The epistemology of intuitions has become popular recently with philosophers’ increasing use of experimental methods to study intuitions. Philosophers have focused on the reliability of intuitions, as empirical studies seem to suggest that conflicting intuitions are common. One set of studies, concerning what Sinnott-Armstrong (2008) calls the abstract/concrete paradox, suggests that conflicting intuitions are common and, hence, that mistaken intuitions are common. As Goldman (2007) notes, if mistaken intuitions are sufficiently prevalent, then we might have reason to think intuitions are unreliable. I argue that mistaken intuitions are not common, since studies concerning the abstract/concrete paradox have unknowingly studied several distinct phenomena instead of the abstract/concrete paradox and, hence, that they present merely apparently conflicting intuitions. I then discuss the import of empirical studies for debates about reliability, noting that those studies can inform us about the unreliability of intuitions but we are still unclear about the conditions for reliability.

Many well-known arguments in the philosophy of mind use thought experiments to elicit intuitions about consciousness. Often, these thought experiments include mechanistic explanations of a systems’ behavior. I argue that when we understand a system as a mechanism, we are not likely to understand it as an agent. According to Arico, Fiala, Goldberg, and Nichols’ (2011) AGENCY Model, understanding a system as an agent is necessary for generating the intuition that it is conscious. Thus, if we are presented with a mechanistic description of a system, we will be very unlikely to understand that system as conscious. Many of the thought experiments in the philosophy of mind describe systems mechanistically. I argue that my account of consciousness attributions is preferable to the “Simplicity Intuition” account proposed by David Barnett (2008) because it is more explanatory and more consistent with our intuitions. Still, the same conclusion follows from Barnett’s “Simplicity” account and from my own account: we should reassess the conclusions that have been drawn from many famous thought experiments.

This thesis aims to explore the nature of predictions through examining the ways in which they are employed to the frameworks of assumptions that generate and in turn provide a context for interpretation. These frameworks, be they scientific or even religious/spiritual in nature utilise predictions (e.g. demonstrable hypotheses or prophecies) as a means of ascertaining knowledge and understanding about the world. There exists a problem, however, if the status of knowledge derived from the less logical or intuitively based predictive processes is viewed within many mainstream scientific frameworks as being either without validity or wholly impossible. The reason as to why predictions are formed is generally due to a lack of information about the state of a system under observation. The use of predictions within our lives then is often so prevalent that we can take for granted the extent to which we base our behaviour upon possibilities and not actualities through the anticipation of what might be. The primary reason for this is due to the passage of time, in that we would not be able to perceive the future (or the past) without the construct of time. This enables us to then establish models or frameworks of events to project into the future. The other inherent phenomenon then associated with predictions is the formation of expectations that are generated from these models, frameworks or even assumptions. These expectations can be formulated and described in a variety of ways, from the very well defined mathematical descriptions that constitute statistical information about the likelihood of a correct prediction, to the comparatively vague impressions of feelings about the future that are characterized as intuitions or gut feelings.

Many contemporary philosophers are committed – either implicitly or explicitly – to Propositionalism about thought-experimental intuitions. According to this view, thought-experimental intuitions are (1) phenomenally conscious, (2) spontaneous, (3) and non-theoretical; most importantly, Propositionalists claim that intuitions (4) bear consciously accessible propositional content. The negative project of this essay is a critique of (4), the rejection of which is tantamount to rejecting Propositionalism. In addition, I propose an alternative position – namely, Interpretationalism. According to Interpretationalism, intuitions possess the features ascribed in (1)-(3); however, they do not bear consciously accessible propositional content. Instead, intuitions acquire cognitive significance by virtue of being interpreted in light of a subject’s background beliefs.

In this thesis I propose an account of knowledge of one's own mental states. My goal is set on a unified transparency account of self-knowledge. It is unified, because the proposal will account for the generation of beliefs about mental states of all types, regardless of whether they are propositional, non-propositional, experiential or non-experiential. My account will thereby be applicable to knowledge of any mental state, from beliefs and desires to fears, hopes, and sensations such as pain. Moreover, it will be a transparency account because it holds on to Gareth Evans's (1982) observation that self-ascribing mental states is done by attending outwards instead of inwards. There is a sense in which we attend to the world when we find out whether we believe something, and my proposal aims to capture this intuition. The core idea I am exploring is the following: generally, when one produces a first-order mental state, one also forms a corresponding, dispositional second-order belief about that state. Both attitudes share elements of their production, which ensures reliability while retaining fallibility. For instance, when you form a belief 'there is a red car' by perceiving a red car, you also generate the dispositional belief 'I believe that there is a red car,' if everything goes right. I argue that almost all features that make self-knowledge special can be explained with this basic idea. The assumption that the production of a first-order mental state and a second-order belief about the state go hand in hand has surprising explanatory power. Moreover, there are at least no obvious reasons why the assumption should be ruled out. The upshot will be a view that we should take seriously as a contender for an explanation of self-knowledge. I will not be able to conclusively show that it is the best explanation, but I argue that it is one worth thinking about. The thesis is structured in three parts. The first part (chapters 1-3) focuses on the phenomenon of self-knowledge and the transparency idea. These chapters serve as the setup for my later proposed view. Chapter 1 and 2 discuss what exactly we want to explain when we say that we aim to explain self-knowledge. I thereby provide an overview of the conceptual landscape of self-knowledge and argue that we should understand the peculiarity of self-knowledge in terms of features of belief and belief-formation. Moreover, I commit myself to the view that the peculiarity has something to do with our cognitive access to mental states and relate that to the goal of a unified account of self-knowledge. Chapter 3 discusses how we ought to understand the other qualification of my goal: a transparency account of self-knowledge. I provide an overview of transparency accounts in the literature and lay out the path to avoid common problems of transparency accounts. In the second part (chapters 4 and 5) I propose the single process model of self-knowledge as a unified, transparency account of self-knowledge. I provide the core principles of the view and show how it explains the features of self-knowledge I aim to explain. Chapter 4 focuses on attitudes, both propositional and non-propositional. Chapter 5 expands the view to phenomenal states, such as being in pain. The third part (chapters 6 and 7) connects the epistemological discussion of the single process model to research on cognition. Chapter 6 proposes a cognitive story of predictive processing that is compatible with the single process model. I thereby discuss the plausibility of the predictive processing idea and its empirical support. I provide a predictive processing story of self-knowledge that fits with the single process model of self-knowledge. In chapter 7 I discuss extended mental states. Clark & Chalmers (1998) propose that at least some mental states, such as beliefs, can be extended to external devices. Given that my aim is a unified account, I ought to say something about knowledge of these extended beliefs. I argue that they cannot be known by the same processes as non-extended mental states because beliefs about extended beliefs show different features than beliefs about our non-extended states that we formed by introspection. Hence, even if my view cannot account for them this is not a problem, because they are not formed by genuine introspection. Instead, we come to know extended mental states by a distinct process that we might call extended introspection. Finally, chapter 8 provides a brief conclusion of the thesis for and points out some placed that require further development. The account is promising as an explanation of self-belief and self-knowledge, but whether it is correct also depends on future research outside the scope of philosophy.

Ce mémoire porte sur les intuitions utilisées en philosophie morale contemporaine. Les intuitions sont interrogées sur trois aspects : leur nature, leur fiabilité et leur rôle. Concernant la nature des intuitions, celles-ci sont présentées comme des jugements spontanés ayant une valeur épistémique « à première vue ». Concernant la fiabilité des intuitions, trois grands types de raisons de douter de leur fiabilité sont considérés, à savoir les résultats de certaines études scientifiques montrant de diverses manières leur instabilité, les études réalisées par le mouvement de philosophie expérimentale afin d'illustrer le phénomène du désaccord intuitif, et enfin, le problème de l'origine douteuse des intuitions. Aucune de ces raisons n'est jugée efficace afin de discréditer l'usage des intuitions en philosophie. Concernant le rôle des intuitions, une distinction est proposée entre deux grands types d'usage philosophique contemporain. D'une part, ce qu'on peut appeler la méthodologie standard en philosophie morale contemporaine consiste en une combinaison d’expériences de pensée et de la méthode de l’équilibre réfléchi. Différentes manières d'aborder la méthode de l'équilibre réfléchi sont présentées, et le modèle de l'équilibre réfléchi large développé par Norman Daniels est jugé le plus efficace. D'autre part, les intuitions sont parfois utilisées en philosophie morale contemporaine dans le cadre de la théorie de l'intuitionnisme éthique. La théorie est défendue contre diverses objections, et elle est montrée compatible avec la méthode de l’équilibre réfléchi. / The object of this Master’s thesis is the intuitions used in contemporary moral philosophy. Intuitions are investigated on three aspects: their nature, their reliability, and their role. Regarding the nature of intuitions, they are presented as spontaneous judgments with “prima facie” epistemic value. Regarding the reliability of intuitions, three general types of reasons to question their reliability are considered, namely, the results of certain scientific studies showing in various ways Fiabilité des intuitionstheir unreliability, studies conducted in the field of experimental philosophy which emphasize the phenomenon of intuitive disagreement, and finally, the problem of the origin of intuitions. None of these reasons is judged good enough to discredit the use of intuitions in philosophy. Regarding the role of intuitions, a distinction is drawn between two main types of usage in contemporary philosophy. On the one hand, what can be called the “standard methodology” in contemporary moral philosophy consists in the combination of thought experiments and the method of reflective equilibrium. Different ways of construing the method of reflective equilibrium are considered, and the “Wide Reflective Equilibrium” model developed by Norman Daniels is judged the most successful. On the other hand, intuitions are sometimes used in contemporary moral philosophy in the context of the theory of ethical intuitionism. The theory is defended against various objections, and it is shown to be compatible with the method of reflective equilibrium.

Ce mémoire porte sur les intuitions utilisées en philosophie morale contemporaine. Les intuitions sont interrogées sur trois aspects : leur nature, leur fiabilité et leur rôle. Concernant la nature des intuitions, celles-ci sont présentées comme des jugements spontanés ayant une valeur épistémique « à première vue ». Concernant la fiabilité des intuitions, trois grands types de raisons de douter de leur fiabilité sont considérés, à savoir les résultats de certaines études scientifiques montrant de diverses manières leur instabilité, les études réalisées par le mouvement de philosophie expérimentale afin d'illustrer le phénomène du désaccord intuitif, et enfin, le problème de l'origine douteuse des intuitions. Aucune de ces raisons n'est jugée efficace afin de discréditer l'usage des intuitions en philosophie. Concernant le rôle des intuitions, une distinction est proposée entre deux grands types d'usage philosophique contemporain. D'une part, ce qu'on peut appeler la méthodologie standard en philosophie morale contemporaine consiste en une combinaison d’expériences de pensée et de la méthode de l’équilibre réfléchi. Différentes manières d'aborder la méthode de l'équilibre réfléchi sont présentées, et le modèle de l'équilibre réfléchi large développé par Norman Daniels est jugé le plus efficace. D'autre part, les intuitions sont parfois utilisées en philosophie morale contemporaine dans le cadre de la théorie de l'intuitionnisme éthique. La théorie est défendue contre diverses objections, et elle est montrée compatible avec la méthode de l’équilibre réfléchi. / The object of this Master’s thesis is the intuitions used in contemporary moral philosophy. Intuitions are investigated on three aspects: their nature, their reliability, and their role. Regarding the nature of intuitions, they are presented as spontaneous judgments with “prima facie” epistemic value. Regarding the reliability of intuitions, three general types of reasons to question their reliability are considered, namely, the results of certain scientific studies showing in various ways Fiabilité des intuitionstheir unreliability, studies conducted in the field of experimental philosophy which emphasize the phenomenon of intuitive disagreement, and finally, the problem of the origin of intuitions. None of these reasons is judged good enough to discredit the use of intuitions in philosophy. Regarding the role of intuitions, a distinction is drawn between two main types of usage in contemporary philosophy. On the one hand, what can be called the “standard methodology” in contemporary moral philosophy consists in the combination of thought experiments and the method of reflective equilibrium. Different ways of construing the method of reflective equilibrium are considered, and the “Wide Reflective Equilibrium” model developed by Norman Daniels is judged the most successful. On the other hand, intuitions are sometimes used in contemporary moral philosophy in the context of the theory of ethical intuitionism. The theory is defended against various objections, and it is shown to be compatible with the method of reflective equilibrium.

Research suggests that intuitions about thought experiments are vulnerable to a wide array of seemingly irrelevant factors. I argue that when arguments hinge on the use of intuitions about thought experiments, research on the subtle factors that affect intuitions must be taken seriously. To demonstrate how failing to consider such psychological influences can undermine an argument, I discuss Pereboom’s four-case manipulation argument. I argue that by failing to consider the impact of subtle psychological influences such as order effects, Pereboom likely mis-identifies what really leads us to have the intuitions that we have about his cases, and this in turn undermines his argument for incompatibilism. Last, I consider objections and discuss how to empirically test my hypothesis.

There is a widespread intuition that physicalist theories of consciousness are importantly incomplete. But the psychological facts give us reason to think that the gap-intuition does not justify the belief that physical theories of consciousness always leave out some facts about consciousness. I target this belief, and aim to establish that it is not epistemically justified by the gap-intuition. I begin by making a case for thinking that a purely psychological analysis of the "explanatory gap" is not only a viable one, but is in many ways preferable to the standard modal-epistemological analysis. Then I marshal a body of empirical findings in support of the view that various sub-personal psychological processes play a key role in producing the gap-intuition. The most crucial of these processes is the agent-detector, a cognitive system specifically dedicated to detecting other conscious agents in the third-person mode. Leveraging this account, I argue that while the relevant sub-personal processes are generally accurate, in the case of the gap-intuition they are "tricked" in a manner analogous to a visual blind spot or a bias in decision-making. Thus gap-intuitions are not trustworthy and do not confer justification upon belief in a "real" gap. I conclude by situating my account within the context of existing literature on the explanatory gap. My account naturally complements various physicalist accounts of the gap, and also deserves consideration as an outright replacement for such accounts. The overall lesson is that the gap-intuition would arise whether or not physicalist theories of consciousness really do leave something out, and would persist even if we came to accept a true physicalist theory of consciousness. Thus anti-physicalist arguments that are based on the gap-intuition pose no serious threat to physicalist theories of consciousness.

This thesis is concerned with the ontology, epistemology, and methodology of intuitions in philosophy. It consists of an introduction, Chapter 1, and three main parts. In the first part, Chapter 2, I defend an account of intuitions as appearance states according to which intuitions cannot be reduced to beliefs or belief-like states. I argue that an account of intuitions as appearance states can explain some crucial phenomena with respect to intuitions better than popular accounts in the current debate over the ontology of intuitions. The second part, Chapters 3 to 5, is a reply to Timothy Williamson's (2004, 2007) view on the epistemology and methodology of intuitions. The practice of appealing to the fact that we have an intuition as evidence from thought experiments has recently been criticised by experimental philosophers. Williamson argues that since thought experiments reliably lead to knowledge of the content of our intuition, we can avoid this criticism and the resulting sceptical threat by appealing to the content of the intuition. I agree that thought experiments usually lead to knowledge of the content of our intuition. However, I show that appealing to the fact that we have an intuition is a common and useful practice. I defend the view that for methodological reasons, we ought to appeal to the fact that we have an intuition as initial evidence from thought experiments. The third part, Chapter 6, is devoted to a paradigm method involving intuitions: the method of reflective equilibrium. Some philosophers have recently claimed that it is trivial and could even accommodate scepticism about the reliability of intuitions. I argue that reflective equilibrium is not compatible with such scepticism. While it is compatible with the view I defend in the second part of the thesis, more specific methodological claims have to be made.