Why literalism is still the best game in town: Replies to Drayson, Machery, and Schwitzgebel

I respond to the main criticisms raised by Schwitzgebel, Machery, and Drayson of the main arguments of Pieces of mind in favor of the position I call literalism. Schwitzgebel's mainly supportive commentary decries the Cartesian assumption that mindedness is an all or nothing affair. Machery claims that there is an alternative to literalism that is a better interpretation of the uses of psychological predicates across species. Drayson argues that literalism is mistaken on a number of fundamental metaphysical issues. I conclude that literalism emerges even stronger as a result of confronting their excellent criticisms.