Motor Representations Aren’t Intentions
Explains why motor representations aren’t intentions.
What are intentions?
Instrumental Actions: Goal-Directed and Habitual introduced two
minimally controversial assumptions about intention
Intentions are the upshot of
beliefs and desires (or are identical to one or both of these).
Intentions specify outcomes and (when things go well) coordinate actions
around those outcomes,
thereby binding together components of the action.
This section, we rely on a further minimally controversial assumption:
Intentions are propositional attitudes
and inferentially integrated
with beliefs, desires and other propositional attitudes.
This inferential integration allows them to play
a characteristic role in practical reasoning (see, for example, Bratman, 1987).
Why Motor Representations Are Not Intentions
Motor representations cannot be intentions
because motor representations differ from intentions with respect to their
To support this claim, we first need to understand the notion of
representational format (see below); we then need evidence that
the claim is true (see the recording or Butterfill & Sinigaglia, 2014, p. §3 on pp. 124ff).
Imagine you are in an unfamiliar city and are trying to get to the central station.
A stranger offers you two routes.
Each route could be represented by a distinct line on a paper map.
The difference between the two lines is a difference in content.
Each of the routes could alternatively have been represented by a distinct
series of instructions written on the same piece of paper; these
cartographic and propositional representations differ in format.
The format of a representation constrains its possible contents.
For example, a representation with a cartographic format cannot represent what is
represented by sentences such as `There could not be a mountain whose summit is inaccessible.'
The distinction between content and format is necessary because,
as the illustration shows, each can be varied independently of the other.
Ask a Question
Your question will normally be answered in the question
session of the next lecture.
More information about asking questions.
: For states to be inferentially integrated means that: (a) they can come to be nonaccidentally
related in ways that are approximately rational thanks to processes of inference and practical reasoning;
(b) in the absence of obstacles such as time pressure, distraction, motivations to be
irrational, self-deception or exhaustion, approximately rational harmony will
characteristically be maintained among those states that are currently active.
: The kind of representation characteristically involved in preparing, performing and monitoring sequences of small-scale actions such as grasping, transporting and placing an object.
They represent actual, possible, imagined or observed actions and their effects.
: Format is an aspect of representation distinct from content (and from vehicle). Consider that
a line on a map and a list of verbal instructions can both represent the same route through a city.
They differ in format: one is cartographic, the other linguistic.
Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intentions, plans, and practical reasoning
. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butterfill, S. A., & Sinigaglia, C. (2014). Intention and motor representation in purposive action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
(1), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2012.00604.x
Decety, J. (1996). Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate? Cognitive Brain Research
(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(95)00033-X
Decety, J., Jeannerod, M., & Prablanc, C. (1989). The timing of mentally represented actions. Behavioural Brain Research
(1–2), 35–42. https://doi.org/16/S0166-4328(89)80088-9
Fiori, F., Sedda, A., Ferrè, E. R., Toraldo, A., Querzola, M., Pasotti, F., … Bottini, G. (2013). Exploring motor and visual imagery in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Experimental Brain Research
Frak, V., Paulignan, Y., & Jeannerod, M. (2001). Orientation of the opposition axis in mentally simulated grasping. Experimental Brain Research
(1), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210000583
Gentilucci, M., Daprati, E., & Gangitano, M. (1998). Right-handers and left-handers have different representations of their own hand. Cognitive Brain Research
Jeannerod, M. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage
Jordan, K., Heinze, H. J., Lutz, K., Kanowski, M., & Jäncke, L. (2001). Cortical activations during the mental rotation of different visual objects. Neuroimage
Parsons, L. M. (1987). Imagined spatial transformations of one’s hands and feet. Cognitive Psychology
Parsons, L. M. (1994). Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance
(4), 709–730. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8083630
Parsons, L. M., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Phelps, E. A., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (1998). Cerebrally lateralized mental representations of hand shape and movement. The Journal of Neuroscience