The irrelevance of folk intuitions to the “hard problem” of consciousness
Abstract
Recently, a number of philosophers have turned to folk intuitions about mental states for data about qualia and phenomenal consciousness. In this paper I argue that current research along these lines does not tell us about these subjects. I focus on a series of studies, performed by Justin Sytsma and Edouard Machery, to make my argument. Folk judgments studied by these researchers are mostly likely generated by a certain cognitive system - System One - that will generate the same data whether or not we experience phenomenal consciousness. This is a problem for a range of current experimental philosophy research into consciousness or our concept of it. If experimental philosophy is to shed light into phenomenal consciousness, it needs to be better founded in an understanding of how we make judgments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It remains unclear how folk conceptions of phenomenality correspond to the relevant philosophical constructs.
“Beyond issues of measurement, it remains unclear how folk conceptions of phenomenality correspond to the relevant philosophical constructs (Huebner 2010, Talbot 2012, Peressini 2014).”
From Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models (2024) · cites this paper as Talbot 2012
Cites
Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning.
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569 · Cited by 844 · see citing works
Intuitions about consciousness: experimental studies
Knobe, J., & Prinz, J. (2008) · Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11097-007-9066-y · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models
Colombatto, C., & Fleming, S. M. (2024) · Neuroscience of Consciousness · doi:10.1093/nc/niae013 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
“Beyond issues of measurement, it remains unclear how folk conceptions of phenomenality correspond to the relevant philosophical constructs (Huebner 2010, Talbot 2012, Peressini 2014).”
Background
- Authors
- Talbot, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Corresponding author
- Talbot, Brian
- ORCID
- Talbot, Brian
- Venue
- Consciousness and Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 644-650
- ISSN
- 1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1966827647
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Consciousness and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
- Keywords
- hard problem of consciousness, phenomenal consciousness, qualia, folk intuitions, experimental philosophy, concept of consciousness
- MeSH terms
- Consciousness, Humans, Judgment, Perception, Philosophy, Psychological Theory, Intuition, Comprehension
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review