Jan Maes

This paper provides a concise description and discussion of bottom–up and top–down approaches to misattribution of agency in schizophrenia. It explores if first-person accounts of passivity phenomena can provide support for one of these approaches. The focus is on excerpts in which the writers specifically examine their experiences of external influence. None of the accounts provides arguments that fit easily with only one of the possible approaches, which is in line with current attempts to theoretical integration.

This paper provides a concise description and discussion of bottom–up and top–down approaches to misattribution of agency in schizophrenia. It explores if first-person accounts of passivity phenomena can provide support for one of these approaches. The focus is on excerpts in which the writers specifically examine their experiences of external influence. None of the accounts provides arguments that fit easily with only one of the possible approaches, which is in line with current attempts to theoretical integration.

Steels & Belpaeme (S&B) are clearly interested in the possible test their models may provide for human language theories. However, they only superficially address the assumptions underlying their own agent architecture, while these are of crucial relevance to the topic of human language. These assumptions fit an Augustinian picture of language, which Wittgenstein challenges in his Philosophical Investigations. It is too early to draw conclusions regarding human language evolution from such models.