Blurring two conceptions of subjective experience: folk versus philosophical phenomenality
Abstract
Philosophers and psychologists have experimentally explored various aspects of people's understandings of subjective experience based on their responses to questions about whether robots “see red” or “feel frustrated,” but the intelligibility of such questions may well presuppose that people understand robots as experiencers in the first place. Departing from the standard approach, I develop an experimental framework that distinguishes between “phenomenal consciousness” as it is applied to a subject (an experiencer) and to an (experiential) mental state and experimentally test folk understandings of both subjective experience and experiencers. My findings (1) reveal limitations in experimental approaches using “artificial experiencers” like robots, (2) indicate that the standard philosophical conception of subjective experience in terms of qualia is distinct from that of the folk, and (3) show that folk intuitions do support a conception of qualia that departs from the philosophical conception in that it is physical rather than metaphysical. These findings have implications for the “hard problem” of consciousness.
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 Peressini 2014
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Peressini, A.
- Affiliations
- Marquette University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Peressini, Anthony
- ORCID
- Peressini, Anthony
- Venue
- Philosophical Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-05-15
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 862-889
- ISSN
- 0951-5089 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-394X
- OpenAlex
- W2122740373
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Philosophical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- e-Publications@Marquette (Marquette University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
- Keywords
- subjective experience, phenomenal consciousness, qualia, folk intuitions, robots, hard problem of consciousness, phenomenality
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