Abstract: In this paper we provide an account of the structural underpinnings of self-awareness. We offer both an abstract, logical account—by way of suggestions for how to build a genuinely self- referring artificial agent—and a biological account, via a discussion of the role of somatoception in supporting and structuring self-awareness more generally. Central to the account is a discussion of the necessary motivational properties of self-representing mental tokens, in light of which we offer a novel definition of self-representation. We also discuss the role of such tokens in organizing self-specifying information, which leads to a naturalized restatement of the guarantee that introspective awareness is immune to error due to mis-identification of the subject

Abstract: This paper contrasts two approaches to agentive self-awareness: a high-level, narrative-based account, and a low-level comparator-based account. We argue that an agent’s narrative self-conception has a role to play in explaining their agentive judgments, but that agentive experiences are explained by low-level comparator mechanisms that are grounded in the very machinery responsible for action-production

Abstract: Dualism, but he seems at least to have acknowledged the possibility that Descartes might be right on this issue, i.e., that the real self is a _res cogitans_. Maybe this is why talk of ‘selves’ is

Abstract: With his notion of absolute consciousness, Sartre tries to rethink the relation between consciousness and the self. What is the origin of subjectivity in relation to a consciousness that is characterized as impersonal and as a radical lucidity? In this article, I attempt to question that origin and the nature as such of the subject in its relation to a consciousness that in its essence is not yet subjective. On the contrary, it is characterized by a selfpresence that is so radical that it threatens every form of self-knowledge

Abstract: [1] To know who one is, and also know whether one's experiences really belong to oneself, do not normally present any problem. It nevertheless happens that people do not recognise themselves as they walk by a mirror or do not understand that they fit some particular description. But there are situations in which it really seems impossible to be wrong about oneself. Of that, Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote:

It is possible that, say in an accident, I should feel pain in my arm, see a broken arm at
my side, and think it is mine, when really it is my neighbour's. And I could, looking into
a mirror, mistake a bump on his forehead for one on mine. On the other hand there is
no question of recognising a person when I say I have toothache.... it is as impossible
that in making the statement "I have toothache" I should have mistaken another
person for myself, as it is to moan with pain by mistake, having mistaken someone
else for me. (1958: 67)

In the passage in which this remark is found, Wittgenstein distinguishes between two kinds of use of "I". The first use, as object, as in "I have broken my arm" or "The wind is blowing in my hair", he holds, involves the recognition of a particular person, and there is the possibility of error as concerns the identity of the person. In the other use, as subject, as in "I think it will rain" or "I am trying to lift my arm", no person is recognised. No mistake can be made about who the subject is

Abstract: Externalism is the view that some crucial element in the content of our representational states is outside of not just the states whose content they are but even the person who has those states. If so, the contents of such states (and, many hold, the states themselves) do not supervene on anything local to the person whose has them. There are a number of different candidates for what that element is: function (Dretske), causal connection (Putnam, Kripke, Fodor), and social context (Davidson). (Burge has foot in both the causal connection and the social context camps and Dennett fits in here somewhere, too.) This diversity will turn out to be important. The paper starts with Dretske but gets to other varieties of

Abstract: What is a self? I will try to answer this question by developing an analogy with something much simpler, something which is nowhere near as puzzling as a self, but has some properties in common with selves. What I have in mind is the center of gravity of an object. This is a well-behaved concept in Newtonian physics. But a center of gravity is not an atom or a subatomic particle or any other physical item in the world. It has no mass; it has no color; it has no physical properties at all, except for spatio-temporal location. It is a fine example of what Hans Reichenbach would call an abstractum. It is a purely abstract object. It is, if you like , a theorist's fiction. It is not one of the real things in the universe in addition to the atoms. But it is a fiction that has nicely defined, well delineated and well behaved role within physics

Abstract: Recent studies in developmental psychology have found evidence to suggest that there exists an innate system that accounts for the possibilities of early infant imitation and the existence of phantom limbs in cases of congenital absence of limbs. These results challenge traditional assumptions about the status and development of the body schema and body image, and about the nature of the translation process between perceptual experience and motor ability

Abstract: Gallagher, S. 2000. Ways of Knowing the Self and the Other. An Introduction to Ipseity and Alterity, a special issue of the online journal _Arobase: Journal des lettres et sciences humaines,_ 4 (1-2). Hardcopy publication: S. Gallagher and S. Watson. (in press). _Ipseity and Alterity: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Intersubjectivity_ . Rouen: Presses Universitaires de

Abstract: I praise Metzinger's book _On Being No One_ by calling my essay "Finally Some One" meaning that I am pleased to see a first rate philosopher so carefully reading the neurobiological literature. Especially as it pertains to sleep and dreaming. Metzinger is comprehensive and comprehending. By studying the neurobiological substrates of normal dreaming, lucid dreaming and related altered states of consciousness (such as out of body experiences, hypnosis, and deja' vu), we may gain insight into the general rules governing brain activity in relation to subjective experience

Abstract: From my Consciousness in Action, ch. 2; see Consciousness in Action for bibligraphy. This chapter revises material from "Kant on Spontaneity and the Myth of the Giving", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1993-94, pp. 137-164, and "Myth Upon Myth", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1996, vol. 96, pp. 253-260

Abstract: Self-awareness is commonly expressed by means of indexical expressions, primarily, first- person pronouns like ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘we’, ‘my’, ‘myself’, ‘mine’ and so forth. While not all indexical contents are first-personal, indexical usage suggests a kind of reflexive awareness since its terms always convey information about the speaker. For example, hearing someone say: ‘you’d better be prepared; it’s hot here today’, I conclude that the referent of ‘you’ is being addressed by the speaker, hence, believed by the speaker to be subject to influence through communication. Moreover, for normal usage, I assume that the day in question is the very day during which the speaker made that utterance. Again, positional expressions like ‘next to’, ‘left of’, ‘beyond’, ‘later’ and so forth, typically convey the orientation of objects and events vis-à-vis the speaker’s position in time and space. Indexicals are always biographical, and therefore, from the speaker’s standpoint, autobiographical. If so, self- awareness is manifested or realized by the producer of any indexical utterance or any indexical thought. If indexicality graces every conscious state, in turn, then self-awareness is ubiquitous.¹ Does self-awareness accompany all indexically mediated states of consciousness? Answering this question—the main concern of this paper—requires close attention to the pragmatics of indexical usage and to distinctions among various notions of “awareness” and “self.” Among the important contrasts to be observed is between a _direct_ awareness of, say, a

Abstract: Abstract. In recent philosophy of mind, it is often assumed that consciousness and self-consciousness are two separate phenomena. In this paper, I argue that this is not quite right. The argument proceeds in two phases. First, I draw a distinction between