Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 243–261 | Cite as

The body in action

  • Thor GrunbaumEmail author
Regular article

Abstract

This article is about how to describe an agent’s awareness of her bodily movements when she is aware of executing an action for a reason. Against current orthodoxy, I want to defend the claim that the agent’s experience of moving has an epistemic place in the agent’s awareness of her own intentional action. In “The problem,” I describe why this should be thought to be problematic. In “Motives for denying epistemic role,” I state some of the main motives for denying that bodily awareness has any epistemic role to play in the content of the agent’s awareness of her own action. In “Kinaesthetic awareness and control,” I sketch how I think the experience of moving and the bodily sense of agency or control are best described. On this background, I move on to present, in “Arguments for epistemic role,” three arguments in favour of the claim that normally the experience of moving is epistemically important to one’s awareness of acting intentionally. In the final “Concluding remarks,” I round off by raising some of the worries that motivated the denial of my claim in the first place.

Keywords

Bodily awareness Intentional action Epistemology of action Sense of agency and ownership 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Johannes Roessler, Dan Zahavi, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful discussions and criticism of earlier versions of the paper. The research for this paper was funded by the Danish National Research Foundation and the Carlsberg Foundation.

References

  1. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957/2000). Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. (1981). The nature of mind. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bermúdez, J. L. (1998). The paradox of self-consciousness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brewer, B. (1995). Bodily awareness and the self. In J.L. Bermúdez, A. Marcel, & N. Eilan (Eds.), The body and the self. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, J. (1995). Pride and a daily marathon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Della Sala, S., Marchetti, C., & Spinnler, H. (1994). The anarchic hand: a fronto-mesial sign. In F. Boller and J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Falvey, K. (2000). Knowledge in intention. Philosophical Studies, 99, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frankfurt, H. (1978). The problem of action. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15(2), 157–162.Google Scholar
  9. Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gallagher, S., & Marcel, A. (1999). The self in contextualized action. In S. Gallagher & J. Shear (Eds.), Models of the self. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  12. Ginet, C. (1990). On action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Haggard, P. (2005). Conscious intention and motor cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(6), 290–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hornsby, J. (1980). Actions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  15. Hossack, K. (2003). Consciousness in act and action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 2, 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Husserl, E. (1973). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität II, Husserliana XIV. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  17. Jeannerod, M. (1999). To act or not to act: Perspectives on the representation of action. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 1–29.Google Scholar
  18. Jeannerod, M., & Pacherie, E. (2004). Agency, simulation and self-identification. Mind and Language, 19(2), 113–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lowe, E. J. (2000). An introduction to the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Marcel, A. (1998). Blindsight and shape perception: Deficit of visual consciousness or of visual function? Brain, 121, 1565–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marchetti, C., & Della Sala, S. (1998). Disentangling the alien and anarchic hand. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 3(3), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, M. (1995). Bodily awareness: A sense of ownership. In J. L. Bermúdez, A. Marcel, & N. Eilan (Eds.), The body and the self. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. McGinn, C. (1982). The character of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Moran, R. (2004). Anscombe on ‘Practical Knowledge’. In J. Hyman & H. Steward (Eds.), Agency and action: Royal institute of philosophy supplement 55 (pp. 43–68).Google Scholar
  25. O’Brien, L. (2003). On knowing one’s own actions. In J. Roessler & N. Eilan (Eds.), Agency and self-awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. O’Shaughnessy, B. (1973). Trying (as the mental “pineal gland”). The Journal of Philosophy, 70(13), 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Shaughnessy, B. (1980). The will, II. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Peacocke, C. (2003) Action: Awareness, ownership, and knowledge. In J. Roessler & N. Eilan (Eds.), Agency and self-awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Perenin, M. T., & Rossetti, Y. (1996). Residual grasping in a hemianopic field: a further dissociation between perception and action. Neuroreport 7, 793–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pietroski, P. (1998) Actions, adjuncts, and agency. Mind 107(425), 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pisella et al. (2000). An ‘automatic pilot’ for the hand in human posterior parietal cortex: Toward reinterpreting optic ataxia. Nature Neuroscience 3, 729–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G., & Edward, M. G. (2000). Visual affordances and object selection. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes (Attention and Performce XVIII). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Zahavi, D. (2005) Subjectivity and selfhood: Investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Subjectivity Research & Sect. for Philosophy, Department of Media, Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations