Two arguments supporting the thesis of the predictive nature of reasons for action

Michał Piekarski

doi:10.21697/2018.54.1.14

Published: 2019-03-29

Vol. 54 No. 1 (2018)

Two arguments supporting the thesis of the predictive nature of reasons for action

Michał Piekarski

Studia Philosophiae Christianae

Section: Papers

https://doi.org/10.21697/2018.54.1.14

Abstract

The dominant view in contemporary philosophy of action is that, to explain an action we need to provide a reason for it. A reason is what rationalises an action. According to Donald Davidson, before we can describe a reason we must identify the need that accompanies the performance of a given action, as well as the specific attitude of the agent to the action. The author of “Action, Reason and Cause” believes that the proattitude/ belief pair helps determine the reason for action, which is at the same time the action’s cause. Davidson’s view has a lot of supporters today and is strictly related to the so-called post-Humean theories of action. The objective of the present analysis is to demonstrate that the primary reason for action is not provided by the pro-attitude/belief pair, but by predictions due to which agents act in such and such a way. This expands on Elizabeth Anscombe’s intuition according to which each intention is predictive in nature. I will support the thesis about the predictive nature of reasons for action by means of two arguments. The first argument relies on the analysis of the Knobe effect concerning the asymmetry between attributing intentionality and attributing responsibility for actions; the other draws upon the theory of predictive processing.
The remainder of this paper has the following structure: in §1, I will discuss Donald Davidson’s theory. §2 will focus on Elizabeth Anscombe’s conception. In §3, I will examine an argument drawn from the analysis of the Knobe effect, according to which an agent will intentionally perform a given action when he can predict the effects of performing it. §4 will introduce the problem of providing reasons for action in the context of folkpsychological explanations. §5 will examine the theory of predictive processing. §6 will demonstrate that predictions serve a specific, normative role in the decision-making processes, whereas §7 will advance the argument from predictive processing whereby to explain an action is to identify specific predictive reasoning which caused the action to be performed . In the Conclusions, I will show the consequences of my main thesis for the problem of the nature of actions and explanations, as well as the rationale for using folk-psychological categories.

Keywords:

reason for action, agency, normativity, Knobe effect, predictions, predictive processing, folk psychology, uncertainty

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Michał Piekarski, THE PROBLEM OF LOGICAL FORM: WITTGENSTEIN AND LEIBNIZ , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 56 No. S1 (2020)
Michał Piekarski, (Gesichts)züge, Notation and Graphicness of Signs. Deconstruction in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 58 No. 2 (2022)
Michał Piekarski, Can action be normative? Some preliminary remarks , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 52 No. 3 (2016)
Michał Piekarski, One or many normativities? , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 54 No. 1 (2018)
Michał Piekarski, The problem of logical form: Wittgenstein and Leibniz , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 51 No. 1 (2015)
Michał Piekarski, One or many normativities? , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 54 No. 2 (2018)
Michał Piekarski, The foundation of phenomenology and the problem of language. Comments on Witold Płotka’s book "Studia z fenomenologii poznania" , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 55 No. 4 (2019)
Michał Piekarski, Editor's introduction: Distributed Cognition – A New Theory of Cognition for Cognitive Science? , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 60 No. 1 (2024)

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Piekarski, M. (2019). Two arguments supporting the thesis of the predictive nature of reasons for action. Studia Philosophiae Christianae, 54(1), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.21697/2018.54.1.14

Cited by / Share

References

Adams F., Intention and Intentional Action. The Simple View, Mind and Language 4(1986)1, 281–301.
Google Scholar

Adams F., Steadman A., Intentional Action in Ordinary Language. Core Concept or Pragmatic Understanding?, Analysis 64(2004), 173–181.
Google Scholar

Anscombe G. E. M., Intention, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1957.
Google Scholar

Bermúdez J.L., Philosophy of Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, London 2005.
Google Scholar

Bratman M., Two Faces of Intention, The Philosophical Review 93(1984)3, 375–376.
Google Scholar

Bratman M., Intention, Plans and Practical Reason, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1987.
Google Scholar

Burr Ch., Embodied Decisions and the Predictive Brain, in: Philosophy and Predictive Processing, eds. T. Metzinger, W. Wiese, MIND Group, Frankfurt am Main 2017. DOI: 10.15502/9783958573086.
Google Scholar

Burr Ch., Jones M., The body as laboratory: Prediction- error minimization, embodiment, and representation, Philosophical Psychology 29(2016)4, 586–600.
Google Scholar

Cisek P., Making decisions through a distributed consensus, Current Opinion in Neurobiology 22(2012)6, 927– 936.
Google Scholar

Cisek P., Pastor-Bernier A., On the challenges and mechanisms of embodied decisions, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(2014), 1655.
Google Scholar

Clark A., Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(2013), 181–204. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X12000477.
Google Scholar

Clark A., Surfing Uncertainty. Prediction, Action and the Embodied Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2016.
Google Scholar

Clark A., A nice surprise? Predictive processing and the active pursuit of novelty, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences (2017), 1–14. DOI: 10.1007/s11097-017-9525-z.
Google Scholar

Clark A., Beyond the ‘Bayesian Blur’: Predictive Processing and the Nature of Subjective Experience, Journal of Consciousness Studies (2017), 1–31.
Google Scholar

Churchland P.M., Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes, Journal of Philosophy 78(1981)2, 67–90.
Google Scholar

Cushman F., Mele A., Intentional Action: Two-and-Half Folk Concepts? in: Experimental Philosophy, eds. J. Knobe, S. Nichols, Oxford University Press, New York 2008, 171–188.
Google Scholar

Davidson D., Actions, Reasons and Causes, The Journal of Philosophy 60(1963)23, 685–700.
Google Scholar

Davidson D., Freedom to Act, in: D. Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events, Clarendon Press, Oxford 2001, 63–82.
Google Scholar

Friston K.J., The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain?, Trends in Cognitive Science 13(2009)7, 293–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005.
Google Scholar

Friston K.J., The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory?, Nature Neuroscience 11(2010), 127–138.
Google Scholar

Friston K.J., Daunizeau J. et al., Action and behavior: a free-energy formulation, Biological Cybernetics 102(2010)3, 227–260.
Google Scholar

Gallese V., Metzinger T., Motor ontology: The representational reality of goals, actions and selves, Philosophical Psychology 16(2003)3, 365–388.
Google Scholar

Gładziejewski P., Wyjaśnianie za pomocą reprezentacji mentalnych. Perspektywa mechanistyczna, FNP, Warszawa – Toruń 2015.
Google Scholar

Harman G., Practical Reasoning, Review of Metaphysics 29(1976)3, 431–463.
Google Scholar

Hohwy J., The Predictive Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013.
Google Scholar

Knobe J., Intentional Action and Side Effects in Ordinary Language, Analysis 63(2003)3, 190–193.
Google Scholar

Knobe J., Folk Psychology and Folk Morality: Response to Critics, Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24(2004)2, 270–279.
Google Scholar

Knobe J., The Concept of Intentional Action: A Case Study in the Uses of Folk Psychology, in: Experimental Philosophy, eds. J. Knobe, S. Nichols, Oxford University Press, New York 2008, 129–148
Google Scholar

Knobe J., Experimental Philosophy is Cognitive Science, in: A Companion to Experimental Philosophy, eds. J. Sytsma, W. Buckwalter, Willey-Blackwell, West Sussex 2016.
Google Scholar

Experimental Philosophy, eds. J. Knobe, N. Nichols, Oxford University Press, New York 2008.
Google Scholar

Koenigs M., Young L., Adolphs R., Tranel D., et al, Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements, Nature 446(2007), 908–911, DOI: 10.1038/nature05631.
Google Scholar

Machery E., Mallon R., Nichols S., Stich S., Semantics, cross-cultural style, Cognition 3(2004), 1–12.
Google Scholar

McCann H., Rationality and the Range of Intention, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10(1986)1, 191–211.
Google Scholar

McDowell J., Anscombe on Bodily Self-Knowledge, in: Essays on Anscombe’s Intention, ed. A. Ford, J. Hornsby, F. Stoutland, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 2011, 128–146.
Google Scholar

Mele A., Springs of Action, Oxford University Press, New York 1992.
Google Scholar

Mele A., Intentional action: Controversies, data, and core hypotheses, Philosophical Psychology 2(2003), 325–340.
Google Scholar

Mele A., Decisions, intentions, and free will, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 24(2005),146–152.
Google Scholar

Milner A.D., Goodale M. A., The Visual Brain in Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004.
Google Scholar

Nadelhoffer T., Blame, Badness, and Intentional Action: A Reply to Knobe and Mendlow, Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24(2004), 259–269.
Google Scholar

Nichols S., Ulatowski J., Intuitions and Individual Differences: The Knobe Effect Revisited, Mind and Language 4(2007), 346–365.
Google Scholar

Paprzycka K., Rozwiązanie problemu Butlera i wyjaśnienie efektu Knobe’a, Filozofia Nauki 22(2014)2, 73–96.
Google Scholar

Pezzulo G., Cisek P., Navigating the affordance landscape: Feedback control as a process model of behavior and cognition, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(2016), 414–424.
Google Scholar

Piekarski M., Efekt Knobe’a, normatywność i racje działania, Filozofia Nauki 97(2017)1, 109–128.
Google Scholar

Piekarski M., Normativity of Perception and the Predictive Processing, in: Die Philosophie der Wahrnehmung und Beobachtung / The Philosophy of Perception and Observation, eds. Ch. Limbeck-Lilienau, F. Stadler, Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, Kirchberg am Wechsel 2017, 199–201.
Google Scholar

Piekarski M., Commentary: Getting into predictive processing’s great guessing game: Bootstrap heaven or hell?, Frontiers in Psychology (2017), 8:1244. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01244.
Google Scholar

Piekarski M., Commentary: Brain, Mind, World: Predictive Coding, Neo- Kantianism, and Transcendental Idealism, Frontiers in Psychology (2017), 8:2077. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02077.
Google Scholar

Ravenscroft I., Folk Psychology as a Theory, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta, (Fall 2016 Edition), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/folkpsych-theory/>. (accessed on 12.04.2017).
Google Scholar

Schwartenbeck P., et al., Exploration, novelty, surprise, and free energy minimization, Frontiers in Psychology 2013, 4:710. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00710.
Google Scholar

Stich S., From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge MA 1983.
Google Scholar

Stoecker R., Davidson, In: A Companion to the Philosophy of Action, eds. T. O’Connor, C. Sandis, Blackwell, Oxford 2010, 598–605.
Google Scholar

Żuradzki T., Meta-Reasoning in Making Moral Decisions under Normative Uncertainty, in: Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation. Vol. II, eds. D. Mohammed, M. Lewiński, College Publications, London 2015, 1093–1104.
Google Scholar