Assignment #3

Final Research Proposal

“The Hard Problem of Consciousness”

MAIS 602

Instructor: Lisa Micheelsen

Shelly Lasichuk

Student # 3264493

December 17, 2016

Introduction

David John Chalmers, an Australian philosopher and cognitive scientist, formulated "the hard problem"
of consciousness (1995) to describe the problem the disciplines have with not being able to explain what
the subjective experience of consciousness is. The subjective experience of consciousness is the
awareness a person (and possibly some animals) have of an experience, such as the awareness of what
it feels like to be a human being. This awareness of “what it feels like” to have an experience is
described as the “hard problem” of consciousness by the disciplines because as of yet scholars from
many disciplines, including Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology, Physics, and Computer Science have
yet to find an explanation for the phenomena. Currently, the disciplines are actively pursuing a theory to
explain the subjective experience of consciousness, in an attempt to enhance the work in many fields of
study such as Anesthesia, Computer Science, Psychiatry, and Pharmacology – in hopes of furthering
advances in such areas as brain mapping, altered states of awareness, and machine consciousness.

My academic and work related interests in the mental health and addictions field have influenced my
interest in studying the subjective experience of consciousness. I am particularly interested in this topic
because I feel that it is only through the understanding of what the subjective experience of
consciousness is that any disease processes of the brain, or altered states of consciousness (such as
Alzheimer's or Schizophrenia), may come to be cured and/or effectively treated. Currently,
pharmaceuticals and are used to manage or treat states of consciousness that are not within what
society deems to be "normal". Furthermore, the study of addictions could benefit since most in the field
of addictions study agree that persons with addictions are self-medicating based on a current state of
being that the person is attempting to correct; typically being in a state of pain.

In researching what the hard problem of consciousness is, and what disciplinary and multidisciplinary
explanations are being investigated, I found that “the emergence of computational theories of mind and
advances in the understanding of neurophysiology, have contributed to a renewal of interest in
consciousness, which had long been avoided by philosophers and scientists as a hopelessly subjective
phenomena” (Rey, 2009). This renewed interest in consciousness may be pivotal in advancing further
research efforts. I will be researching what the subjective experience of consciousness is by conducting
qualitative research that aims to find common ground to explain what the subjective experience of
consciousness is. By conducting an intensive review of the current literature that exists on the topic,
questions will be created that will be presented to focus groups and questionnaire participants,
comprised of professionals and academics involved in the work of finding an answer to the research
question, in hopes of determining how the disciplines perceive consciousness and determine if common
ground can be found that produces integrated insights regarding the phenomena.

The Research question

David John Chalmers, an Australian philosopher and cognitive scientist, formulated "the hard problem"
of consciousness (1995) to describe the problem the disciplines have with not being able to explain what
the subjective experience of consciousness is. The subjective experience of consciousness is the
awareness a person (and possibly some animals) has of an experience, such as the awareness of what it
feels like to be a human being. This awareness of “what it feels like” to have an experience is described
as the “hard problem” of consciousness by the disciplines because as of yet scholars from many
disciplines, including Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology, Physics, and Computer Science have yet to
find an explanation for the phenomena. Accordingly, I pose the following research question(s): What is
the hard problem of consciousness as it relates to subjective experience, and what interdisciplinary
explanation exists for the problem?

Interdisciplinary nature of the research

Currently scholars within Physics, Neuroscience, Psychology, Biology, Mathematics, Technology and
Philosophy are attempting to solve the hard problem of consciousness and are finding that an
interdisciplinary approach is needed in order to take into account all of the disciplinary insights and
components involved. The questions surrounding the question of what the subjective experience of
consciousness is involve many components (such as does consciousness exist, does it originate in the
brain, where in the brain is it located if found to be located in the brain, and can consciousness be
measured) resulting in the answer to the research question to be complex and presenting a disciplinary
gap requiring an interdisciplinary approach to addressing the research question. According to Klein
(2011), interdisciplinarity is a concept that has evolved over the last century to serve the purpose of
introducing new ways of solving complex problems through the integration and interaction of the
Disciplines, which results in the linking, focusing, blending, and intermeshing of theories and facts.

As a result of advances in technology and renewed interest in an answer to the hard problem of
consciousness, important insights and theories regarding consciousness have been, and are currently
being, worked on and developed by most of the disciplines mentioned above. Even so, no consistently
viable theory exists to explain the hard problem of consciousness. Which perspective(s) should be
considered by scholars as valid and holding ‘truth’, and therefore considered ‘interdisciplinary
knowledge’, will require ‘creative breakthroughs’ which “often occur when different disciplinary
perspectives and previously unrelated ideas are brought together” (Repko, 2012, pg. 43).

With the advancement of artificial intelligence, the mapping of the brain, attempts to develop machine
consciousness and problems with altered states of consciousness (such as why some people become
conscious during surgery or why some people's consciousness is disturbed by psychosis or
hallucinations) the need to discover a viable theory to explain what the subjective experience of
consciousness is, and potentially locate it within the brain, has become a pressing issue. The best chance
for a viable theory to present itself would be to conduct interdisciplinary research and integrate the
findings. “Studies programs in general represent a fundamental challenge to the existing structure of
knowledge” (Repko, 2012, pg. 9) and therefore an interdisciplinary research process is required.

Some may see interdisciplinary research as not advantageous similarily to “consilience”, a term that is
being used more recently by such voices as Harvard sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, to denote an
outcome achieved when the Disciplines are united. The term was first used by the nineteenth-century
philosopher William Whewell to define the concept of combining all of the facts and theories
throughout the Disciplines “to form a single grand theory uniting them all” (Jay, 2011, 33). The reason
Jay sees “consilience” as a possible “menace” is because the joining of the Disciplines could result in
“intellectual incoherence or … an extorted and sterile super-coherence” (pg. 33). As well, Jay feels that
“consilience” can create a shift in power away from each individual Discipline creating a “menace” in the
determination of what constitutes knowledge; in so much that “ knowledge is significantly determined
by power and that disciplines are artificial constructs in the service of power” (pg. 33).

The belief in “consilience” or “unity of science” is not representative of contemporary interdisciplinarity

because “interdisciplinarians ... aim at identifying relevant disciplinary insights, tools, tests, and
hypotheses” (Michelseen, 2016, Week 3) rather than aim to create a unified theory that represents all
the Disciplines. As Julie Thompson Klein has noted, “unidisciplinary competence is a myth, because the
degree of specialization and the volume of information that fall within the boundaries of a named
academic discipline are larger than any single individual can master” (1993, 188). Alternatively, Repko
(2012) states, “a more comprehensive understanding [is created with] the integration of insights to
produce a new and more nuanced whole” (382).

Review of the Literature on the topic

When attempting to answer the research question the disciplines of Physics, Psychology/Neuroscience,
Philosophy, and Computer Science proved to be most relevant due to advancements in technology that
have created the opportunity for certain components of consciousness to be measured and/or located
within the brain, resulting in scholars feeling more hopeful that an answer to the hard problem of
consciousness may soon be discovered. Several theories have recently or are currently being
investigated by the disciplines, which explore the components involved in the hard problem and
potential answers. Such theories are looking to the physical laws of the universe, mathematical
computations, activity within the brain, and/or advancing through the development of machine
consciousness. Others view the hard problem of consciousness as an illusion. Philosophy of Mind, which
studies the mind as it relates to the body and brain, has influenced the other relevant disciplines in
attempts to develop a theory, resulting in the collection of empirical evidence and further
advancements. On the following pages Table 1.1 demonstrates the relevant discipline and their
perspective stated in terms of the kinds of overarching questions asked and Table 1.2 shows the
relevant disciplines and their disciplinary perspectives relevant to consciousness.
Table 1.1

Disciplines and Their Perspectives Stated in Terms of Overarching Questions About Consciousness

Discipline and Inter-discipline Perspective Stated in Terms of the Kinds of

Overarching Questions Asked

Physics Can consciousness be explained as arising from

the physical laws that govern our universe? Is
consciousness a state of matter?

Philosophy Can consciousness be explained by the

perceptions and cognitive experiences of the
mind?

Psychology / Neuroscience Can consciousness be explained by studying brain

activity? Can studying differing states of
consciousness help explain consciousness?

Computer Science / Artificial Intelligence Can consciousness be artificially created and

programmed into a computer?
Table 1.2

Disciplinary Perspectives Relevant to Consciousness

Discipline and Inter-discipline Perspectives on Consciousness in a General Sense

Physics Consciousness most likely exists within the laws of

nature

Philosophy It is problematic to attempt to explain what

consciousness is because consciousness is
experienced

Neuropsychology / Neuroscience Consciousness most likely can be explained by

studying the mechanisms and circuitry of the brain

Computer Science / Artificial Intelligence Currently working towards finding a way to put
consciousness into machines which includes
determining what consciousness is
The following are summaries of some of the literary sources I gathered in conducting my research into
the hard problem of consciousness:

In Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness (1995), David Chalmers explains the hard problem of
consciousness as the subjective experience. Consciousness refers to many different phenomena and
some phenomena are easier to explain than others. Chalmers explains that the easy problems of
consciousness are “directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science…[and are]
straightforwardly vulnerable to explanation in terms of computational or neural mechanisms” (2). The
hard problem, on the other hand, is experience, which some use the terms of “phenomenal
consciousness” and “qualia” to describe, but Chalmers prefers to use “conscious experience” or
“experience”. Unlike the easy problems of consciousness, which can be explained because “they
concern the explanation of cognitive abilities and functions” (4), the hard problem is hard because “it is
not a problem about the performance of functions” (4). Chalmers reviews several proposed
explanations and potential starting points for generating a theory for consciousness, one of which is to
look at physics and quantum mechanics since “some interpretations of quantum mechanics,
consciousness plays an active role in “collapsing” the quantum wave function” (11).

In Qualia, Torin Alter (2003) describes the concept of qualia as the certain properties characterizing
what it is like to have a conscious subjective experience. Alter then describes the differing thought
experiments involved in relating qualia to the physical world. The hard problem and the explanatory gap
are discussed. Alter concludes that perhaps “studying whether there is something it is like to be a bat is
in certain respects more tractable than studying what it is like to be a bat” (812). In other words, Alter
ponders the idea as to whether the subjective conscious experience, or qualia, exists.

In Susan Blackmore’s (2003) article Consciousness in Meme Machines, she explores what a machine
would need in order to have consciousness. Blackmore suggests that any machine capable of imitation
would acquire consciousness but states the problem is that we do not know how to recognize
consciousness in a machine, and there is no testing device to use that would provide us with the answer.
Blackmore’s theory is that consciousness is an illusion and that a machine could develop consciousness
by being programmed to imitate humans.

In Solid, Liquid, Consciousness, Max Tegmark (2014), introduces the idea of a future technology that
could track human particles. He then ponders the thought that if the new technology found the human
particles to be obeying the laws of physics, then an option known as physicalism could be explored that
views consciousness as “a process that can occur in certain physical systems” (2). Tegmark calls this
consideration for “the most general state of matter that experiences consciousness” (2) perceptronium,
and concludes that it is his hope that perceptronium will one day be understood as just another state of
matter. Tegmark goes on to review integrated information theory, which is “an elaborate mathematical
formalism” (2) that neuroscientist Giulio Tononi and his collaborators formulated that “offers an answer
to the question of whether a superintelligent computer would be conscious” (3).

In A Perspective on Machine Consciousness, Dilip Prasad and Janusz Starzyk (2010) “address the role of
information and information processing mechanisms in realizing machine consciousness” (1). The
authors discuss the concept of virtual machines and ‘machine consciousness’ rather than attempt to
define and characterize consciousness. The authors discuss the problems with implementing machine
consciousness, such as limited knowledge of possibilities. In conclusion the authors state that “a large
part of what we think as consciousness emerges through social interactions if a proper architecture,
mechanism and functional blocks required for consciousness are available” (6).

In Psychobiology of Altered States of Consciousness, Vaitl et al (2005), demonstrate how empirical

evidence is being gathered through the use of “newly developed methods and techniques in cognitive
neuroscience, including multichannel electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography
(MEG), neuroelectric and neuromagnetic source imaging, positron emission tomography (PET), and
functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)” (99). These technologies have been providing new
insights into brain functioning. As a result of using advanced technology to view changes in the brain
during altered states of consciousness (ASC) - such as in the case of schizophrenia or dreaming – the
answers to the hard problem of consciousness are getting closer.

Through the analysis of the research that the fifteen authors conduct on the subject of ASC, the authors
formulate some interesting insights. For example, the section on psychotic disorders found one anomaly
in processing in schizophrenics to be “attributions of schizophrenia to a walking dream” (112). The
authors conclude that “subjective reality is created continuously by processes in the brain…
consciousness requires intact brain tissue, metabolic homeostasis, a moderate level of arousal, a
balanced interplay of inhibitory and excitatory networks, and midrange environmental conditions. As
soon as one of these prerequisites for reliable assembly formation is lacking, alterations of
consciousness are likely to occur” (117).

Concluding thoughts upon review of the literature

I felt that the research by Vaitl et al (2005) on ASC was very valuable in providing evidence that certain
factors need to be in place in order for the subjective conscious experience not to be altered, which
would provide evidence that the hard problem of consciousness exists. I also felt that Dilip Prasad and
Janusz Starzyk (2010) provide a good case for the conscious experience needing to be built through past
experiences and memory of those past experiences. David Chalmers (1995) and advanced technology
have been pivotal in focusing research efforts into the study of consciousness by putting a spotlight on
the conscious experience, and then using technology to provide evidence that the conscious experience
exists and to find where in the brain the conscious experience is located.

Preferred data collection / generation methods

In order to conduct research to answer the research question of what is the hard problem of
consciousness, or the subjective conscious experience, I would want to use several qualitative research
methods. In order to generate the kinds of data needed to investigate and answer this research question
robustly, I would use an on-line questionnaire, interviews, and focus groups as qualitative research
methods. Initially, I would conduct a structured online self-completed questionnaire, with open and
closed questions, that I would email to students and/or professors within academic institutions or
professional organizations, who are either interested or involved in the topic of the hard question of
consciousness through their disciplinary work, or who have an academic interest in the topic. The
questionnaire would be useful to gain an understanding of how participants define the meaning of the
concept, as well as to gain further understanding of the differing perceptions the participants have
regarding the concept.
Following the on-line questionnaire, I would conduct structured interviews based on a theoretical
sampling, “where people are selected according to how likely it is that their interview will contribute to
the development of an emerging theory” (216). I would also want the participant sample to represent a
variety of academic disciplines who are able to speak in detail about the topic in order to “explore in
more detail with specially selected interviewees questions that have also been covered in a wider
questionnaire-based survey” (209). I then would conduct several focus groups using purposive sampling,
“where participants are selected on the basis of having a significant relation to the research topic” (237)
– first in the design stage as a means of formulating “qualitative topic guides” (235), and then later in
the research to “explore the findings that emerge from the surveys [and] interviews” (236). The focus
groups would be arranged as both disciplinary and multidisciplinary.

Preferred data analysis methods

My preferred data analysis method would be to use grounded theory based on the nature of the
research question presenting disciplinary gaps and the need to find integrated insights and perspectives
which may aid in developing theoretical statements. By cycling from data collection to data analysis new
integrated insights and perspectives may be discovered. I would continue to cycle from data collection
to data analysis until I felt I had hit theoretical saturation. My reason for using grounded theory is that
grounded theory is very likely to produce research results with good concept indicator links.
"Establishing good links between concepts, ideas or theories...is an important aspect of the quality of
research reports" (Seale, 2012, 393). Based on the findings of the research I would determine if a
possible theory had emerged from the integrated research.

In the search for an explanation, continued integrated research needs to be conducted to determine
how the disciplines perceive consciousness, and to determine if any additional insights surface regarding
the phenomena. I do not suspect that specific demographics will have any bearing on the research
results, nor do I suspect gender or age to have an impact; although those who have not kept up with
advancements in technology may not understand how far researchers have come in moving forward in
determining the subjective experience of consciousness as it pertains to the workings of the brain. The
scope of this study is manageable due in part to the fact that the 'hard problem' of consciousness has
gone unanswered. Most of the research is still in the data collection stage with only a few theories in the
beginnings of the development stage.

One of the reasons I chose to do research on the subjective experience of consciousness is because I had
no preconceived notion of what the subjective experience of consciousness is and generally am curious
as to what the most current advances are in determining what it is. By using multidisciplinary theoretical
sampling, the most current research and understanding of the topic within the disciplines can be
explored which would aid in finding common ground, and interdisciplinary insights and perspectives.
"Once we have decided on our topic and framework of analysis, it is the social scientist's responsibility to
determine the facts in a value-free manner" (Lazar, 2004, pg. 16).

Ethical concerns

The research participants’ anonymity and privacy will be a default in the research design. Participants
involved in the questionnaires and interviews will be made aware of the information that will be used in
the research findings and will have an opportunity to remain anonymous. Interview participants will be
asked to sign a consent form and an option to remain anonymous will be included as part of the
questionnaire. Likewise, focus group participants will be required to sign an informed consent form and
will have an option to remain anonymous if so desired.

The research topic does not present with ethical concerns for the participants involved with the
research but the research findings could present ethical concerns for future advancements depending
on the results. If the research findings were to provide additional insights that result in an advancement
in technology and/or science and/or further research efforts, then it is possible that any advancement
might lead to a theory and/or answer to the research question. With further research efforts, the
subjective experience of consciousness could be located and if so, the ability for the subjective
experience of consciousness to be duplicated could be developed and an apparent harm could result.
For example, many professionals and those involved in Academia would find advancements in Artificial
Intelligence through machine consciousness to be a haphazard consequence. Therefore, research
findings would need to be presented according to ethical standards and principles.

Table 1. 3

Timetable for research completion

Time period for research study (5 months) Description of research task

Weeks 1-3 Research question literature search

concept refinement, determine
disciplinary insights and perspectives

Week 4-5 Develop grounded theoretical concept

indicators.

Week 6 - 9 Conduct structured interviews based on a

theoretical sampling
 Week 10 - 13 Conduct disciplinary and multidisciplinary
focus groups using purposive sampling, in
the design stage as a means of
formulating “qualitative topic guides”

Week 14 - 17 Disciplinary and multidisciplinary focus

groups using purposive sampling

Week 18 – 22 Data analysis through grounded theory

and report research findings

Conclusion

Many disciplines are actively pursuing an answer to what is the hard problem of consciousness as it
relates to subjective experience. Rapid advancements in technology and science have created new
interest in finding an answer to the question in order to aid in the development of fields such as
machine consciousness, altered states of consciousness, and brain mapping. In order to find an answer
to the question, this research project proposes using an interdisciplinary research process to integrate
disciplinary perspectives and concepts by finding common ground through the use of qualitative
research methods to form additional insights and perspectives. By conducting an intensive review of the
current literature that exists on the topic, research questions will be created that will be presented to
interviewees, focus groups and questionnaire participants, comprised of professionals and academics
involved in the work of finding an answer to the research question. Through a grounded theory research
process, further findings and common ground may be discovered that may point to an integrated
answer to the hard problem of consciousness; or at least present additional insights as to what the
subjective experience of consciousness is. My hope is that if the subjective experience of consciousness
can be better understand, that better treatments and cures can be developed for those who suffer with
mental illness, addiction, and disease states that produce an altered state of awareness such as coma.

References:
Alter, T. (2003). Qualia. In L. Nadel (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. (807-

813). Nature Publishing Group.

Blackmore, S. (2003). Consciousness in Meme Machines. Journal of Consciousness

Studies, 10, No. 4-5, 2003, 1-12.

Byrne, B. (2012). Chapter Twelve: Qualitative interviewing. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching Society and

Culture (3rd ed., pp. 206-226). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness. Journal of

Consciousness Studies, 2(3):200-19, 1-27.

from: www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-mind

Jay, M. (2011). Chapter One: The Menace of Consilience - Keeping the Disciplines Unreconciled. In R.

Foshay (Ed.), Valences of Interdisciplinarity: Theory, Practice, Pedagogy (pp. 31-46).

Edmonton, Alberta: Athabasca University Press.

Klein, J. T. (1993). Blurring, Cracking, and Crossing: Permeation and the Fracturing of Discipline. In

Messer-Davidow, Shumway, and Sylvan 1993, 185–211.

Klein, J.T. (2011). Chapter Six: Interdisciplinarity, Humanities, and the Terministic Screens of Definition.

In R. Foshay (Ed.), Valences of Interdisciplinarity: Theory, Practice, Pedagogy (pp. 137-164).

Edmonton, Alberta: Athabasca University Press.

Phellas, C. N., Bloch, A., & Seale, C. (2012). Chapter Eleven: Structured methods: interviews,
 questionnaires and observation. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching Society and Culture (3rd ed., pp.

181-205). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Prasad, D.K. & Starzyk, J.A. (2010). A Perspective on Machine Consciousness.

Retrieved Oct. 2, 2016, from www.ohio.edu

Repko, Allen F. (2012). Chapter Two: Mapping the Drivers of

Interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinary Research, Process and Theory (2nd ed., pp.

32-66). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Repko, Allen F. (2012). Chapter One: Defining Interdisciplinary Studies. Interdisciplinary Research,

Process and Theory (2nd ed., pp. 32-66). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Repko, A. (2011). Chapter Two: Mapping the Driver's of Interdisciplinarity. In A.

Repko, Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (2nd ed., pp. 32-66). Thousand Oaks,

California: SAGE.

Repko, A. (2011). Chapter Thirteen: Constructing a more comprehensive understanding or theory. In A.

Repko, Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (2nd ed., pp. 382-408). Thousand Oaks,

California: SAGE.

Rey, G. (2016). Philosophy of Mind. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved Oct. 12, 2016

Spicer, N. (2012). Chapter Twenty-seven: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. In

C. Seale (Ed.), Researching Society and Culture (3rd ed., pp. 479-493). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Seale, C. (2012). Chapter Twenty-two: Generating Grounded Theory. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching

Society and Culture (3rd ed., pp. 393-404). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Searle, John R. (1999). The Future of Philosophy. Philosophical Transactions: Biological

Sciences,354(1392), 2069-2080.

Tonkiss, F. (2012). Chapter Thirteen: Focus Groups. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching Society and

Culture (3rd ed., pp. 227-244). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Tegmark, Max (2014). Solid, Liquid, Consciousness. New Scientist, Vol. 222 (2964), 28-

31.

Vaitl, D., Gruzelier, J., Jamieson, G.A., Lehmann, D., Ulrich, O., Gebhard, S., Strehl, U.,

Birbaumer, N., Kotchoubey, B., Kubler, A., Miltner, W.H.R., Putz, P., Stauch, I.,

Wackermann, J. & Weiss, T. (2005). Psychobiology of Altered States of

Consciousness. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131. No.1, 98-127