Listen to the companion Sparks + Embers episode for this Kindling feature article below.
This article is part if our Goodpain Guide to Authentic Human Learning series which is part of our content that focuses on Contemplation & Reflection, one of our Goodpain Pillars.
Our next article will be available the week of 18 August 2025.
Three irreplaceable capacities that define human consciousness and choice
The moment happens without warning. The master craftsperson and apprentice stand together in the workshop, surrounded by the familiar scent of wood shavings and the weight of accumulated tools. The lesson was supposed to be about joinery techniques, but something else unfolds. The apprentice struggles with a stubborn piece of oak, frustration mounting with each failed attempt. The master doesn’t offer advice or correction. Instead, he stands present, watching with the quality of attention that transforms ordinary moments into teaching.
“The wood is teaching you,” he says, his voice carrying decades of patient engagement with resistant materials. “But first, you must learn to watch yourself learn.”
This exchange reveals something no artificial intelligence could replicate: the quality of consciousness that allows us to step outside our own experience and observe it. We can watch ourselves think, feel ourselves choose, and direct our attention with intention. This capacity makes us not just information processors but conscious agents capable of choice.
After exploring how we learn (Article 1), how AI mirrors our patterns (Article 2), how we maintain cognitive vitality (Article 3), how we navigate uncertainty (Article 4), how we build reliable knowledge sources (Article 5), and how we make thinking visible (Article 6), we arrive at the foundational question: What makes human consciousness irreplaceable?
The previous articles examined what we do with consciousness. Now we explore consciousness itself – what makes the observer capable of observation, what makes the chooser capable of choice. This isn’t just philosophical speculation. As artificial intelligence systems become more sophisticated at mimicking human outputs, understanding what makes us human becomes essential for preserving it.
"Just as the craftsperson must develop sensitivity to wood grain and tool behavior through sustained practice, consciousness can be trained to read subtler signals in our own mental processes."
The Foundation: Three Irreplaceable Capacities
Human consciousness operates through three interconnected capacities that remain beyond artificial replication. These aren’t just cognitive features but the very foundation of what makes us human in an age of thinking machines.
Human Consciousness vs. AI Capacity One: Self-Awareness and Metacognitive Agency
The assertion I think, therefore I am still matters in an age of artificial intelligence. Descartes pointed to something irreducible about human consciousness: we don’t just think – we know that we think. This self-awareness creates first-person authority, direct access to our own mental states that requires no external verification.
When I experience the taste of coffee, I also experience the experiencing. This consciousness of consciousness isn’t available to external observation. No brain scan can capture the subjective quality of that bitter warmth spreading across my tongue. I know my mental states without reasoning or observation like I know the mental states of others.
This creates self-presenting conscious states. The mere experience of them involves, requires, and implies awareness of those states. Our conscious experiences are the part of our minds available for our first-person report because they’re objects of thoughts of the kind such reports would express.
Current neuroscience reveals that self-awareness isn’t a single capacity but a multidimensional collection of processes. Research identifies components ranging from interoception (awareness of internal bodily sensations) to proprioception (body position and ownership) to agency (the sense of generating one’s own actions). These processes can be explored at different levels of cognitive complexity, ranging from neuronal electrical activity to self-reported responses.
The metacognitive advantage emerges from this foundation. Metacognition – thinking about thinking – represents a cognitive process that enables individuals to reflect on, evaluate, and control their own mental states and processes. This capacity provides a lens to understand not just what we think, but how we think: our patterns, biases, and tendencies.
Unlike AI systems with fixed parameters, human awareness can be trained, refined, and strengthened through practice. Phenomenologists note that skilled observation of the needed sort requires training, effort and the ability to adopt alternative perspectives on one’s experience. We can cultivate what amounts to consciousness as craft – the development of our capacity for self-awareness.
This self-alteration capacity distinguishes human consciousness from information processing. Through reflection, we can subject our different beliefs and desires to a critical, normative evaluation and modify them. This process of self-alteration means consciousness can be developed and refined, leading to acts of self-determination, self-willing, and self-formation.
The workshop connection becomes clear: just as the craftsperson must develop sensitivity to wood grain and tool behavior through sustained practice, consciousness can be trained to read subtler signals in our own mental processes. The apprentice learning to observe their own learning exemplifies this developmental aspect of awareness.
Human Consciousness vs. AI Capacity Two: Moral Imagination and Ethical Reasoning
Human moral reasoning transcends simple optimization for outcomes. While AI systems might calculate the greatest good for the greatest number, human ethics involves prosocial and affective considerations even more than economic utilities. When we make moral choices, the weight of affective drives is enhanced in social contexts.
This complexity makes human morality irreducible to computational approaches. Some researchers assert that costs and rewards, even if made more sophisticated, will be insufficient to capture the whole range of moral judgments. The richness and complexity of human morality may be impossible to boil down into a manageable set of mathematical equations.
Human moral navigation involves intuitive theories of physics and mind. Unlike AI’s if-then rules tailored to specific situations, we navigate moral complexity through embodied understanding that can handle infinite situations. We infer agents’ mental states to inform moral judgments, recognizing others as living persons with inner experiences, such as motivations, reasons, and intentions.
The ethics of attention reveals how consciousness shapes moral character. Reflection is a precondition for self-critical deliberation, allowing us to subject our different beliefs and desires to a critical, normative evaluation and modify them. What we choose to focus on shapes who we become. The ability to direct attention has moral dimensions because it determines which aspects of reality we engage with and which we ignore.
Self-deception demonstrates this connection between attention and agency. Self-deception undermines or erodes agency by reducing our capacity for self-scrutiny and change. It hinders the agent’s ability to change and corrupts conscience, which is the guide of life. Conscious attention to our own mental processes creates the possibility for moral development.
Moral agency under uncertainty represents the most human capacity. We can act when outcomes cannot be predicted or guaranteed. While external factors like genetics and environment predispose us to certain actions, the concept of predisposed agency acknowledges that humans still possess the agency or freedom to choose otherwise than it has chosen.
Even with strong predispositions toward one option, our agency allows us to go with the other option. In situations where choices are appealing or are incomparable, such as hard choice dilemmas, the best explanation for the choice we make and action we take is our agency, and not determinism.
Consider the parent from Article 4 choosing between experimental and established medical protocols for their child. Both options carry moral weight and uncertain outcomes. The capacity to take responsibility for choices made with incomplete information exemplifies moral agency under uncertainty. This differs from AI optimization because it involves choice rather than calculation.
Human Consciousness vs. AI Capacity Three: Relational Intelligence and Intersubjective Understanding
Human cognition is relational rather than computational. We don’t process information in isolation but engage in active, skillful, embodied engagement with the world and with others. This relational aspect proves central because brains do not exist in isolation, and their basic functioning reflects their participation in the social culture into which they were born.
We don’t infer others’ mental states through complex reasoning. Instead, we engage in direct intersubjective perception subtended by mechanisms like mirror neuron activation. Research shows we understand and share in the experiences of others by recruiting the same neural structures both during our own experience and while observing others undergoing the same experience.
This supports the simulation theory of empathy, where we understand the thoughts and feelings of others by using our own mind as a model. The anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex prove central for both representing one’s own feeling states and processing vicarious feelings. Understanding others’ emotions depends on understanding our own – deficits in understanding one’s own emotions should be associated with empathy deficits.
Theory of Mind operates through this embodied foundation. We recognize that others have mental states, information, and motivations that may differ from one’s own. This isn’t abstract reasoning but embodied recognition of others as conscious beings with their own first-person experience.
The intersubjective dimension reveals how consciousness is social. We don’t start isolated and then connect – we’re already existing in reference to others, from the very beginning. The success of social interactions depends on our ability to decode others’ mental and intentional states, recognizing others as living persons with inner experiences.
Empathic reasoning goes beyond emotional contagion to include prosocial motivation to alleviate another’s distress. True empathy involves wanting to help rather than just feeling what others feel. This capacity enables adaptive social behavior that results from the interplay of these socio-affective and socio-cognitive processes.
Individual consciousness serves collective wisdom through the human capacity for sharing of knowledge. This requires meta-cognition, the ability to reflect on our own cognition, recognizing that certain signals are emitted and intended to instruct. This metacognitive process is associated with self-consciousness and is critical for learning by instruction.
The human ability to share knowledge leads to much richer culture than can be obtained by learning through observation. Individual consciousness development serves collective learning and cultural evolution. The workshop becomes a space where consciousness is transmitted through relationship, not just information transfer.
The Agency Question: What Makes Choice Human?
The difference between conscious choice and sophisticated response lies in the temporal nature of human awareness. Human consciousness operates across past-present-future integration in ways that create choice rather than just complex programming. Research on Mental Time Travel and episodic memory reveals how human awareness integrates temporal dimensions within consciousness.
We experience narrative self-awareness, which describes awareness of oneself as a consistent character in the stories told by oneself and others. This temporal integration distinguishes human consciousness from discrete information processing. We don’t just respond to stimuli but integrate past experience, present sensations, and future possibilities into coherent decision-making.
The responsibility dimension emerges from this temporal consciousness. Self-awareness creates accountability in ways that algorithmic processing cannot match. When we recognize ourselves as the consistent character in our own life story, we become responsible for the choices that shape that narrative.
Free will research suggests it captures a first-person experience of agency. Studies show that beliefs about free will can influence behavior, with a diminished belief leading to increased cheating and aggression. This reveals free will as a psychological phenomenon rather than just philosophical concept.
John Dewey’s instrumentalist view sees free will as effective voluntary action – the capacity to execute plans, adapt them, and be an active participant in events. This evolved capacity for self-control and rational choice enables flexibility and planning that includes the ability to think through non-present events, consider alternative actions, and coordinate actions across time with others.
The hard problem of consciousness – explaining how physical processes give rise to subjective experience – points to what consciousness adds that statistical learning cannot replicate. The gap between physical and phenomenal properties remains unbridged by current neuroscience. This gap represents not just a scientific puzzle but the space where choice emerges.
Subjective experience – the what it’s like aspect of consciousness – creates meaning that transcends information processing. The qualitative character of experience, often called qualia, distinguishes experiencing from processing. When I choose the experimental medical protocol for my child, I’m not just calculating probabilities but engaging with the felt sense of responsibility, hope, and fear that consciousness brings to decision-making.
AI as Teacher: The Mirror Effect
Understanding what AI can and cannot do illuminates what makes human consciousness irreplaceable. Current AI systems excel at information processing, pattern recognition, and generating responses that appear similar to human learning and memory. They can perform computational tasks and mimic functional roles like access consciousness and flexible guidance behaviors.
The simulation boundary becomes clear when we examine what AI cannot access. Despite outputs, AI lacks phenomenal consciousness – the subjective what it’s like aspect of experience. People remain reluctant to attribute subjective perceptions and emotions to robots, even when provided with detailed descriptions of their experiences. A conscious perceptual experience is perceived as more transformative in human agents than in AI.
This reluctance reflects our intuitive understanding that consciousness involves more than information processing. The hard problem of consciousness may stem from deep-seated human psychological biases: essentialism and dualism. We judge that transformative experiences are anchored in the human body and effect bodily change, while AI lacks this embodied foundation.
Embodied experience remains biological. The feeling of owning a body and generating one’s own actions represents components of human self-awareness. While AI can control robotic bodies, it cannot possess the sense of bodily self-awareness that emerges from interoception, proprioception, and agency working together.
First-person ontology – the sense of self as the protagonist of daily events – cannot be replicated computationally. Human self-awareness involves a first-person ontology that provides direct access to internal mental states. This ability to distinguish its own appearance states from other judgments about the world indicates internal monitoring not replicable by current AI.
Self-awareness represents the multidimensional construct encompassing interoception, proprioception, agency, metacognition, emotional regulation, and autobiographical memory, all interacting across different levels of cognitive complexity. The integrative feeling of selfhood that emerges from these interactions represents a complex process that goes beyond current AI capabilities.
Human nature contains the irreducible core of consciousness as the foundation that makes all other capacities possible. Embodied meaning-making creates understanding that transcends information processing. The unity of experience integrates diverse conscious processes into coherent selfhood in ways that remain human.
Daily Practices for Strengthening Conscious Agency
Understanding consciousness intellectually differs from developing it. Just as the craftsperson must practice to develop sensitivity to materials, consciousness requires cultivation to strengthen our capacity for self-awareness, moral reasoning, and relational intelligence.
Morning awareness check provides a foundation for metacognitive development. I begin each day by observing my own mental state without judgment. I notice the quality of attention, the emotional tone, the physical sensations present before the day’s activities shape awareness. This practice develops the observer self – the capacity to adopt a third-person perspective on oneself for evaluation and judgment.
Decision tracking builds awareness of when I make choices consciously versus. Throughout the day, I pause to recognize moments of choice. I notice the difference between reacting and responding. This practice develops predisposed agency – the recognition that even with strong predispositions, we retain agency or freedom to choose otherwise.
Bias recognition involves watching for my own cognitive patterns and emotional reactions. I notice when I’m drawn to information that confirms existing beliefs versus information that challenges them. This practice develops the capacity for critical, normative evaluation of my own beliefs and desires.
Evening review creates space for reflection on moments when I exercised choice versus reacted. This practice strengthens the temporal dimension of consciousness by integrating daily experiences into my ongoing narrative self-understanding.
Contemplative engagement with ordinary objects develops relational intelligence. I practice the Third Things approach from Article 6 – letting a hand plane, a piece of wood, or any material become a teacher by engaging with it with attention. This practice develops active, skillful, embodied engagement with the world.
Uncertainty tolerance builds on the practices from Article 4. Rather than rushing to conclusions or accepting easy answers, I practice sitting with not-knowing. This develops the capacity to act when outcomes cannot be guaranteed – a human form of moral courage.
Present-moment awareness develops the temporal consciousness that integrates past, present, and future. I practice recognizing how current experiences connect to past learning and future possibilities. This develops Mental Time Travel and episodic memory integration.
Values clarification involves examining what principles guide my choices. Rather than accepting inherited or unconscious values, I practice the critical, normative evaluation that consciousness makes possible. This develops moral imagination and reasoning.
Moral imagination practice involves considering multiple perspectives before making decisions. When facing choices with moral dimensions, I practice prosocial and affective considerations rather than simple optimization.
Responsibility claiming means owning my choices and their consequences rather than deflecting to circumstances. This practice develops the first-person experience of agency that research identifies as central to human free will.
Empathy development through the simulation theory – I use my own experience to understand others. I practice recognizing that others have mental states, information, and motivations that may differ from my own. This develops the intersubjective dimension of consciousness.
Intersubjective recognition involves acknowledging others as conscious beings with their own first-person experience. This practice counters the tendency to treat others as sources of information or obstacles to my goals.
Community service through recognizing how individual awareness can serve collective wisdom. I practice the sharing of knowledge that research identifies as human, contributing to much richer culture than can be obtained by learning through observation.
These practices integrate with the tools from previous articles. The learning principles from Article 1 now serve consciousness development. The AI engagement strategies from Article 2 become conscious collaboration. The attention practices from Article 3 support metacognitive development. The uncertainty navigation from Article 4 relies on conscious choice. The information ecology from Article 5 requires conscious curation. The thinking visualization tools from Article 6 become consciousness amplifiers.
The Consciousness Craft Connection
The workshop scene that opened this article reveals how consciousness develops through relationship rather than instruction. The master craftsperson doesn’t just teach technique but models conscious engagement with materials. The apprentice learns not just woodworking but how to be conscious – how to observe their own learning, how to remain present with difficulty, how to let materials become teachers.
This parallel between consciousness development and craft development runs deeper than metaphor. Both require sustained attention and practice. Both involve learning to read subtle feedback from materials and experience. Both demand patience to develop sensitivity over time. Both create capacity that transfers to other domains.
The embodied learning that happens in craft work engages interoception, proprioception, agency, metacognition, emotional regulation, and autobiographical memory, all interacting across different levels of cognitive complexity. The integration of hand, eye, and mind in conscious action develops the multidimensional self-awareness that makes us human.
The wisdom tradition represented by the master-apprentice relationship demonstrates how consciousness transmits through relationship rather than information transfer. The apprentice learns to shape not just wood but their own awareness. The master passes on not just technical knowledge but the quality of attention that makes mastery possible.
This consciousness transmission occurs through modeling rather than explanation, through relationship rather than instruction, through shared presence rather than information transfer. The workshop becomes a space where individual consciousness meets collective wisdom, where personal agency serves communal flourishing.
The series integration becomes clear: all the practices explored in Articles 1-6 serve consciousness development. The five principles of learning through relationship, the strategies for AI engagement, the attention practices, the uncertainty navigation, the information ecology, and the thinking visualization tools all amplify our capacity for conscious choice.
Recognition dawns that all practices are consciousness practices. All tools serve consciousness development. All learning becomes consciousness learning when approached with proper attention. This recognition transforms how we engage with every aspect of life – from the mundane tasks of daily existence to the questions of meaning and purpose.
The Long Apprenticeship Ahead
Understanding what makes us human as conscious beings prepares us for the most important challenge: learning to be human together. Individual consciousness serves collective wisdom through our capacity for sharing of knowledge and cultural transmission.
The workshop points beyond individual craft to community wisdom. The master-apprentice relationship demonstrates how consciousness develops through relationship and serves purposes beyond individual achievement. The apprentice learns not just to shape wood but to shape their own awareness in service of the larger tradition.
We risk losing this humanity when we treat consciousness as individual rather than relational. When we optimize for efficiency over depth, answers over understanding, we erode the conditions that make conscious development possible. The conscious choice to preserve our humanity requires building communities that support both individual agency and collective wisdom.
The danger isn’t just that AI might replace human thinking but that we might stop thinking consciously ourselves. We might surrender the effortful practice of self-awareness, moral reasoning, and relational intelligence for the convenience of algorithmic processing. The preservation of human consciousness requires not just understanding what makes us unique but cultivating those capacities.
This cultivation can’t happen in isolation. Just as the craftsperson learns through relationship with masters and materials, consciousness develops through relationship with other conscious beings. We need communities that support the long apprenticeship of learning to be human together.
The recognition that consciousness is craft – something that can be developed through practice – creates both responsibility and hope. Responsibility because we must cultivate what makes us human rather than assuming it will persist. Hope because consciousness can be strengthened, shared, and transmitted to others.
Standing in the workshop of ideas, we recognize that mastery means knowing when to trust the tool and when to trust ourselves. That discernment – developed through practice, tested through difficulty, refined through community – remains human. Our humanity isn’t threatened by AI’s capabilities but by our willingness to abdicate our own.
The conscious choice to remain human requires daily practice, sustained attention, and commitment to the long apprenticeship of learning to be conscious together. This choice shapes not just our individual development but the future of human consciousness itself.
The wood continues to speak back to those who develop the sensitivity to listen. The question is whether we’ll maintain the patient attention required to hear its teaching, or whether we’ll surrender that irreplaceable capacity to systems that can process information but cannot be conscious of their own processing.
The choice remains ours, made new each day through the quality of attention we bring to the world and to each other. In that choice lies the preservation of what makes us most human: the capacity to be conscious of our own consciousness, to choose our response to reality, and to share that gift with others through the long apprenticeship of learning to be human together.
The Craftsperson’s Plans
Like Adler’s team indexing the Great Books, the craftsperson creates drawings not as decoration but as thinking tools. Each sketch shows problems invisible to imagination, exposes the relationship between components, transforms abstract vision into buildable reality.
Standing at my workbench with plans spread across the surface, I realize these drawings represent more than construction guidance. They capture thinking in visible form, creating external artifacts that make internal processing available for examination and improvement.
The plans don’t just record intention (they generate understanding). As the pencil moves across paper, solutions emerge that pure mental modeling missed. Proportions feel wrong on the page before they would fail in wood. Joint relationships clarify through visual representation.
This external thinking becomes more important when collaborating with artificial intelligence. I need ways to see my own cognitive patterns, to direct AI toward boosting rather than replacement, to maintain creative authority while benefiting from computational power.
Like Adler’s Syntopicon connecting ideas across centuries, my personal thinking tools must connect understanding across domains, show patterns invisible to linear processing, and make the invisible architecture of understanding visible enough to evaluate and improve.
The workshop teaches a fundamental principle: mastery involves not just knowing how to use tools, but knowing when each tool serves the work best. The same principle applies to thinking tools (I need multiple approaches and wisdom about when each contributes to understanding).
But something more emerges through sustained practice with these visualization tools. I begin to see thinking itself differently (not as a purely internal process that sometimes gets expressed externally, but as a collaborative process between internal consciousness and external representation that generates understanding neither could produce alone).
Making Thinking Visible Shows Something
The ability to step outside my own thinking and observe it (what philosophers call metacognition) points toward the irreplaceable nature of human awareness. When I externalize my thinking through visualization tools, I create opportunities for self-reflection that no AI system can replicate.
This metacognitive awareness enables me to evaluate my own reasoning, identify my biases, and improve my thinking processes. I can watch myself think and choose to think differently. This capacity for self-observation and self-correction represents something uniquely human that remains essential even as AI systems become more sophisticated.
The visualization tools I’ve explored (digital mapping, contemplative engagement, AI collaboration, analog capture) serve this metacognitive function by making internal processes external and therefore available for examination. Through these tools, I develop not just better thinking but better thinking about thinking.
In my next exploration, I’ll examine what this metacognitive awareness shows about the nature of consciousness itself (how the ability to observe my own thinking points toward capacities that distinguish human awareness from even the most sophisticated information processing systems). The tools for making thinking visible become windows into what makes consciousness irreplaceable in an age of artificial intelligence.
Research Resources
- Allen, C., & Trestman, M. (2016). Animal Consciousness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/animal-consciousness/.
- Arioli, M., & Crespi, C. (2018). Social Cognition through the Lens of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience. BioMed Research International, 2018, 4283427. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4283427.
- Berent, I. (2023). The “Hard Problem of Consciousness” Arises from Human Psychology. Open Mind (Camb), 7, 564–587. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00094.
- Brook, A., & Wuerth, J. (2020). Kant’s View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/.
- Carruthers, P., & Gennaro, R. (2020). Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-higher-order/.
- Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219. (Provided as an excerpt from MIT Open Learning Library: https://openlearninglibrary.mit.edu/assets/courseware/v1/5e697c30a9e687fd9604048b99222d5b/asset-v1:MITx+24.09x+3T2019+type@asset+block/23_chalmers_the_hard_problem_of_consciousness.pdf).
- Coseru, C. (2012). Mind in Indian Buddhist Philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/.
- Coutinho, B. de M. C., & Pariz, C. G. (2024). Are you how you eat? Aspects of self-awareness in eating disorders. Personal Neuroscience, 7, e9. https://doi.org/10.1017/pen.2024.2.
- Crockett, M. J. (2016). The Neuroscience of Moral Decision-Making. In J. Decety & Y. Christen (Eds.), The Moral Brain: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 15-28). MIT Press. (Provided as a PDF: https://www.crockettlab.org/s/2016_chapter_Crockett.pdf).
- Crowley III, R. T. (2017). Taking Each Other Seriously: Towards a Theory of Morally Responsible Agency (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/43m9c049.
- Dufner, A. (2025). Personal Identity and Ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-ethics/.
- Feldman, G., & Farh, J.-L. (2017). Agency Beliefs Over Time and Across Cultures: Free Will Beliefs Predict Higher Job Satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217739261.
- Fost, J., & Coventry, A. (2013). Remaking responsibility Complexity and scattered causes in human agency. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Philosophy: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (PYTT 2013), Global Science and Technology Forum, pp. 91-101. (Provided as a PDF: https://philpapers.org/archive/FOSRRC.pdf).
- Frith, C. D. (2008). Social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1499), 2033–2039. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0005.
- Gallagher, S., & Hutto, D. (2008). Primary interaction and narrative practice. In Zlatev, R., Racine, E., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (Eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (pp. 17–38). John Benjamins. (Provided as a PDF excerpt: https://www.ias-research.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Gallagher_Understanding_Others_2008.pdf).
- Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2023). Phenomenological Approaches to Self-Consciousness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-consciousness-phenomenological/.
- Gertler, B. (2021). Self-Knowledge. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledge/.
- Hallam, B., & Chan, J. (2020). What are the neural correlates of meta-cognition and anosognosia in Alzheimer’s disease? A systematic review. Neurobiology of Aging, 94, 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2020.06.011.
- Jankowiak-Siuda, K., & Rymarczyk, K. (2011). How we empathize with others: A neurobiological perspective. Medical Science Monitor, 17(1), RA18–RA24. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.881324.
- Kim, D., & Hommel, B. (2019). Social Cognition 2.0: Toward Mechanistic Theorizing. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2643. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02643.
- Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2017). On the interaction of social affect and cognition: empathy, compassion and theory of mind. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.002.
- Lamm, C., Bukowski, M., & Hirsch, L. (2021). The neuroscience of social feelings: mechanisms of adaptive social functioning. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.10.009.
- Latgé-Tovar, S., Bertrand, E., Piolino, P., & Mograbi, D. C. (2024). The use of virtual reality as a perspective-taking manipulation to improve self-awareness in Alzheimer’s disease. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 16, 1376413. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2024.1376413.
- Long, T. G. (2024). Predisposed Agency: A New Term for Free Will Because Our Will Isn’t So Free. Open Journal of Philosophy, 13, 203-228. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=132890.
- Lycan, W. (2023). Representational Theories of Consciousness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/.
- Mograbi, D. C., Hall, S., Arantes, B., & Huntley, J. (2024). The cognitive neuroscience of self-awareness: Current framework, clinical implications, and future research directions. WIREs Cognitive Science, 15(2), e1670. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1670.
- Nahmias, E. (2018). Free Will: An Empirical Report. John Templeton Foundation. (Provided as a PDF: https://www.templeton.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FreeWill-JTF-Final.pdf).
- Olson, E. T. (2023). Personal Identity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/.
- Parent, T. (2024). Externalism and Self-Knowledge. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/externalism-self-knowledge/.
- Racine, E. (2017). A Proposal for a Scientifically-Informed and Instrumentalist Account of Free Will and Voluntary Action. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 754. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00754.
- Rameson, L. B., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2009). Empathy: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(1), 94–110. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00169.x.
- Rottschaefer, W. A. (2009). Understanding moral agency: What is a scientific naturalistic view of moral agency? In The Biology and Psychology of Moral Agency (pp. 9–26). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527357.003.
- Schwitzgebel, E. (2024). Introspection. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/introspection/.
- Siewert, C. (2022). Consciousness and Intentionality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-intentionality/.
- Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 81–91. (Provided as a PDF excerpt from: https://www.neuroniorganizzativi.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/TaniaSinger_ToM_Empathy.pdf).
- Smith, J. (2024). Self-Consciousness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-consciousness/.
- Sosa, F. A., Gerstenberg, T., Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gershman, S. J. (n.d.). Moral Dynamics: Quantifying how people infer intentions from physical movements. (Provided as a PDF: http://www.mit.edu/~fsosa/papers/md.pdf).
- Tye, M. (2021). Qualia. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/.
- Van Gulick, R. (2014). Consciousness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/.
- Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Hard problem of consciousness. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness.
Disclosure Statement
This post was produced according to the approach outline in The Art of Transparent AI Collaboration Workflow (click to review).
