 In all of these and related versions of the Individual Ownership Thesis, the basic claim is that each individual has a mind of their own and has a sort of intentional autonomy that is incompatible with the view that individual minds are somehow fused when intentional states are shared. Thus, the Individual Ownership Thesis places tight restrictions on non-reductivism about collective intentionality. Most participants in the current debate accept a version of the Irreducibility Claim, and a version of the Individual Ownership Thesis, and they set out to show how these could be modified in such a way as to be mutually compatible.