The claim
The first item of the paper’s positive contribution (Section 7.6). Frankfurt’s unwilling addict has the desire not to take the drug, and the higher-order preference that it prevail; another desire moves him.
What it does not say
What makes the difference — that is CLAIM-027.
Note of 2026-10-27: grounded in the case, not the account
The status review of this date (ADR-057) found this Active claim grounded in THEORY-120, Frankfurt’s account of ownership, which is Proposed. The claim uses Frankfurt’s unwilling addict and none of the account’s thesis about identification or responsibility. The case is now CASE-181, reported in LIT-692 and read in NOTE-545, and the claim is grounded in it.
Note of 2026-10-31: three surpluses the readings run together
The readings filed on this date each name something available that does not act. The record keeps three such things apart.
- An available regime that is not effective. This claim.
- A claim to precedence that is not granted. CLAIM-484’s gap. The parent paper’s “excess action”, “the feelings you cannot deal with, unchanneled energy, skills in search of an outlet” (LIT-1902, p. 1351), is closest to this.
- Potential not yet captured into any regime. Massumi’s “excess of activity over action” (LIT-1910, p. 29) and the “surplus of unacted-out potential that is collectively felt” (LIT-1905, p. 7). NOTE-1486 observes that the parent’s excess action is closer to Massumi’s “capture” than to his “excess”.
This claim covers only the first. Keeping the three apart lets the record separate what the parent’s “excess action” joins: a regime that is available and idle, a claim that is refused, and a potential that no regime yet carries.
No status, title or warrant changes.
Note of 2026-11-01: the claim at the scale of mental action, with a candidate for what makes the difference
Metzinger’s “moderate, nuanced position” on mind-wandering is this claim for one regime, second-order control of one’s own thought: “what we have lost is a specific form of knowledge, and not the ability itself … We are still persons, because we have the relevant potential” (LIT-1941, p. 282; THEORY-1300). The regime is possessed through the episode and not effective. He also names what makes the difference, which this claim leaves to CLAIM-027: “one can only deliberately and autonomously exert an ability if that ability is explicitly represented in one’s phenomenal self-model” (p. 280).
Of the three surpluses this claim’s note of 2026-10-31 keeps apart, this is the first, an available regime that is idle. Its stated cause is not a refused claim to precedence and not uncaptured potential, but a missing self-representation. Whether that is a condition of efficacy or only accompanies one is QUESTION-367. The 2015 paper asserts the principle without a test, and Metzinger’s 2017 chapter says the data cannot yet decide (LIT-1945, pp. 13–14).
No status, title or warrant changes.