Describing Inner Experience?
Describing Inner Experience?
Proponent Meets Skeptic
Russell T. Hurlburt
Eric
Schwitzgebel
Brief Contents
Preface
Part One: Proponent Meets Skeptic
1. Introduction (Hurlburt and Schwitzgebel)
2. Can There Be a Satisfactory Introspective Method? (Hurlburt)
3. Descartes Inverted (Schwitzgebel)
Part Two: The Interviews
4. The First Sampling Day
Beep 1.1: Inner hearing and rosy-yellow glow
Beep 1.2: Inner speech and looking at stove
Beep 1.3: Mouth closing at end of sentence and image of shed
Beep 1.4: MGM logo and hearing boyfriend
5. The Second Sampling Day
Beep 2.1: Image of woman and soldier
Beep 2.2: Image of aircraft and feeling of sadness/dread
Beep 2.3: Image of hand writing and coldness in toes
Beep 2.4: Rhythmic motion of brushing and feeling of toothpaste
6. The Third Sampling Day
Beep 3.1: Trying to remember “periodontist”
Beep 3.2: Feeling of fogginess and worry and walking toward car
Beep 3.3: Inner hearing of “Why can’t I....”
7. The Fourth Sampling Day
Beep 4.1: Yearning to scuba dive and feeling of bobbing
Beep 4.2: Image of harlequin with bicycle wheel
8. The Fifth Sampling Day
Beep 5.1: Image of intersection and awareness of anxiety
9. The Sixth Sampling Day
Beep 6.1: Speaking and feeling conviction
Beep 6.2: Feeling happy as lightness in chest
Beep 6.3: Bodily aspects of concentration and seeing video screen
Beep 6.4: Picking up petals and echoes of “nice long time”
Part Three: Reflections
10. Eric’s Reflections (Schwitzgebel)
11. Russ’s Reflections (Hurlburt)
12. Response to Russ and Some Parting Thoughts (Schwitzgebel)
Appendix A: Box Titles and List of Threads
Appendix B: Beep Summaries
References
Contents
Preface
Part One: Proponent Meets Skeptic
1. Introduction (Hurlburt and Schwitzgebel)
1.1. The Origins of This Book
1.2. Sampling with Melanie
1.3. The Format of This Book
2. Can There Be a Satisfactory
Introspective Method? (Hurlburt)
2.1. Toward a Better Introspective Method: 15 Guidelines from a Century of Science
2.2. Descriptive Experience Sampling
2.3. Does DES-Apprehended Inner Experience Faithfully Mirror Inner Experience?
2.3.1. Ten Plausibility Arguments
2.3.2 Compelling Idiographic Observations
2.3.2.1. The Case of Fran
2.3.2.2. The Case of Robert
2.3.2.3. Discussion
3. Descartes Inverted (Schwitzgebel)
3.1. Some History
3.2. My Point of View
3.3. Sources of Introspective Error
3.4. Our Difficult Situation
Part Two: The Interviews
4. The First Sampling Day
Beep 1.1: Inner hearing and rosy-yellow glow
Beep 1.2: Inner speech and looking at stove
Beep 1.3: Mouth closing at end of sentence and image of shed
Beep 1.4: MGM logo and hearing boyfriend
5. The Second Sampling Day
Beep 2.1: Image of woman and soldier
Beep 2.2: Image of aircraft and feeling of sadness/dread
Beep 2.3: Image of hand writing and coldness in toes
Beep 2.4: Rhythmic motion of brushing and feeling of toothpaste
6. The Third Sampling Day
Beep 3.1: Trying to remember “periodontist”
Beep 3.2: Feeling of fogginess and worry and walking toward car
Beep 3.3: Inner hearing of “Why can’t I....”
7. The Fourth Sampling Day
Beep 4.1: Yearning to scuba dive and feeling of bobbing
Beep 4.2: Image of harlequin with bicycle wheel
8. The Fifth Sampling Day
Beep 5.1: Image of intersection and awareness of anxiety
9. The Sixth Sampling Day
Beep 6.1: Speaking and feeling conviction
Beep 6.2: Feeling happy as lightness in chest
Beep 6.3: Bodily aspects of concentration and seeing video screen
Beep 6.4: Picking up petals and echoes of “nice long time”
Part Three: Reflections
10. Eric’s Reflections (Schwitzgebel)
10.1. We Have Not Established the Validity of Russ’s Interview Method
10.2. Should We Credit Melanie’s Reports at All?
10.3. Adapting Russ’s Methodology to Explore the Richness of Experience
10.4. Memory in Introspective and Eyewitness Testimony
10.5. Pressures of the Interview Situation
and Experimenter Expectations
10.6. Further Concerns Particular to Reporting Conscious Experience, and “Bracketing Preconceptions”
11. Russ’s Reflections (Hurlburt)
11.1. Russ’ Views
11.1.1. About Melanie
11.1.2. How Far Does Russ Believe Melanie?
11.1.2.1. Raw vs. Exposed Reports.
11.1.2.2. Faux Generalization.
11.1.3. Inner Speech
11.1.4. Why the Personal is Important
11.1.4.1.
Personal Truth
11.1.4.2.
Developing a Taste for Specific Moments
11.1.5. Discovery vs.
Confirmation
11.1.6. On the Science
of Inner Experience
11.1.7. Bracketing
Presuppositions
11.1.7.1. Bracketing Presuppositions Is Necessary
11.1.7.2. Helping the Subject Bracket Presuppositions
11.1.7.3. Bracketing the Investigator’s Presuppositions
11.1.7.4. An Example
11.1.7.5. The Beep as the First Bracketing Step
11.1.7.6. Random Sampling as a Second Step in Bracketing presuppositions
11.1.7.7. Armchair Introspection as a Failure to Bracket
Presuppositions
11.1.7.8. Bracketing Presuppositions in Experiments: Flavell
11.1.8. The Desirability
but Difficulty of Objective Observations
11.2. Replies to Eric’s Reflections
11.2.1.
On Eric’s Rich vs. Thin study
11.2.2. DES and Titchener’s Introspection
11.2.3. DES has the Same
Defects as Does Eyewitness Testimony
11.2.4. DES Relies Too
Heavily on Memory
11.2.5. Subtle Interview
Pressures May Have Large Effects
11.3. A Note about the Form of this Book
11.4. Conclusion
12. Response to Russ and Some Parting
Thoughts (Schwitzgebel)
1. Response to Russ’s Reflections
2. What Should We Want From These Interviews?
3. The Future of Consciousness
Studies
Appendix A: Box Titles and List of Threads
Appendix B: Beep Summaries
References
Preface
Can inner experience (“phenomenal consciousness” in contemporary philosophical lingo) be accurately apprehended and faithfully described? The question is crucially important, both for a humanistic understanding of who we are and what we know about ourselves and for the newly burgeoning scientific field of “consciousness studies.” One of us, Russ, is an optimist, believing that adequate methods make faithful descriptions of experience possible. The other, Eric, is a pessimist, believing that people are prone to considerable introspective error even under the best of conditions. Five years ago at a conference in Tucson, we presented opposing papers on the matter and instantly became friends, arguing over dinner, then over margaritas, then again the next day, then in the airport waiting for our respective flights home.
This book is the product of our best attempt to make concrete progress in our dispute. We felt a need to do something more than simply continue with the usual methods of abstract argument, historical reference, and citation of favorite experiments. Thus, we recruited someone not party to the dispute (we’ll call her “Melanie”), asked her to describe her experience in a way Russ found suitable – by random sampling and interview – and debated the extent to which the resulting descriptions could be believed. The bulk of this book is a lightly edited transcript of these interviews, in which Melanie makes her best effort to describe individual moments of her experience in careful detail, and Russ and Eric question her, argue with each other, and further pursue their disagreements (and connect with the relevant psychological and philosophical literature) in side boxes. Although Melanie’s experiences are in certain respects quite ordinary, we think the reader will find at least some of her descriptions surprising, intriguing, and suggestive. The book begins and concludes with chapters expressing our different points of view and our different takes on what we accomplished and failed to accomplish.
Russ thanks
Chris Heavey and the group of psychology graduate students at the
Eric would like to thank the U.C. Riverside graduate students, from both philosophy and psychology, who read early drafts of the transcripts in a Spring 2004 seminar; the many colleagues and students – far too many to track – with whom he’s had illuminating conversations on the topics of this book; and especially his wife Pauline and son Davy. Pauline gave detailed comments on the entire manuscript, and neither sees see why a tenured professor should need to go in to work every weekday from 8 to 5:30 all summer when he could be on the beach or throwing paper airplanes from their treehouse. Eric’s not sure he fully understands his behavior either; but then, of course, he’s a pessimist about introspection and self-knowledge.
Russ and Eric both express substantial gratitude to Melanie for her willingness to expose both her private experiences and her ability to access them to our pointed, and now public, examinations. She received nothing in return other than the opportunity to help out two people struggling to figure out important things and whatever personal insight might occur along the way. We hope the reader will respect Melanie’s privacy; we trust that any reader who by chance discovers her real name will decline to make that public.