Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 12, pp 3165–3194 | Cite as

Introspective disputes deflated: the case for phenomenal variation

  • Sascha Benjamin FinkEmail author


Sceptics vis-à-vis introspection often base their scepticism on ‘phenomenological disputes’, ‘introspective disagreement’, or ‘introspective disputes’ (ID) (see Kriegel in Phenomenol Cogn Sci 6(1):115–136, 2007; Bayne and Spener in Philos Issues 20(1):1–22, 2010; Schwitzgebel in Perplexities of consciousness, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2011): introspectors massively diverge in their opinions about experiences, and there seems to be no method to resolve these issues. Sceptics take this to show that introspection lacks any epistemic merit. Here, I provide a list of paradigmatic examples, distill necessary and sufficient conditions for IDs, present the sceptical argument encouraged by IDs, and review the two main strategies (resolution and containment) to reject such a scepticism. However, both types of strategies are unsatisfactory. In order to save introspection from the looming sceptical threat, I advocate a deflationary strategy, based on either an ‘Argument from Perceptual Kinship’ or an ‘Argument from Ownership’. In the end, there cannot be any genuine IDs, for nothing can fulfil the reasonable conditions for IDs. What looks like IDs may instead be indicators of phenomenal variation. Debates that look like IDs may then arise even if introspection were a perfect method to know one’s mind. Thus, scepticism vis-à-vis introspection based on IDs rests on shaky grounds.


Introspection Disagreement Phenomenal consciousness First-person methods Introspective scepticism 



This research was funded by a Georg-Lichtenberg-Scholarship. I am grateful to Thor Grünbaum, Michael Madary, Uwe Meyer, Eric Schwitzgebel, Sven Walter and several anonymous reviewers for their input. I also thank the participants of the Intensive Paper Writing Workshop at Villa Palazzola in Rome, organized by the University of Copenhagen, and Inga Gittermann for feedback.


  1. Alston, W. (1971). Varieties of privileged access. American Philosophical Quarterly, 8(3), 223–241.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. M. (1980). The nature of mind and other essays. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bayne, T. (2015). Introspective insecurity. In T. K. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Eds.), Open mind. Frankfurt a. M.: Mind Group.Google Scholar
  4. Bayne, T., & Spener, M. (2010). Introspective humility. Philosophical Issues, 20(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  5. Berthier, M., Starkstein, S., & Leiguarda, R. (1988). Asymbolia for pain: A sensory-limbic disconnection syndrome. Annals of Neurology, 24, 41–49.Google Scholar
  6. Béziau, J. Y. (2003). New light on the square of oppositions and its nameless corner. Logical Investigations, 10, 218–233.Google Scholar
  7. Block, N. (1991). Troubles with functionalism. In D. Rosenthal (Ed.), The Nature of Mind (pp. 211–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Block, N. (2007). Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 481–548.Google Scholar
  9. Boring, E. (1953). The history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50(3), 169–189.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, R. (2012). The myth of phenomenological overflow. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(2), 599–602.Google Scholar
  11. Buridan, J. (2001). Summulae de Dialectica. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carruthers, P., & Veillet, B. (2011). The case against cognitive phenomenology. In T. Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive phenomenology (pp. 35–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Caudek, C., & Domini, F. (2012). Priming effects under correct change detection and change blindness. Consciousness and Cognition (0). URL Scholar
  14. Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as evidence: The epistemology of controversy. Philosophy Compass, 4(5), 756–767.Google Scholar
  15. Comte, A. (1830). Cours de philosophie positive. Paris: Borrani et Droz, Libraires.Google Scholar
  16. Crane, T. (1988). The waterfall illusion. Analysis, 48(3), 142–147.Google Scholar
  17. Dennett, D. C. (1986). The self as a center of narrative gravity. In F. Kessel, P. Cole, & D. Johnson (Eds.), Self and consciousness: Multiple perspective (pp. 275–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  19. Dennett, D. C. (2015). Why and how does consciousness seem the way it seems? In Metzinger T. K., & Windt J. M. (Eds.), Open mind. Frankfurt a. M.: Mind Group.
  20. Dixon, M. J., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. M. (2004). Not all synaesthetes are created equal: Projector versus associator synaesthetes. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4(3), 335–343. Scholar
  21. Dretske, F. I. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Feldman, R., & Warfield, T. A. (Eds.). (2010). Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fink, S. B. (2017). Why care beyond the square? Classical and extended shapes of oppositions in their application to “introspective disputes”. In J. Y. Béziau & G. Basti (Eds.), The square of opposition: A cornerstone of thought, studies in universal logic (pp. 325–337). Birkhäuser: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gallagher, S. (2003). Phenomenology and experimental design. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9/10), 85–99.Google Scholar
  26. Genc, E., Bergmann, J., Singer, W., & Kohler, A. (2011). Interhemispheric connections shape subjective experience of bistable motion. Current Biology, 21, 1494–1499.Google Scholar
  27. Genc, E., Bergmann, J., Singer, W., & Kohler, A. (2015). Surface area of early visual cortex predicts individual speed of traveling waves during binocular rivalry. Cerebral Cortex, 25(6):1499–1508. Scholar
  28. Gerrans, P. (2002). A one-stage explanation of the cotard delusion. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology, 9(1), 47–53.Google Scholar
  29. Gerrans, P. (2012). Experience and expectations: Bayesian explanations of the alternation between the capgras and cotard delusions. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology, 19(2), 145–148.Google Scholar
  30. Goff, P. (2012). A priori physicalism, lonely ghosts and cartesian doubt. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(2), 742–746.Google Scholar
  31. Goldman, A. I. (2004). Epistemology and the evidential status of introspective reports. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(7–8), 1–16.Google Scholar
  32. Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Grahek, N. (1995). The sensory dimension of pain. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 79(2), 167–184.Google Scholar
  34. Grahek, N. (2007). Feeling pain and being in pain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Grice, H. P. (1991). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hasin-Brumshtein, Y., Lancet, D., & Olender, T. (2009). Human olfaction: From genomic variation to phenotypic diversity. Trends in Genetics, 25(4), 178–184.Google Scholar
  37. Hemley, R. (2007). Invented eden: The elusive, disputed history of the Tasaday. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hill, C. S. (2009). Consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hirstein, W. (2012). Mindmelding: Consciousness, neuroscience, and the mind’s privacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hofer, H., Singer, B., & Williams, D. R. (2005). Different sensations from cones with the same photopigment. Journal of Vision, 5, 444–454.Google Scholar
  41. Hohwy, J. (2011). Phenomenal variability and introspective reliability. Mind & Language, 26(3), 261–286. Scholar
  42. Horgan, T., & Tienson, J. (2002). The intentionality of phenomenology and the phenomenology of intentionality. In D. J. Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hume, D. (1739-40/2007). A treatise of human nature: A critical edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Husserl, E. (2000). Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewußtseins. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  45. IASP. (1986). Pain terms: A current list with definitions and notes on usage. Pain Supplement, 3, 354–361.Google Scholar
  46. James, W. (1890/1957). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Company.Google Scholar
  47. Kant, I. (1781/1911). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Kants gesammelte Schriften, herausgegeben von der königlich preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin: Verlag Georg Reimer.Google Scholar
  48. Khalsa, S. S., Rudrauf, D., Damasio, A. R., Davidson, R. J., Lutz, A., & Tranel, D. (2008). Interoceptive awareness in experienced meditators. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 671–677. Scholar
  49. Koch, C. (2004). The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Denver, CO: Roberts.Google Scholar
  50. Kriegel, U. (2007). The phenomenologically manifest. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(1), 115–136.Google Scholar
  51. Landman, R., Spekreijse, H., & Lamme, V. A. F. (2003). Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness. Vision Research, 43, 149–164.Google Scholar
  52. Levin, D. M. (1968). Induction and Husserl’s theory of eidetic variation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 29(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  53. Levin, D. T., & Simons, D. J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(4), 501–506.Google Scholar
  54. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64, 354–361.Google Scholar
  55. Levine, J. (1993). On leaving out what it’s like. In M. Davies & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Consciousness: Psychological and philosophical essays. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. Levine, J. (1995). Qualia: Intrinsic, relational or what? In T. Metzinger (Ed.), Conscious experience (pp. 277–292). Schöningh: Paderborn.Google Scholar
  57. Levine, J. (2001). Purple haze—The puzzle of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Locke, J. (2008). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Lutz, A., Greischar, L. L., Rawlings, N. B., Ricard, M., & Davidson, R. J. (2004). Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(46), 16,369–16,373.Google Scholar
  60. Luzeaux, D., Sallantin, J., & Dartnell, C. (2008). Logical extensions of Aristotle’s square. Logica Universalis, 2(1), 167–187.Google Scholar
  61. Lycan, W. G. (1996). Consciousness and experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Metzinger, T. (1995). The problem of consciousness. In T. Metzinger (Ed.), Conscious experience (pp. 3–40). Schöningh: Paderborn.Google Scholar
  63. Metzinger, T. (2004). Being no one. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Misiak, H., & Sexton, V. S. (1966). History of psychology: An overview. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  65. Monson, C. K., & Hurlburt, R. T. (1993). A comment to suspend the introspection controversy: Introspecting subjects did agree. In R. T. Hurlburt (Ed.), Sampling inner experience in disturbed affect (pp. 15–26). New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  66. Moore, G. E. (1953). Sense data (pp. 28–40). London: George Allen & Unwin. chap II.Google Scholar
  67. Moretti, A. (2004). Geometry for modalities? Yes: Through n-opposition theory. Aspects of Universal Logic, 17, 102–145.Google Scholar
  68. Moretti, A. (2009). The geometry of standard deontic logic. Logica Universalis, 3(1), 19–57.Google Scholar
  69. Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2003). Mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Nikolić, D., Jürgens, U. M., Rothen, N., Meier, B., & Mroczko, A. (2011). Swimming-style synesthesia. Cortex 47(7):874–879. Scholar
  71. Oizumi, M., Albantakis, L., & Tononi, G. (2014). From the phenomenology to the mechanisms of consciousness: Integrated information theory 3.0. PLoS Computional Biology, 10(5), 1–25.Google Scholar
  72. O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 939–1031.Google Scholar
  73. Pacherie, E., Green, M., & Bayne, T. J. (2006). Phenomenology and delusions: Who put the ’alien’ in alien control? Consciousness and Cognition, 15(3), 566–577.Google Scholar
  74. Peacocke, C. (1983). Sense and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Prinz, J. J. (2000). The ins and outs of consciousness. Brain and mind, 1(2), 245–256.Google Scholar
  76. Prinz, J. J. (2004). The fractionation of introspection. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(7/8), 40–57.Google Scholar
  77. Prinz, J. J. (2011). The sensory basis of cognitive phenomenology. In T. Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive phenomenology (pp. 174–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Proust, J. (2000). Awareness of agency: Three levels of analysis. In T. Metzinger (Ed.), Neural correlates of consciousness: Empirical and conceptual questions (pp. 307–324). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  79. Ramachandran, V. S. (1998). Consciousness and body image: Lessons from phantom limbs, capgras syndrome and pain asymbolia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 353, 1851–1859.Google Scholar
  80. Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Interpreting delusions. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(1), 25–48. Scholar
  81. Read, S. (2012). John Buridan’s theory of consequence and his octagons of opposition, studies in universal logic. In J. Y. Béziau & D. Jacquette (Eds.), Around and beyond the square of opposition (pp. 93–110). Basel: Springer.Google Scholar
  82. Rensink, R. A., O’Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368–373.Google Scholar
  83. Roberts, B. (1993). The experience of no-self: A contemplative journey. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  84. Rubins, J. L., & Friedman, E. D. (1948). Pain asymbolia. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 60, 554–573.Google Scholar
  85. Schwarzkopf, D. S., Song, C., & Rees, G. (2010). The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size. Nature Neuroscience, 14(1), 28–30.Google Scholar
  86. Schwitzgebel, E. (2002). Why did we think we dreamed in black and white? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 33, 649–660.Google Scholar
  87. Schwitzgebel, E. (2003). Do people still report dreaming in black and white? An attempt to replicate a questionnaire from 1942. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 25–29.Google Scholar
  88. Schwitzgebel, E. (2004). Introspective training apprehensively defended: Reflections on Titchener’s lab manual. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(7/8), 58–76.Google Scholar
  89. Schwitzgebel, E. (2011). Perplexities of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  90. Schwitzgebel, E. (2012). Introspection, what? In D. Smithies & D. Stoljar (Eds.), Introspection and consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Schwitzgebel, E., Huang, C., & Zhou, Y. (2006). Do we dream in color? Cultural variations and skepticism. Dreaming, 16, 36–42.Google Scholar
  92. Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  93. Siegel, S. (2010). The contents of visual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Siewert, C. (1998). The significance of consciousness. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Simons, D. J., & Chabris. C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28(9):1059–1074. Scholar
  96. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 261–267.Google Scholar
  97. Smith, A. D. (2000). The problem of perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Smithies, D. (2013a). The nature of cognitive phenomenology. Philosophy Compass, 8(8), 744–754.Google Scholar
  99. Smithies, D. (2013b). The significance of cognitive phenomenology. Philosophy Compass, 8(8), 731–743.Google Scholar
  100. Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 74(498), 1–29.Google Scholar
  101. Strawson, G. (1994). Mental reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  102. Titchener, E. B. (1912). The schema of introspection. American Journal of Psychology, 23, 485–508.Google Scholar
  103. Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5(42), 1–22. Scholar
  104. Tononi, G. (2008). Consciousness as integrated information: A provisional manifesto. Biological Bulletin, 215, 216–242.Google Scholar
  105. Tononi, G. (2012a). Integrated information theory of consciousness: An updated account. Archives italiennes de biologie, 150(2/3), 56–90. Scholar
  106. Tononi, G. (2012b). PHI: A voyage from the Brain tothe Soul. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  107. Tye, M. (1984). Pain and the adverbial theory. American Philosophical Quaterly, 21, 319–328.Google Scholar
  108. Tye, M. (1992). Visual qualia and visual content. In T. Crane (Ed.), The contents of experience (pp. 158–176). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Tye, M. (1995a). A representational theory of pains and their phenomenal character. Philosophical Perspectives, 9, 223–239.Google Scholar
  110. Tye, M. (1995b). Ten Problems of consciousness: A representational theory of the phenomenal mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  111. Tye, M. (1996). Orgasms again. Philosophical Issues, 7, 51–54.Google Scholar
  112. Tye, M. (2009). A new look at the speckled hen. Analysis, 69(2), 258–263.Google Scholar
  113. Tye, M. (2010). Up close with the speckled hen. Analysis, 70(2), 283–286.Google Scholar
  114. Tye, M., & Wright, B. (2011). Is there a phenomenology of thought? In T. Bayne & M. Montague (Eds.), Cognitive phenomenology (pp. 326–344). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Varela, F. J., & Shear, J. (1999). First-person methodologies: What, why, how? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2/3), 1–14.Google Scholar
  116. Wheatstone, C. (1838). Contributions to the physiology of vision. Part the first. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 128, 371–394.Google Scholar
  117. Wilson, R. A. (2003). Intentionality and phenomenology. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 84, 413–431.Google Scholar
  118. Windt, J. M. (2013). Reporting dream experience: Why (not) to be skeptical about dream reports. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(708), 1–15.Google Scholar
  119. Zahavi, D. (1999). Self-awareness and alterity. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute III: PhilosophieOtto-von-Guericke UniversitätMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations