skeptical implications - we lack reason to believe we have conscious, direct access to our reasons for judgement acting -We rapidly reconstruct interpretations of our own behviour - This is simpler than accepting the existence of direct introspection

confabulation/post hoc rationalization what does this mean?

why do you like him? why did you take that job? these are all questions about the cognitive processes underlying our choices, evaluations, judgements and behaviour how reliable are our answers to these questions?

Question 1: Is Otto's access to his belief "privileged"

access you have to yourself is unparalleled compared to the access someone else has to you. privileged access is non-empirical access, what does this mean? It seems to be deeper, more metaphysical than what evidence that you could have of me. there is a problem in saying that Otto has privileged access to his beliefs, what?

what is the difference between aiding cognition and enhancing cognition? Otto's notebook enhances his cognition, i.e. make it possible, whereas someone using a notebook to solve a math equation, merely use the notebook to aid their cognition.

Where do we draw the line with the things that modulate attention, paying attention in class, keeping track of the footpath when walking down the street...

Question: Must Otto and Inga's memories function identically?

Sprevak argues that if Otto's memory is functionally identical to a hypothetical inteligent being who uses a notebook inside its head, e.g. an extraterrestrial who uses internal ink-marks to encode some of its memories

what is the parity principle?

Background:

What gives a mental state its status as mental is the role that it plays, not its location. But one process may interact with its environment, but that does not mean that that process extends out into its environment.

Davidson's thought on McKinsey Just because a thought is described by referring to things outside your head does not mean that it is outside your head

MCK - what is the relevance of this point to the issue at hand if you do not have privileged access to a particular description of your thought, what do you have privileged access to?

Both Burge and Boghossian think that looking inside your mind won't help. eg. transported bw earth and twin earth ; when did you have water thoughts and when was it twin water thoughts

according to Burge, Content externalism: which thoughts one has is dependent on relations one bears to one's environment

nonempirical self knowledge: A person need not investigate the environment to know what his thoughts are

How does this work against Davidson's argument? Does it work against it?