JonathanW Schoole&r CharlesA . Schreiber Expe rienceM, eta-c onsc iousness, and theParadox of Introspection Abstfact:I ntrospectionis p aftdoxical in thati t is simultaneousslyo compclling yet so elusive,This paradox emergesbecause ahhough expeicnce itselfis indis- putablc,o ur ability to explicitlyc haracterizee tpe encei s ofreni nadequate. Ultimatelyt,h ea ccurucyo f introspectiwr cportsd ?pendos n indiyi(lu.llsi' mper .fecta hility to takcs tock( i.e., to becometf ieta-consciou(st) theb expcrience. Althought herei s no idealy erdstickfora ssessinign trospectione,x aminatioho f thed egrcet o whichs eu-rcportss yrtethaticall.yo vaty with thc cnvironmental, behal)iouraal,n dphrsioloeiel concoftitantos fetperiencec anh elpt o establish the correspondcncbee tweenm eta"consciousneasnsd experienceW, ei llu:trute the viability( t,tuch an approachi n threed omainsi,m agery,m ind-yunderihg, and hcdonica pprcisaLi defining both the situationsin whichi ntrcsnections appeart o be accurdtea ndt hosei n whicht heys eemt o diverye.fromu nderlying experienceW. ec oncludew ith a aliscussioonf thc various.factors(i ncluding issueso f detectiont,r unsformationa,n ds ubstitutiont)h atm ayc ausem et1-con- sciousnest!o misreprerenet xperience. Thep aradoxo fintrospections temsfr om thef actt hatp ersonael xperiencceo ne- spondsto that which we know bests ubjectivelyy, et leaste mpirically.S ubjec- tively speakingt,h erei s nothingw e know bettert han our own introspective experienceA. s James( 1890)o bserved'l ntrospectiveo bservationis what we havet o rely on first and foremosta nd always' (p.185).I ndeed,a s Descartes (1637)n otedl ong ago,n othings eemsto offer moreo ntologicacl ertaintyt han introspectiona,s n othingi s morei ncontrovertiblteh ano ne'sk nowledgeo f par- takingi n experiencelf.y ou cani nffospectt,h eny ou mayb ed reamingy, ou might bea braini n a vat,b ut theres eemsa bsolutelyn oq uestionb utt haty ou areh aving ane xperience. Allhoughs ubiectivelyin controvertibleit, is impossibleto directlya ssestsh e contentso fexperiencea, ndt husn od ecisivew ayt o empiricallyd eterminew hen JonathanW . SchoolerD, epadmenol f PsychologyU, nrversitoy f BntishC otumbia2, .136W est l',4alVl,a ncouverB. C. CanadaV 6T 124. Journalo ICon!.iousnesrS /edier,l l,No.7 8,2004,p p. j7 39 lli J.W SCHOOLI]R& C.A. SCHREIBER reportcd introspections accurately vs inaccuratcly characterizc underlying expcrience.T hc empiric elusivencsso f subjcctive experiencci s powerfully illustratedb y Dcnnett's( 199I) claim th.rtq ualiai tself is an illusion-D ennett's argumcntb uilds on the obscrvationt hat the f:ct thal wc believeo ursclvesb pos sessq ualia does not in itself provide evidencet hat wc necessarilyd o Zombies (philosophic.rlc onstructsw ho apPeara nd behavee xsctly like humansb ut who lacki nternalexpericocwe)o ulda lsob elievcandv ehementlay ssenthat(h cyp os- se..eLlr irid \uhtecli\c e\pericncc.D ennctrl unh(r rrguc\ lhrl becau'ci l i' impossiblcto fully pin down what any particulare xpcricnceis reallyl ;ke' the constructo f subjectivec xPeriencei s too vaSuc! o be meuningful (For example' whcn; ndividualsw e,rri nvcned! llasscs:rtradf.l cra while begint o navigalcs uc- cesstullyi n thc world,i s lhcir subjeclivee xpericnccre ve|tedo r do theys imply lcrrn to adiustt o an upsided own wodd?)G ivent hc infcasibilityo f citherd em onstrLr{intgh e existcnceo l subjcctivec xperienceo r charlcterizingw hrl i1 is actua'lyl ike,D enocttc oDcludcs'n, obodyi s c(rnscioL.t-s. we area ll Tombies'.' The strikingt hing aboutD cnnctts critiqueo f subjcclivce xpericnccis that Itom ane rnpiricrlp elspcctivhec is ahsoltrlclryi Sht Whcnr clyingo nt hc ruleso l evidenceu pon which scicncei s bascd( i.c. cmpiric l indcPendenrtc portable observalionsw)c sinrplyc annotk now thittw e arcc onsci{)uasl all Neverlhclcss. (andt his is whcrcw c divcrgcf ft)m Dcnn€tt)w c do. lt seemss elf'cvidentl o us (and wc cxDecll o nl{ny rcaders)th ill the exislcrrcco f subjcctivce xpcricncc' thouShe Dtirclye ludingt he sourceso l-cmpiricacl videnceu ponw hicha ll othcr knowlerJgics hLrscdn,c vcrlholcsrse muinsit n illdispulabltca cl whoscc ertuinlyis a( lcasl( nrp irrw ith,r n(l nr!,uablyc xceedsa, nylhiDgc lsct hatw e know( tbr simi- lar argunrontssc cC hitlrncrs1. 996;D cscilrtcsI,6 371S ellars,1 963) Civcn the Daradoxo f introspcction( ic , thri expcricncci s subjcotively \clf evidcnlh ute rnpiricl ly il)scruttlblci)t. m ights ccmt emplingt o simplyl lblln_ don any irltcrrptsir l cmpiricali nvcstignlionosl subicctivee xpcicnce lDdccd. thiss trrlegyc hrri|ctc.izctsh eb ulk0 1p sychologicl rcscxrcho l thc 1l|s1ceDtuly' Howcvcf.i 1iso ur viewt hlttb y conf(rntingt hcP iLrd oxo finlrospectiothl eildo n' \ c..llr rr.rkch .irJwJ).s l,ccril. :lll]. tlrrcci mf,'flinl (rrn\iij{rirrl' rn'e rncrScIr rrrn thc observationt hat expericncei s ai once subicctively sclf:evidcnt lrnd empiricallyi nscrutb lc- Epistemctogicallys peakinSt,h e paradoxo fintrospecliont clls us that therei s no way tha( wc will evcr be.rblc to empirically know subjectivcc xpericncci n the manncri n whichw e cmPiricallyk nowo ther$ ings.U nl;keo there lusivec oocefts (c.g.,d istrnt galaxics.t iDy pllnicles) whosec mPiricali nvcsti!iirtionc vadesl tnaly sis due 10l imitalions ofmeasuremenl,s ubjectivcc xperiencci s. as Dennctl s ilnal ysis iltu\lratcs, empirically nol) demonstrable-T h;s inscrulability mcans thrl cmpidcal investigaiionso f subjeclivce xPe{icncem us(n ccessaily bc groundcdi n humility, cogDizrntt h t any accounli s oPent o alternativci nteryrelatiors Altcr duking thescellinrs.D cnncll irggcsts lhdt il {ould be rn acl ol desperatcin telleclu'ldLshon lP 106) Rcdcrs arc rhcrcl're duliiulll adv iscdt l) rc!'ew "$,ctu crooonu;coxt"l riDt'i vshrxich,r il,huc'o\eu irostsc.o(onntcsx t re m!.lc and fom theil own oPini(nra boul whcthe' wc hrle THF P \R AI)'I\ OF INTROSPI:CTION t, Methodologicrllys pel*ing. thc paradoxo f inrrospectionil lustftrtesh or,, invesligatioonf subjective xpericncac lsoa fii)rdsa lool uniquct o o(herm odcs ofinquiry. Specifically, we can usc thc fac( that *,e havc experiencct o evaluatc (he modelso fcxpcrience that wc dcvclop. The seekingo f r concordxnceo fihc conclusionso f cmpiricali nvestigationws ith the firsl personp crspectiveosf those lteneratinga nd ev.rluatingt heoriesr eprescnlsa central elemento I phenomcnologicupls ychobgy( c.9.,V arela,1 996,b urs eeS chooler& Dougal, I999).A nd althoughp erhapsra rclyc xplicitlya cknowledgedin. all donltinso t psychology.e scarcherws'i ilingncssto rcceplt heoreticaclo DclusioDiss a llectcd by whethcrl hcy llnd suchc onclusionsin tfospcciivclyc ompclling.( X coursc. this incvitrbly mernst har somcs ubjectivityis introducedin lo the sciencco f introspcctionB.u t, ultera ll. isn'1t hult he point? Finally.l .om a thcorclicapl erspecriveth, cp rradoxo f introspectiohni ghtighls adislinctiont hrt hasb ccDit nplicitt hfoughoullh c foreSoingd iscussi0nn:a mcly, that bclwccnt he xctualc drlcnlso l an expcficncc( cxp€rientiflclo nsciousncss) ando ne s explicith clicfs boutr hecontcntosl -consciousncshse,r ei ntefchangc ably rclerredt o.rsm cla-consciousne(sSsc hoolcr2. {XX)2; 00211o)r mcta-arvarc rcss (ilck & Shallicc.200ll Schoolcr.2(X)l)t.i nrpiric.rllys pcakinBw. hcn wc sk participanllso int()spectr.l l Ihllrw c cang ameri s whal theyi rfcn rclil,con sciooso f (i.c-,w hal lhoy /r,Ii.,r'{t,h cy itroc xporiencin8)F. roots uchn rctil-con sciousr eporlsw c rrustt hen ttenrp1l oi nltr whiitt heya r.c:r ctuitllyc xpcficncing. lundi t is lhc possibililyo l dissociritionbsc twcsne xpcricutirlc onsciousncsusn d tnctiri ,,rr.,:i,'rrsI,.sth, rt p,.(\ rh..p r,,hl( r Al(houshl hc dislincli(Jnh clwccnc xporiontirlc onsciousnessn d rDctr-con sciousrrcsdso esn ('lc lirnin lc lhc pruirdrlox f irrl|\)spcclionit. d ()csh elpu \ tr)s cc how ll subieclivclyiD li)rmc(lcrnpiricls cicncco l inlrospectionr ightp n)cccd. On thco neh and.t hcd istinctioDw heDc onsidcrcdin lighto f thcl :rrrdoxo l iotft) speclioni.l lustrrtcsh ow sell-fepor(sw, llicll [cccss rily nrLrsbtc bAsedo r tncl consciousrp prrislls ol experiencec.l ln bc fl wcd. even il (hcy iLfeb irscdo expcrienccw. hish is ilself self cvidcn(.O n rh€o lhef hrud. ir suggcsts{h rr it' cnlpiricalobservatiornisJ gardinwgh ens ell-reportscoincidwei tho thcrpft)bable indicatorso f expericDcacr cc onsidefedin thec ontcxro l humilitya ndi nli)rmed li.st-personp crspcctivcsl,h eD it rrly be possiblc1 o scicntific.lllya dvancc princiflcdc onjecturelsrb outt hc n.iturco f expenence. In thc followinga nrlysis.w c futuhcrf lcsho ut the naturco f sucha n appro,tch drawingo Dr ecentc onsidcrrtiotso f how a distincri(rrb ctweeDe xpcricncca nd mela-arvarencscsa n help l(J resolves onrco f thc inherenld ifticuhics as$ciared with introspcction.Welhenillustratethcvalucof(hisapproachinthreedonrains whcrci olrospectiopnl aysa pirrticularlcyr uci l role:i rragcry,r nind-w andering, lmplications of Dissoriations lJetwe€nE xpcricnc€ and Meta-Awarcncss for Introspection Sorneo l the eaflicsto bscrvationrse g rding the challcngeso f inrrospccrivcl) re'descfibingc xpcricnccc drne,n ot \ufPrisingly.f iorn Williltln lancs (I891)) 20 J,W. SCIIOOI-I]R& C.A. SCHRBII]ER who obscrvedth ar'(W e find oursclvcsin continuael rrora ncul ncerlrintys os oon asw c iuc calledo n to D1tmaen dc lassa ndn ot merelyf icl' (p. l9l). Jlmesc om parcda ttcrnptsl (Jr ellectively pin down flcctinS subjectivcc xperiencesk ) that ot seiziDg'. r spinningr cp to calchi ls motion,o r tfying lo lurn up the gasq uickly enought o seeh ow the darkncssl ooks (p. 244). Jamcsr ecognizedt