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 University of Nevada, Las Vegas who have been involved with inner experience research. They read earlier drafts of this manuscript and provided illuminating comments and discussion. Special thanks to Sharon Jones-Forrester (who transcribed the interviews), Todd Seibert and Aadee Mizrachi (who checked the transcripts for accuracy), and Sarah Akhter (who consulted on many phases of the project).

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.