Xiuyuan An

According to the extended mind thesis (EM) and other enactivism proposals, the extendedconscious mind thesis (ECM) asserts that the material substrate of conscious mental states can extend beyond theboundary of the brain and into the environment. However, EM does not entail ECM. We examine the argumentsfor and against ECM, focusing on the supporting side's reasoning for the parity principle argument andsensorimotor interaction. We contend that their reasoning is flawed, and that they cannot guarantee the enactiyeeffect in explaining all of the characters of consciousness. As a result, we suggest that we need a consensus onthe theory of consciousness, one that can meet the conceivability and reflexivity criteria of consciousness, as atheoretical prerequisite for exploring ECM while also assisting us in understanding the nature of mind.

The question of how we can be certain that we have an epistemic justification for our self-knowledge has been among a central debate in philosophy of mind. The basic idea of the immunity to error through misidentification thesis (IEM) in explaining self-knowledge is that certain self-ascriptions of mental states concerning first-person content are not prone to error for the self-conscious ‘I’-thoughts. One of the accounts that supports that claim is agentialism. According to this view, we can have beliefs and intentions about ourselves because we exercise agency over them. However, irrational factors such as emotional interference, inconsistent subject affiliation, and different views on the mind leading to different self-references can call this claim to the subject’s rational agency into question. This paper examines the agentialism, identifies its flaws, and presents two alternative strategies to support a rationalist account of self-knowledge—which is generally weaker than agentialism. It argues that the agential approach to self-knowledge is too demanding on the subject’s consciousness thus a more moderate approach is required to satisfy both first-person authority and the epistemic reliability of self-knowledge.