Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 176, Issue 8, pp 2119–2137 | Cite as

Flexible occurrent control

  • Denis BuehlerEmail author
Article
  • 256 Downloads

Abstract

There has recently been much interest in the role of attention in controlling action. The role has been mischaracterized as an element in necessary and sufficient conditions on agential control. In this paper I attempt a new characterization of the role. I argue that we need to understand attentional control in order to fully understand agential control. To fully understand agential control we must understand paradigm exercises of agential control. Three important accounts of agential control—intentional, reflective, and goal-represented control—do not fully explain such exercises. I argue that understanding them requires understanding how deployments of visual attention implement flexible occurrent control, or a capacity to flexibly adjust the degree of control that individuals exercise over their actions. While such deployments of attention are neither necessary nor sufficient for exercising agential control, they constitute an attentional skill for controlling action, understanding which is central to fully understanding agential control. We can appreciate its centrality if we appreciate that this attentional skill for controlling action is plausibly crucial to acting non-negligently.

Keywords

Agential control Action Attention Skill Negligence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am especially grateful to Tyler Burge for his help with this paper. I also thank Harry Frankfurt, John Garthoff, Pamela Hieronymi, Kevin Lande, Yannig Luthra, Eliot Michaelson, Ian Phillips, and Michael Rescorla for their comments. I have benefited from reactions at the Pacific APA 2014 in San Diego, the First Brentano Workshop with M.G.F. Martin in Tübingen 2015, and the Oxford Philosophy of Mind WIP 2016.

References

  1. Adolph, K. (2008). The growing body in action: What infant locomotion tells us about perceptually guided action. In R. L. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney, & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aguilar, J. (2003). Agency and Control, McGill University Dissertation.Google Scholar
  3. Aguilar, J. (2012). Basic causal deviance, action repertoires, and reliability. Philosophical Issues, 22, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
  5. Bratman, M. (1987). Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  6. Bratman, M. (2007). Structures of agency. New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brozzo, C. (2017). Motor intentions: How intentions and motor representations come together. Mind and Language, 32(2), 231–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burge, T. (1986). Intellectual norms and foundations of mind. In T. Burge (Ed.), Foundations of Mind. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  9. Burge, T. (1993). Concepts, definitions, and meanings. In T. Burge (Ed.), Foundations of mind. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  10. Burge, T. (2009). Primitive agency and natural norms. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79, 251–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burge, T. (2010). Origins of objectivity. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butterfill, S., & Sinigaglia, C. (2014). Intention and motor representation in purposive action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(1), 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51, 1484–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cherry, E. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cross, F., & Jackson, R. (2010). The attentive spider: Search-image use by a mosquito-eating predator. Ethology, 116(3), 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Datta, R., & DeYoe, E. (2009). I know where your were secretly attending! the topography of human visual attention revealed with fMRI. Vision Research, 49(10), 1037–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. In D. Davidson (Ed.), 1980, Actions & Events. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  18. Davidson, D. (1971). Agency. In D. Davidson (Ed.), 1980, Actions & Events. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  19. Fowler, G., & Sherk, H. (2003). Gaze during visually guided locomotion in cats. Behavioral Brain Research, 139, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franchak, J., & Adolph, K. (2010). Visually guided navigation: Head-mounted eye-tracking of natural locomotion in children and adults. Vision Research, 50(24), 2766–2774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frankfurt, H. (1988). The importance of what we care about. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fridland, E. (2014). They’ve lost control: Reflections on skill. Synthese, 191(12), 2729–2750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fridland, E. (2017a). Skill and motor control: Intelligence all the way down. Philosophical Studies, 174, 1539–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fridland, E. (2017b). Motor skill and moral virtue. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 80, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geruschat, D., Turano, K., & Stahl, J. (1998). Traditional measures of mobility performance and retinitis pigmentosa. Optometry and Vision Science, 75, 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamid, S., Stankiewicz, B., & Hayhoe, M. (2010). Gaze patterns in navigation: Encoding information in large-scale environments. Journal of Vision, 10, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayhoe, M., & Ballard, D. (2005). Eye movements in natural behavior. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayhoe, M., Shrivastava, A., Mruczek, R., & Pelz, J. (2003). Visual memory and motor planning in a natural task. Journal of Vision, 3, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herman, B. (2017). Thinking about imperfect duties. In D. Sobel, P. Vallentyne, & S. Wall (Eds.), Oxford studies in political philosophy (Vol. 3). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  30. Itti, L., Rees, G., & Tzotzos, J. (Eds.). (2005). Neurobiology of attention. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, R., & Cross, F. (2011). Spider cognition. Advances in Insect Physiology, 41, 115–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Land, M., & Tatler, B. (2009). Looking and action: Vision and eye movements in natural behavior. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leslie, S. (2008). Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review, 117, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levy, N. (2017). Embodied Savoir-Faire: Knowedge-how requires motor representations. Synthese, 194, 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ling, S., Jehee, J., & Pestilli, F. (2014). A review of the mechanisms by which attentional feedback shapes visual selectivity. Brain, Structure & Function, 3, 1237–1250.Google Scholar
  36. Luthra, Y. (2016). Non-rational aspects of skilled agency. Philosophical Studies, 173, 2267–2289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDowell, J. (2010). What is the content of an intention in action? Ratio, 23, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mele, A. (1992). Springs of action. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  39. Mele, A. (2000). Goal-directed action: Teleological explanations, causal theories, and deviance. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 279–300.Google Scholar
  40. Mele, A., & Moser, P. (1994). Intentional action. Nous, 28(1), 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mole, C. (2011). Attention is cognitive unison: An essay in philosophical psychology. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  42. Montero, B. (2010). Does bodily awareness interfere with highly skilled movement? Inquiry, 53(2), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Montero, B. (2016). Thought in action. Expertise and the conscious mind. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murdoch, I. (1970). Sovereignty of good. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  45. Mylopoulos, M., & Pacherie, E. (2017). Intentions and motor representations: The interface challenge. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8(2), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nanay, B. (2013). Between perception and action. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pacherie, E. (2006). Towards a dynamic theory of intentions. In S. Pockett, et al. (Eds.), Does consciousness cause behavior?. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  48. Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107(1), 179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Papineau, D. (2013). In the zone. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 73, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Papineau, D. (2015). Choking and the yips. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14(2), 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pashler, H. (1999). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Peacocke, C. (1998). Conscious attitudes, attention, and self-knowledge. Knowing our own minds (pp. 63–98). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  53. Posner, M. (1980). Orienting of attention. The Quartly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shadmehr, R. (2012). Biological learning and control. Cambridge: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shadmehr, R., & Wise, S. (2005). The computational neurobiology of reaching and pointing. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  57. Shepherd, J. (2014). The contours of control. Philosophical Studies, 170, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shepherd, J. (2015). Conscious control over action. Mind and Language, 30(3), 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shiffrin, S. (2017). The moral neglegt of negligence. In D. Sobel, P. Vallentyne, & S. Wall (Eds.), Oxford studies in political philosophy (Vol. 3). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  60. Smithies, D. (2011). Attention is rational-access consciousness. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), 2011, Attention. Philosophical & Psychological Essays. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  61. Sprague, N., Ballard, D., & Robinson, A. (2007). Modeling embodied visual behaviors. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 4, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stanley, J., & Krakauer, J. (2013). Motor skill depends on knowledge of facts. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.0050.Google Scholar
  63. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Velleman, D. (2000). The possibility of practical reason. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library.Google Scholar
  65. Velleman, D. (2009). How we get along. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Watzl, S. (2011). Attention as structuring the stream of consciousness. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), 2011, Attention. Philosophical & Psychological Essays. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  67. Wellman, H. (2014). Making minds: How theory of mind develops. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu, W. (2011a). Confronting many-many problems: Attention and agentive control. Nous, 45(1), 50–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wu, W. (2011b). Attention as selection for action. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), Attention: Philosophical and psychological essays. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  70. Wu, W. (2014). Attention. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wu, W. (2016). Experts and deviants: The story of agentive control. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 93(1), 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wulf, G. (2007). Attention and motor skill learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  73. Zuberbuehler, Z., & Janmaat, K. (2010). Foraging behavior in nonhuman primates. In M. L. Platt & A. A. Ghazanfar (Eds.), Primate Neuroethology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches SeminarUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations