Cited by 32Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceFree Will and AgencyPhenomenology and Existential Philosophy

Blurring two conceptions of subjective experience: folk versus philosophical phenomenality

Peressini, Anthony·2014·Philosophical Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1080/09515089.2013.793150

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
Venue
Philosophical Psychology
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