ‘Self to Self ’, The Philosophical Review, 105: 39–76. Reprinted in Velleman, Self to Self: Selected Essays. Cambridge University Press, 170–202.
Vendler, Z. 1984. The Matter of Minds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vignemont, F. de 2007. ‘Habeas Corpus: The Sense of Ownership of One's Own Body’, Mind and Language, 22(4): 427–49.
Welch, R. B. and Warren, D. H. 1986. ‘Intersensory Interactions’, in L. Kaufman and J. P. Thomas (eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, vol i: 1–25.
Williams, B. 1966/1972. ‘Imagination and the Self ’, British Academy Annual Philosophical Lecture. Reprinted in Williams, Problems of the Self. Cambridge University Press, 26–45.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. 1933–5/1958. The Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. 1978. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, rev. edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Woolf, V. 1931. The Waves. London: Hogarth Press.
Wright, C. 1998. ‘Self-knowledge: The Wittgensteinian Legacy’, in C. Wright, B. C. Smith and C. Macdonald (eds.), Knowing Our Own Minds. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 13–45.
Wright, C. 2002. ‘(Anti-)sceptics Simple and Subtle: G. E. Moore and John McDowell’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65: 330–48.
Wright, C. 2001. Rails to Infinity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zahavi, D. 2006. Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zangaladze, A., Epstein, C. M., Grafton, S. T. and Sathian, K. 1999. ‘Involvement of Visual Cortex in Tactile Discrimination of Orientation’, Nature, 401: 587–90.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed