Andrea Rivadulla-Duró

This paper provides a philosophical analysis of striking results in the science of self-talk. Subtle grammatical variations in the way we address ourselves in our inner voice—using the first-person pronoun 'I' versus the second-person pronoun 'You' or one’s own name—has distinct effects on motivation, emotion regulation, and performance, even when the content of the proposition entertained remains the same. According to the dominant explanation, indirect self-talk involves a shift in perspective that enhances psychological self-distance. In this paper, I argue that appealing to psychological distance in this context is both obscure and unexplanatory. Instead, I propose a more direct account of the effects, drawing on the Prima Facie View of perceptual imagination. I argue that the differential efficacy of indirect self-talk stems from the implicit assertoric force of auditory imagery: when we address ourselves in the second or third person, we have the prima facie impression that someone else is making a claim about us. This account builds on the cognitive architecture of imagery processing and explains the effect as arising from associative responses to grammatical structures typically used by others when addressing us.

The Simulation Theory of Memory states that to remember an episode is to simulate it in the imagination (Michaelian, 2016a, b ), making memory thus reducible to the act of imagining. This paper examines Simulation Theory’s resources to account for our ability to distinguish episodic memory from free imagination. The theory suggests that we can reliably do so because of the distinctive phenomenology episodic memory comes with (i.e., a _feeling of remembering_), which other episodic imaginings lack. I will raise two objections to how the feeling of remembering is engineered in the theory, followed by an exhaustive exploration of the theory’s resources to ground the mechanism underlying the elicitation of such feeling. I will conclude that the Simulation Theory cannot simultaneously defend the simulational character of episodic memory and ground our ability to discriminate between memories and imaginings.

Emotions can be insensitive to certain attributes of a situation: Fear of flying is not always reduced by remembering air crash probabilities. A large body of evidence shows that information on probabilities, large numerical counts, and intentions is frequently disregarded in the elicitation and regulation of emotions. To date, no existing theory comprehensively accounts for the features that tend to be overlooked by emotion. In this paper, I call attention to the common denominator of such features: they do not contribute to the iconic representation of events. For instance, the exceedingly low probability of a plane crash does not affect its imagistic representation (i.e., the iconic representation of the event is silent about the event’s probability). This paper introduces the Iconic Prioritization Hypothesis, positing that the prioritization of input in the iconic format by emotions can explain the neglect of information that is representationally silent in this format. Delving into the causes of this format prioritization, I argue that emotion might favour iconicity as it is the format of immediate information about our surroundings (perception) and of stored first-hand evidence (episodic memory). Lastly, the hypothesis's compatibility with philosophical theories of emotion causation and its implications for experimental research are examined.

Perception is said to have assertoric force: It inclines the perceiver to believe its content. In contrast, perceptual imagination is commonly taken to be non-assertoric: Imagining winning a piano contest does not incline the imaginer to believe they actually won. However, abundant evidence from clinical and experimental psychology shows that imagination influences attitudes and behavior in ways similar to perceptual experiences. To account for these phenomena, I propose that perceptual imaginings have implicit assertoric force and put forth a theory—the Prima Facie View—as a unified explanation for the empirical findings reviewed. According to this view, mental images are treated as percepts in operations involving associative memory. Finally, I address alternative explanations that could account for the reviewed empirical evidence—such as a Spinozian model of belief formation or Gendler’s notion of alief—as well as potential objections to the Prima Facie View.