Inner Speech: a Philosophical Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INNER SPEECH: A PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY AT THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DANIEL JOHN GREGORY MAY 2017 © Copyright by Daniel John Gregory, May 2017 All rights reserved For my parents 3 Acknowledgements Every PhD student has some help along the way. I have had more than most. First, I thank my primary supervisor, Daniel Stoljar. Daniel is devoted to his students; he prioritises their work above his own. He has taught me the importance of detail in philosophy. With his help, I have not written the best dissertation that I thought I could; I have written a better dissertation than I thought I could. Next, I thank my associate supervisors, David Chalmers, Frank Jackson and Kim Sterelny. Dave teaches, in large part, by asking difficult questions, so many of which open up new possibilities. He also knows just how much to challenge students; he does not dismantle their work. Frank can take a paper and provide a single, brief insight which illuminates everything. He also models the way an intellectual should conduct him- or herself. I admire his humility as much as his mind. I did less work with Kim than I initially envisaged, as the project ultimately did not have so strong an empirical aspect as I once thought it might, and for which reason I sought his expertise. Still, he taught me how to approach a new and overwhelming literature outside my own area, and gave me confidence in doing so, even if that aspect of my research was gradually deemphasised. I doubt that there is a graduate student in philosophy anywhere in the world who could confidently claim to work with a more eminent group of supervisors. I am aware of the privilege I have had. Others at the Australian National University who have helped in one way or another include Alma Barner, Zoe Drayson, Anya Farennikova, Brian Garrett, Liz Irvine, Robert Kirby, Colin Klein, Victoria McGeer, David Nash, Luke Roelofs, Alan Rumsey, Jonathan Simon and Inga Vermuelen. Between February and May 2014, I was a visiting student at the University of Oxford. I am grateful to Martin Davies for facilitating my visit there and for his detailed feedback on my work. I am also grateful to Philipp Koralus for discussing my work. While based at Oxford, I made some shorter visits to the Hearing the Voice project at Durham University and the Centre for the Study of Perceptual Experience at the University of Glasgow. For their hospitality, discussions and feedback, I am grateful to Ben Alderson-Day, Charles 4 Fernyhough, Matthew Ratcliffe, David Smailes and Sam Wilkinson at Durham, and to David Bain, Mike Brady, Jennifer Corns and Fiona Macpherson at Glasgow. Between July 2015 and February 2016, I was a visiting student in the School of Mind and Brain at Humboldt University of Berlin. I am grateful to Michael Pauen for facilitating my visit and for discussing my work, and to Lena Kästner, Richard Moore and Anna Strasser for discussions and comments on my work. I am also grateful to a larger group there for making me so welcome: Frederik Bartels, Maximilien Chaumon, Sanneke de Haan, Joerg Fingerhut, Luca Iemi, Maurício Martins and Lara Pourabdolrahim, as well as Lena and Richard. Others who have helped include Joanna Atkinson, Tyler Burge and John Maier. I am especially grateful to Hugh Mellor for discussion and comments on a draft paper. A significant amount of the work in this dissertation has been published and it has been improved on account of comments from referees during the review process. Some of the material in Chapter One and most of the Appendix has been published as ‘Inner Speech, Imagined Speech, and Auditory Verbal Hallucinations’ (2016) Review of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 653-673; most of the material in Chapter Two has been published as ‘Is Inner Speech Dialogic?’ (2017) Journal of Consciousness Studies, vol. 24, no. 1-2, pp. 111-137. I am grateful to the referees who reviewed these papers, including Charles Fernyhough, who identified himself as a referee of the second paper. Parts of this dissertation or related material were presented to audiences at an ANU graduate conference at Kioloa in November 2012; at ANU Philsoc seminars in March 2013 and August 2014; at the Serious Metaphysics Group at the University of Cambridge in April 2014; at Michael Pauen’s colloquium at Humboldt in October 2015; and at the ANU Philosophy of Mind Work-in-Progress Group in June and November 2016. I am grateful for the feedback I received at each of these venues. I am grateful to Dominie Dessaix, Jennifer Gregory and Tim Williamson for proofreading parts of the dissertation. I may well have forgotten others who have helped at one point or another during my candidature. I regret any omissions. Since commencing my candidature, I have been the recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award funded by the Commonwealth Government; a University Winter Course Scholarship from the German Academic Exchange Service; an ANU Vice-Chancellor’s Travel Grant; an ANU-IARU (International Alliance of Research Universities) Travel Grant; a Research Grant for Doctoral Candidates and Young Academics and Scientists from the German Academic 5 Exchange Service; and funds from the Department of Philosophy at ANU supporting travel and attendance at conferences and a summer school. I now move on to some personal notes. The following people – fellow PhD students, ANU faculty, friends and family – have all supported me in one way or another during the course of my candidature: Alma Barner, Rachael Brown, Justin Bruner, Clare Due, Jonathan Farrell, Bronwyn Finnigan, Clare Gregory, James Gregory, Pascal Herington, Rachel Kirby, Robert Kirby and Rosa Terlazzo. There are many others. There have been some very difficult times since just before I came to Canberra to commence my PhD in 2012. There are many people to whom I am deeply indebted for their help in getting through these times, most especially Brian Gray, Anna Gregory, Kate Horning, Helen Irving and Elisabeth Smartt. I will not describe here what they have done for me, but I hope they know that I am grateful with my whole heart. I want to record my gratitude to my grandparents and to one dear aunt. Both of my grandfathers, Edward James (Jim) Lynch and John (Jack) Gregory, have passed away; my grandmothers, Patricia Lynch and Katherine Gregory, are still with us. All have been constant in their love and encouragement. Christine Lynch has been devoted to her nieces and nephews. We are so fortunate that she has been so involved in our lives. Finally, I thank my parents, Jennifer and Peter Gregory, to whom this dissertation is dedicated. They have supported me in every way. I could not have completed the dissertation without them. I am humbled by their love. 6 Abstract This dissertation explores the phenomenon of inner speech. It takes the form of an introduction, which introduces the phenomenon; three long, largely independent chapters; a conclusion; and an appendix. The first chapter deliberates between two possible theories as to the nature of inner speech. One of these theories is that inner speech is a kind of actual speech, just as much as external speech is a kind of actual speech. When we engage in inner speech, we are actually speaking, but we are doing so silently. The other theory holds that inner speech is a kind of imagined speech. When we produce inner speech, we are imagining performing the action of speaking. The chapter argues for the theory that inner speech is a kind of actual speech. The second chapter argues against a theory which holds that inner speech is dialogic. On this theory, a subject represents different perspectives in inner speech and a dialogue can take place in the same sense in which a dialogue can take place between different individuals in external speech. The chapter borrows some important material from the philosophy of language to show that this position, though it might have some intuitive appeal, is ultimately implausible. The third chapter is concerned with the question whether inner speech can be a source of knowledge of our own beliefs. It shows that the view that inner speech can be such a source is subject to an adapted version of a problem from the epistemology of testimony: roughly, what justification do we have for believing that we believe what we say in inner speech? It makes use of some material from the recent debate about cognitive phenomenology to develop a version of the view which is not subject to this problem. It then provides some initial discussion of the merits of this view. The appendix takes up a more practical issue regarding inner speech. There is a theory that auditory verbal hallucinations – i.e. experiences of voice-hearing – take place when someone produces an utterance in inner speech but loses track of the fact that they have produced the utterance. Accordingly, they have an experience as of something being said and, not realising that they are the source of the experience, postulate some external cause, i.e. someone else speaking. The appendix develops an alternative account which has been suggested in the literature, at times drawing upon earlier work in the dissertation. 7 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 12 1. The Project ................................................................................................................. 12 2. Finding the Target .....................................................................................................