Daniel Wegner’s theory of apparent mental causation is often misread. His aim was not to question the causal effectiveness of conscious mental states, such as intentions. Rather, he attempted to show that our subjective sense of agency is not a completely reliable indicator of the causality of action and needs to be replaced by more objective means of inquiry.
LavazzaA. (2019). Why cognitive sciences do not prove that free will is an epiphenomenon. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00326
3.
LumerC. (2014). The effectiveness of intentions: A critique of Wegner. In LumerC. (Ed.), Morality in times of naturalising the mind (pp. 105–124). De Gruyter.
4.
MeleA. R. (2009). Effective intentions: The power of conscious will. Oxford University Press.
5.
MeleA. R. (2018). Free will, moral responsibility, and scientific epiphenomenalism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2536. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02536
SchlosserM. E. (2012). Causally efficacious intentions and the sense of agency: In defense of real mental causation. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 32(3), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027618
WegnerD. M. (2005). Who is the controller of controlled processes? In The new unconscious (pp. 19–36). Oxford University Press.
14.
WegnerD. M.WheatleyT. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. The American Psychologist, 54(7), 480–492. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.54.7.480
15.
ZschorlichV. R.KöhlingR. (2013). How thoughts give rise to action—conscious motor intention increases the excitability of target-specific motor circuits. PLOS ONE, 8(12), Article e83845. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083845
