Adam Bradley

Our experience is pervaded with affect—positive or negative felt valence. Affect is thought to play a crucial role not just in emotions and moods, but also in perception, cognition, and decision-making. What might happen, then, if affect is disrupted? Subjects suffering from depersonalization give us an idea. There is significant evidence that depersonalization is in part an affective disorder. But of what kind? Here we face a puzzle. As many researchers note, depersonalized subjects do not appear to lack affect entirely. Indeed, a common complaint is that depersonalization is unpleasant. Thus, it is not plausible that depersonalization consists in a complete loss of affect. To resolve this problem, I develop a novel account of the affective deficit that lies at the heart of depersonalization/derealization disorder (DDD). In particular, I argue that depersonalization consists at least partly in a deficit in affective immediacy, or the role that affective states typically play in directly motivating certain thoughts and behaviors. This direct motivational force in turn makes these thoughts and actions readily intelligible to the subject. Having lost affective immediacy, depersonalized subjects feel detached from their own affective experiences and the thoughts and behaviors that they prompt. I argue that this account can shed light not only on the affective symptoms of depersonalization/derealization disorder but also resolve the aforementioned puzzle. I also argue that it helps us to understand the structure and nature of affective experience itself, in particular the way in which affective experience typically exerts its rational authority.

This paper introduces and clarifies an intuitive yet neglected hypothesis: the attention-welfare link, according to which (roughly) the degree of attention directed towards valenced experiences modulates the degree to which these experiences are good or bad for their subject. We show that the link is supported by reflection on cases and that it is best understood in terms of phenomenal attention rather than functional attention. To conclude, we describe three applications of the link: first, it provides grounds for rejecting popular sentientist views of welfare; second, it sheds light on how to understand the resonance constraint; and third, it points towards a previously-unappreciated path to individuals with super-human welfare capacity.

In a recent paper, Simon Goldstein and Cameron Domenico Kirk-Giannini argue that some current AI systems, namely artificial language agents, are plausible bearers of wellbeing. Central to their case is the claim that possession of mental states such as beliefs and desires is a precondition of wellbeing on several prominent accounts of wellbeing and that language agents possess such mental states. In this paper, I raise several issues for Goldstein and Kirk-Giannini’s case for language agent cognition and hence wellbeing. In particular, I argue that a careful look at both the behavioral outputs and the architecture of language agents raises doubts as to whether they possess mental states of the sort relevant to wellbeing. A broader lesson of my discussion is that work on AI wellbeing requires deeper engagement with philosophical and cognitive scientific work on the nature of states such as belief and desire.

As ever more advanced digital systems are created, it becomes increasingly likely that some of these systems will be digital minds, i.e. digital subjects of experience. With digital minds comes the risk of digital suffering. The problem of digital suffering is that of mitigating this risk. We argue that the problem of digital suffering is a high stakes moral problem and that formidable epistemic obstacles stand in the way of solving it. We then propose a strategy for solving it: Access Monitor Prevent (AMP). AMP uses a ‘dancing qualia’ argument to link the functional states of certain digital systems to their experiences—this yields epistemic access to digital minds. With that access, we can prevent digital suffering by only creating advanced digital systems that we have such access to, monitoring their functional profiles, and preventing them from entering states with functional markers of suffering. After introducing and motivating AMP, we confront limitations it faces and identify some options for overcoming them. We argue that AMP fits especially well with—and so provides a moral reason to prioritize—one approach to creating such systems: whole brain emulation. We also contend that taking other paths to digital minds would be morally risky.

We argue that AIs will plausibly soon possess a form of moral agency—interest-conferring agency—that bestows them with distinctive moral interests (rights, welfare). This fact has important ethical consequences because the emergence of agency-conferred interests in AIs will bring with it the potential for dystopian moral catastrophes. We identify and describe three in particular. First, there is a threat of artificial absurdity, a condition in which AIs have self-conceptions that are disconnected from reality in a way that detracts significance from their lives. Second, there are oppressive scenarios in which AI’s have rights that are grounded in their agency and violated on a large scale. Third, there are distributive disasters in which the distribution of different forms of moral agency results in an unjust society. We contend that these risks deserve to be considered alongside more familiar existential and suffering risks, and that urgent steps must be taken to mitigate them in order to avoid a digital dystopia.

Are we acquainted with the self in experience? It may seem so. After all, we tend to be confident in our own existence. A natural explanation for this confidence is that the self somehow shows up in experience. Yet philosophers in both the Eastern and Western philosophical traditions have been sceptical of self-acquaintance. Despite centuries of debate, the matter remains controversial. But the persistence of this dispute is puzzling. Why can we not simply settle this question by introspection? Here, many philosophers hold that the self is elusive. Hence, to address this question we need to use a more indirect method. To this end, philosophers have turned to pathologies of self-awareness such as depersonalization and thought insertion to argue for self-acquaintance, a strategy I label the Pathology Argument. In this paper, I criticize the Pathology Argument on the grounds that we can better explain the symptoms of these disorders without appeal to self-acquaintance.

A morally acceptable course of AI development should avoid two dangers: creating unaligned AI systems that pose a threat to humanity and mistreating AI systems that merit moral consideration in their own right. This paper argues these two dangers interact and that if we create AI systems that merit moral consideration, simultaneously avoiding both of these dangers would be extremely challenging. While our argument is straightforward and supported by a wide range of pretheoretical moral judgments, it has far-reaching moral implications for AI development. Although the most obvious way to avoid the tension between alignment and ethical treatment would be to avoid creating AI systems that merit moral consideration, this option may be unrealistic and is perhaps fleeting. So, we conclude by offering some suggestions for other ways of mitigating mistreatment risks associated with alignment.

Moods, orthodoxy holds, exist outside the space of reasons. A depressed subject may change their thoughts and behaviors as a result of their depression. But, according to this view, their mood gives them no genuine reason to do so. Instead, moods are mere causal influences on cognition. The issue is that moods, with their diffuse phenomenology, appear to lack intentionality (Directionlessness). But intentionality appears to be a necessary condition on rationality (The Content Constraint). Together, these principles conflict with the idea that moods are rational states of mind (Mood Rationality). The inconsistency of these three principles is the Puzzle of Mood Rationality. Now to many, this puzzle is hardly vexing: we should reject Mood Rationality. But, I argue, Mood Rationality is true despite its unpopularity. Thus, we need another way of resolving the puzzle. To do so, I distinguish intentionality as a first‐personal, phenomenological notion from representation as a third‐personal, cognitive scientific notion. I then argue that moods satisfy a revised version of the Content Constraint and sketch an account of moods as representational but non‐intentional mental states, drawing on the Valuationist paradigm in affective neuroscience. I end by showing how this account enables us to explain moods’ rationality.

Bodily pain strikes many philosophers as deeply paradoxical. The issue is that pains seem to bear both physical characteristics, such as a location in the body, and mental characteristics, such being mind-dependent. In this paper I clarify and address this alleged paradox of pain. I begin by showing how a further assumption, Objectivism, the thesis that what one feels in one’s body when one is in pain is something mind-independent, is necessary for the generation of the paradox. Consequently, the paradox can be avoided if one rejects this idea. However, doing so raises its own difficulties, for it is not obvious how anything can possess all of the features we typically associate with bodily pain. To address this puzzle and finally put the paradox of pain to rest, I develop the Embodied View, a novel metaphysical account on which pains are constitutively mind-dependent features of parts of a subject’s body.

Monothematic delusions are delusions whose contents pertain to a single subject matter. Examples include Capgras delusion, the delusion that a loved one has been replaced by an impostor, and Cotard delusion, the delusion that one is dead or does not exist. Two-factor accounts of such delusions hold that they are the result of both an experiential deficit, for instance flattened affect, coupled with an aberrant cognitive response to that deficit. In this paper we develop a new expressivist two-factor account of delusion. In contrast to existing endorsement and explanationist accounts, which treat delusions as either explanations or endorsements of the contents of these disordered experiences, we hold that delusional beliefs have an expressive function: they characterize, in impressionistic terms, what the subject’s experience is like for them. We show how our account improves upon existing two-factor views in explaining the central features of monothematic delusions, in particular the way in which delusional subjects fall short of the ideal of rationality.

In certain startling neurological and psychiatric conditions, what is ordinarily most intimate and familiar to us—our own body—can feel alien. For instance, in cases of somatoparaphrenia subjects misattribute their body parts to others, while in cases of depersonalization subjects feel estranged from their bodies. These ownership disorders thus appear to consist in a loss of any feeling of bodily ownership, the felt sense we have of our bodies as our own. Against this interpretation of ownership disorders, I defend Sufficiency, the thesis that every experience of bodily awareness suffices for a feeling of bodily ownership. Since Sufficiency conflicts with a face‐value interpretation of these ownership disorders, the burden is on me to explain away the apparent tension. To do so, I identify and correct what I believe to be the fundamental mistake in the extant literature on the feeling of bodily ownership, namely the tendency to treat the notion of a feeling of bodily ownership as a single psychological construct. Instead, I distinguish the feeling of minimal ownership, the first‐personal character of bodily awareness, from the feeling of affective ownership, the distinctive type of felt concern we have for our bodies. I motivate this distinction by raising the disownership puzzle, the fact that subjects suffering from ownership disorders display an ambiguous set of symptoms, arguing the distinction I draw between minimal and affective ownership is just what is required to resolve the puzzle.