The content of intentions.
Abstract
By distinguishing between prior intentions and intentions in action, Searle has helped solve a number of difficulties confronted by the earlier versions of the causal theory of actions. Yet this distinction also raises important new issues. In particular, once a distinction is posited between two types of intentions, one must specify what the exact nature of their respective contents is and explain how the two types of intentions are connected. I suggest that in addressing those issues we could benefit from the insights provided by recent work in the coginitive neuroscience of action. I try to show how this work can help us give a more precise characterization of the content of intentions in action and bridge the gap between prior intentions and intentions in action.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 159
- Authors
- Patherie, E.
- Affiliations
- École Polytechnique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Patherie, Elisabeth
- Venue
- Mind & Language
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 400-432
- ISSN
- 0268-1064 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0017
- OpenAlex
- W2170338257
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 3.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Mind & Language (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Keywords
- intention, causal theory of action, John Searle, philosophy of action
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review