Richard Dub

Feelings of authorship and feelings of ownership are difficult to place within a taxonomy of psychological types. This chapter defends the thesis that these “feelings of mineness” are emotions. Firstly, I describe the intentional structure and functional role of emotions, arguing that feelings of mineness have a similar structure and role. Secondly, I present what I take to be the best evidence for the affective status of feelings of mineness: their ability to generate delusions. Finally, I provide responses to the criticism that emotions and affect are necessarily evaluative but feelings of mineness are not evaluative.

Dennett has long maintained that one of the keystones of Intentional Systems Theory is an assumption of rationality. To deploy the Intentional Stance is to presume from the outset that the target of interpretation is rational. This paper examines the history of rationality constraints on mental state ascription. I argue that the reasons that Dennett and his philosophical brethren present for positing rationality constraints are not convincing. If humans are found to be rational, this will not be because a presumption of rationality must be built into the deployment of the Intentional Stance. It will be an empirical finding. Rationality will be an outcome of mental state ascription rather than a condition on ascription.

Psychopathological delusions have a number of features that are curiously difficult to explain. Delusions are resistant to counterevidence and impervious to counterargument. Delusions are theoretically, affectively, and behaviorally circumscribed: delusional individuals often do not act on their delusions and often do not update beliefs on the basis of their delusions. Delusional individuals are occasionally able to distinguish their delusions from other beliefs, sometimes speaking of their “delusional reality.” To explain these features, I offer a model according to which, contrary to appearances, delusions are not beliefs at all. Delusions are acceptances that are generated by pathologically powerful cognitive feelings. This model has implications for the way that we should think about non-pathological doxastic states and emotions.