In her commentary, Andrea Dreßing (this collection) suggests that I might have been too timid in calling the story I tell about the social function of intentions in my target article (Pacherie this collection) a creation myth. She encourages me take a bolder stance, claiming that the story I offer is not just a myth but also an attempt to give an explanation of the function of conscious intentions in the physical world. Indeed, part of my story is intended as more than a myth and so my first task here will be to clarify where I draw the line between empirical claims and myths.
Dreßing also points out that an explanation, as opposed to a mere myth, has to fit into the framework of current scientific knowledge and is therefore subject to both metaphysical constraints and empirical constraints. I concur. In what follows, I will argue, however, that my general predicament with regard to conceptual or metaphysical constraints is not so different from the predicament of the other myth-tellers I discuss in my article, as Dreßing suggests. Nor indeed is it direr than the predicament all philosophers of mind working within a naturalistic framework face. Finally, certain empirical findings have been interpreted as showing that conscious intentions play no role in action initiation. I also try to address this challenge.