The hard problem of consciousness: qualia, the explanatory gap, and physicalist responses

Intuition Beginner

There is something it is like to be you — to see red, taste chocolate, feel pain. That inner feel is consciousness. In 1995 David Chalmers gave the puzzle of explaining it a name: the hard problem ^{[source pending]}. The "easy" problems are not easy. They ask how the brain discriminates stimuli, integrates senses, controls movement, and reports its states. Neuroscience can in principle answer these, because each is a question about what the system does.

The hard problem is different in kind. It asks why any of this processing is accompanied by experience at all. Why does seeing red feel like anything? A brain could in principle run the same information processing in the dark — a "philosophical zombie" that behaves exactly like a human yet has no inner life. The fact that your brain is not dark, that there is something it is like to be you, is what stands in need of explanation.

No further fact about neurons seems to close the gap. Knowing every synapse and chemical gradient tells you what the brain does, not why doing it feels like something. Joseph Levine called this distance the explanatory gap ^{[source pending]}: the space between a complete physical description and the felt quality of experience. More data will not bridge it, because the gap is conceptual — it lives in the kind of explanation we have, not the amount of information we lack.

Two camps form around this gap. Physicalists hold that consciousness is fully physical — identical to, or determined by, brain activity. Dualists hold that experience is something over and above the physical. Each camp has subdivisions, and some thinkers reject the split altogether. The rest of this unit lays out the arguments that drive the choice and the main physicalist replies.

Visual Beginner

Picture two cliffs separated by a chasm. The left cliff is the objective story: every neuron, synapse, firing pattern, and chemical gradient, all third-person and measurable with instruments. The right cliff is the felt story: the redness of red, the ache of pain, the warmth of sunlight on skin — first-person and private. The chasm between them is the explanatory gap.

The puzzle is that the two cliffs describe the same event: your brain processing a red stimulus and your having the experience of redness. Arrows from the left cliff reach toward the gap but never land on the far side. The hard problem asks what could carry a physical story across into a felt one — or whether the crossing is needed at all.

Worked example Beginner

Joseph Levine sharpened the puzzle in 1983 with a simple question ^{[source pending]}. Suppose we discover that pain just is the firing of C-fibres. We can still intelligibly ask: why does that firing feel like this? The identity leaves a residue. Compare: once we learn that water is H${}_2$O, no remaining question asks why H${}_2$O is wet. The pain case resists that kind of closure.

Frank Jackson's Mary's Room isolates the same gap as an argument ^{[source pending]}. Mary is a colour scientist who knows every physical fact about colour vision — wavelengths, retinal cones, cortical pathways. She has lived her whole life in a black-and-white room and has never seen colour. She can predict exactly what your brain will do when red light strikes your eye.

One day Mary steps out and sees a red rose. Does she learn something new? Intuition says yes: she learns what red looks like. Yet she already knew every physical fact. If she gains new knowledge, then some fact about experience is not a physical fact. That is the knowledge argument against physicalism, and the responses to it define the central positions surveyed below.

Check your understanding Beginner

Formal definition Intermediate+

Building on §20.06.01, this unit fixes the technical vocabulary in which the hard-problem debate is conducted and partitions the space of responses. The load-bearing distinctions are between kinds of problem, kinds of consciousness, and kinds of physicalist reply.

Easy problems vs the hard problem. The easy problems of consciousness concern the explanation of cognitive functions: discrimination, categorisation, integration of information, attentional control, reportability of internal states, and the production of behaviour (Chalmers 1995 ^{[source pending]}). These are problems about what a system does and how it does it; they are difficult but, in principle, tractable for cognitive science. The hard problem concerns phenomenal experience itself — why these functions are accompanied by subjective, qualitative feel. The asymmetry is structural: easy problems admit of functional explanations, while the hard problem asks why functional activity is accompanied by experience at all.

Qualia and phenomenal consciousness. A quale (plural qualia) is the subjective, phenomenal character of a conscious state — the "what-it-is-likeness" of experiencing it (Nagel 1974 ^{[source pending]}). Phenomenal consciousness is the property a state has when there is something it is like to be in it. This contrasts with access consciousness (Block 1995), which is the availability of information to reasoning, report, and action. The hard problem targets phenomenal consciousness specifically; access consciousness is comparatively tractable.

The explanatory gap. Levine's gap (1983 ^{[source pending]}) is the residual explanatory deficit between physical/functional descriptions and phenomenal descriptions. Even granted a mind-brain identity such as pain = C-fibre firing, we can intelligibly ask why C-fibre firing feels as it does. Levine is a physicalist: he reads the gap as epistemic — a limitation in our modes of description — rather than as a metaphysical gulf implying non-physical properties. Chalmers strengthens the epistemic gap into a metaphysical one, arguing that no physical description necessitates the phenomenal.

Physicalism is the thesis that everything, including consciousness, is physical — either identical to, constituted by, or fully determined by the physical. The physicalist responses to the hard problem sort into two families (Chalmers' terminology).

Type-A physicalism holds that there is no genuine explanatory gap: once the functional and physical facts are fixed, there is no further phenomenal fact left over. Its leading form is illusionism (Dennett 1991; Frankish 2016 ^{[source pending]}), which holds that qualia as traditionally conceived do not exist. What we call subjective experience is an introspective model the brain constructs of its own states — a "user illusion." The hard problem is dissolved by denying its datum.

Type-B physicalism grants the epistemic gap but denies the metaphysical gap. Pain = C-fibre firing is an a posteriori identity, like water = H${}_2$O: necessary, but knowable only empirically. The felt difficulty of explaining why the identity holds is the same difficulty we face with any a posteriori identity, not evidence of dualism. The phenomenal concepts strategy (Loar, Papineau, Balog) explains the gap through the special, recognitional character of phenomenal concepts rather than through non-physical properties.

Further physicalist positions. Identity theory (type physicalism) identifies mental states with specific brain states. Functionalism identifies mental states with functional roles, multiply realisable across substrates. Representationalism (Tye, Dretske) holds that phenomenal character is identical to a certain kind of representational content. Eliminativism (P. S. Churchland, P. M. Churchland ^{[source pending]}) holds that folk psychology misconceives consciousness and that mature neuroscience will revise the concept away.

Property dualism (Chalmers 1996 ^{[source pending]}) accepts the datum that physical facts fail to entail phenomenal facts and concludes that consciousness is a fundamental, irreducible property — not a separate substance, but a non-physical property of physical systems, governed by its own psychophysical laws. This is the dualist pole against which the physicalist responses are defined.

Argument reconstruction — the zombie argument and the conceivability–possibility link Intermediate+

The most forceful anti-physicalist argument is Chalmers' zombie conceivability argument, which converts the explanatory gap into a modal claim against physicalism. Its force depends on the link between conceivability and metaphysical possibility, and the physicalist replies target one of the argument's two premises.

P1 (conceivability). A philosophical zombie — a being physically and functionally identical to a conscious human but entirely lacking phenomenal experience — is ideally conceivable: there is no contradiction in the hypothesis.

P2 (conceivability entails possibility). If a situation is ideally conceivable without contradiction, then it is metaphysically possible.

C1. Zombies are metaphysically possible.

C2. If zombies are possible, then the physical facts do not necessitate the phenomenal facts: two worlds can share all physical properties while differing in phenomenal properties. Physicalism is false.

The argument is valid; the question is which premise a physicalist can reject.

Denying P1 — type-A physicalism. The illusionist (Dennett, Frankish) denies that zombies are genuinely conceivable, on the grounds that the phenomenal residue they subtract does not exist. Once you fix the physical and functional facts, including all introspective reporting and self-modelling, there is nothing left to remove. Apparent conceivability is an artefact of our flawed introspective model. Chalmers (2003 ^{[source pending]}) calls this "the most extreme attempt to deny the datum": it refuses the starting intuition rather than explaining it.

Denying P2 — type-B physicalism and a posteriori necessity. The type-B physicalist (Block and Stalnaker 1999; Loar 1990 ^{[source pending]}) concedes that zombies are conceivable but denies that conceivability entails possibility in this domain. Kripke's a posteriori necessities supply the precedent. "Water = H${}_2$O" is necessary, yet before the chemical discovery it was conceivable that the clear liquid in rivers was something else. Conceivability failed to track possibility there; it fails here too, because pain = C-fibre firing (if true) is likewise an a posteriori identity. The conceivability of a zombie is epistemic, not metaphysical.

Chalmers' reply uses two-dimensional semantics. He distinguishes primary possibility (how things are according to the actual world described by the terms) from secondary possibility (how things stand given the actual reference of the terms). The water case is secondarily necessary but primarily possible; that is why it seemed conceivable. Zombies, Chalmers argues, are primarily conceivable, and primary conceivability of a scenario that fixes all physical facts while denying phenomenal facts entails primary possibility — which is the relevant modality for evaluating physicalism. Whether this semantic apparatus delivers the modal conclusion is the crux of the debate.

The knowledge argument as a parallel. Jackson's Mary's Room (1982) runs on a structurally similar inference: Mary knows all physical facts; on release she gains new phenomenal knowledge; therefore some fact is non-physical. The physicalist replies mirror the zombie replies: the type-A theorist denies that Mary gains a fact (ability hypothesis — Lewis, Nemirow); the type-B theorist grants new knowledge but reads it as a new phenomenal concept of an old physical fact (phenomenal concepts strategy). The convergence of two arguments on the same fork is what makes the hard problem durable: each response must handle both the modal and the epistemic pressure simultaneously.

Exercises Intermediate+

Phenomenal concepts, conceivability, and the knowledge argument revisited Master

The phenomenal concepts strategy. The most developed type-B reply is the phenomenal concepts strategy (PCS). Phenomenal concepts are the distinctive, first-person concepts we deploy in thinking about our own experiences — concepts acquired only by having the experience (Loar 1990; Papineau 2002; Balog 2012 ^{[source pending]}). On PCS, the explanatory gap is explained not by metaphysical dualism but by the special character of these concepts: they are recognitional and direct, picking out their referents by acquaintance rather than by description. When Mary steps out of the room, she gains a new phenomenal concept of a property she already knew under physical descriptions. The gap between her two ways of thinking is a concept-level gap, not a fact-level one. Stoljar ("Physicalism and Phenomenal Concepts") identifies PCS as the most promising physicalist response.

Chalmers' critique ("Phenomenal Concepts and the Explanatory Gap" ^{[source pending]}) is that PCS does not discharge the gap: even granting a special mode of presentation for phenomenal concepts, we can still ask why that concept refers to a physical property rather than to none, and why having it should seem to disclose a new fact. PCS, on this reading, redescribes the symptom without explaining it. If PCS merely asserts that phenomenal concepts are "direct" without explaining what makes them seem fact-involving, it risks an ad hoc placeholder.

Conceivability and two-dimensional semantics. The modal fate of the zombie argument turns on the conceivability–possibility link and on Kripke's framework of a posteriori necessity. Kripke's puzzle for pain: if pain = C-fibre firing is a true identity, then it holds in every possible world, since the terms are rigid. Yet we can coherently imagine pain without C-fibre firing. Standard a posteriori identities (water = H${}_2$O) resolve this by distinguishing primary from secondary intension (Chalmers; see also Soames): the primary intension of "water" picks out whatever clear liquid actually fills the oceans, so water-not-H${}_2$O is primarily possible but secondarily impossible. Chalmers argues that for phenomenal terms the primary and secondary intensions come apart in a way that leaves zombies primarily possible: there is a world, considered as actual, that satisfies all the physical and functional conditions we use to fix the reference of "consciousness" yet lacks phenomenal feel. Yablo ("Islands and All That") defends a related conceivability claim. The type-B physicalist denies that the primary possibility of a zombie world shows physicalism false, holding that secondary necessity is the relevant modality for physicalist commitment.

The knowledge argument revisited. Jackson himself recanted the argument in "Mind and Illusion" (2001 ^{[source pending]}), but the argument persists independently of its author. The ability hypothesis (Lewis, Nemirow — "What Is It Like to Be a Julia?") holds that what Mary gains is the ability to recognise, imagine, and remember red, not new propositional knowledge. Churchland ("Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of Brain States") argues the setup is incoherent: a being with complete physical knowledge of colour vision would already be able to deduce what red looks like. Dennett's "RoboMary" extends this — a Mary equipped to simulate the relevant neural states internally could work out the phenomenal character before release. Chalmers' reply is that these responses misdescribe the datum: Mary does gain new propositional knowledge — phenomenal knowledge — and this is not reducible to ability or to deduction from the physical, because the phenomenal concept is not derivable from physical concepts no matter how complete the physical description.

The meta-problem of consciousness. Chalmers' "The Meta-Problem of Consciousness" (2018 ^{[source pending]}) turns the enquiry back on itself: can we explain why we think there is a hard problem? If a deflationary account of phenomenal concepts and our problem-reports dissolves the sense of an explanatory gap, illusionism gains ground. If, instead, the best account of why we have phenomenal concepts presupposes the reality of phenomenal properties, the meta-problem sharpens rather than dissolves the hard problem. Frankish and Dennett read the meta-problem as supporting illusionism; Chalmers reads a substantive answer as leaving the hard problem intact. The meta-problem thus functions as a diagnostic that both camps can wield.

Russellian monism, panpsychism, and alternative frameworks Master

The structure-and-dynamics argument. Chalmers and others press a deeper worry about the reach of physical description. Physics describes the structure and dynamics of matter — the relational, mathematical properties entities bear to one another — but is silent on the intrinsic nature of matter, the categorical properties that instantiate those relational structures. Consciousness is precisely the kind of thing that seems intrinsic rather than structural. If so, no purely structural-dynamical description can capture it, and the hard problem reflects a principled limit of physical inquiry, not a gap in current theory.

Russellian monism. Bertrand Russell's The Analysis of Matter (1927 ^{[source pending]}) proposes that the intrinsic nature of matter is experiential, or proto-experiential. On this neutral-monist picture, consciousness does not emerge from dead matter; rather, matter has an experiential intrinsic nature all the way down, and the consciousness we know is what that intrinsic nature amounts to when organised in brains. This dissolves the hard problem by denying its premise: consciousness is not something physical theory must derive from structure, because it is the intrinsic fill of the structure itself. Russellian monism is the most developed form of contemporary panpsychism and sits between physicalism and dualism.

Mysterianism. McGinn ("Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?", 1989 ^{[source pending]}) argues that the hard problem is real but unsolvable by us: human cognition is closed to the solution, as a monkey's cognition is closed to quantum mechanics. There is, on McGinn's naturalistic mysterianism, a perfectly naturalistic account of how brains give rise to consciousness, but we lack the concepts to grasp it. Stoljar's "Ignorance and the Limits of Phenomenal Concepts" develops a cognate view: the gap reflects our ignorance of a kind of physical property, not the falsity of physicalism. Mysterianism accepts the datum while suspending judgement on dualism.

Panpsychism and the combination problem. Strawson ("Realistic Monism," 2006) and Goff develop the view that matter itself bears fundamental phenomenal properties. The gravest difficulty is the combination problem: how do micro-experiences at the level of particles combine into the unified macro-experience of a human subject? Chalmers ("Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism") treats this as the most serious obstacle for the view — in some ways as hard as the original hard problem, since it demands an account of micro-experiential aggregation with no precedent in physical science. Contemporary work (Goff, Seager — "Panpsychism and Substance") refines the versions of the problem (subject-summing, quality-combination, structural-mismatch).

Biological naturalism. Searle ("The Rediscovery of the Mind," 1992; "Biological Naturalism" ^{[source pending]}) treats consciousness as a biological phenomenon caused by brain processes — real and irreducible in its everyday sense, but not a separate substance. Consciousness is a higher-order, system-level feature of brains, analogous to the way liquidity is a feature of the system of molecules even though no single molecule is wet. Chalmers' critique is that this re-describes the explanandum without addressing the hard problem: saying consciousness is a biological higher-order feature does not explain why that feature is accompanied by subjective feel.

Husserlian phenomenology. A different tradition refuses to approach consciousness as a problem for third-person science. Husserl's method — the epoché (bracketing of the natural attitude), the phenomenological reduction, and eidetic intuition — studies the structures of experience from the first person: intentionality (consciousness is always consciousness of something), the noesis–noema structure, and the constitutive role of subjectivity (Husserl, Logical Investigations, Ideas ^{[source pending]}). Zahavi (Subjectivity and Selfhood; Self and Other) develops contemporary phenomenology around the irreducibility of the first-person perspective. Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception adds embodiment; Heidegger's Being and Time recasts the subject as Dasein, being-in-the-world, with equipment encountered as ready-to-hand rather than present-at-hand. This tradition brackets the hard problem's demand for a third-person explanation and treats lived experience as primary data.

Eastern approaches. Advaita Vedanta centres pure consciousness as Brahman-Atman — non-dual awareness in which the subject-object distinction dissolves (see §20.12.01). Buddhist thought denies a persisting self (anatta) and analyses consciousness as a stream of momentary aggregates; the Yogacara school posits mind-only (alaya-vijnana, the storehouse consciousness). Dzogchen points to rigpa, the natural state of awareness (see §20.11.01); Zen practises shikantaza, "just sitting." Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka empties all phenomena of intrinsic nature via dependent origination. These traditions offer detailed phenomenologies of consciousness from the inside and resist the subject-object framing that generates the hard problem (comparative hooks to §20.10.01, §20.11.01, §20.12.01, §20.13.01; meditative states in §31.02.04).

Animal consciousness. Griffin's Animal Minds and subsequent work (Edelman, Seth, Baars) extend the question across species: which animals are sentient, and by what criteria (see §19.06.* speciation, §20.05.* biology)? Birch's work ties animal sentience to moral status, connecting directly to animal ethics (Singer, Regan, Francione; see §20.02.07 consequentialism) and to biological anthropology (§31.04.*). The hard problem here becomes pressing in practice: without a settled theory of what consciousness is, the criteria for animal sentience — and the moral weight that turns on them — remain contested.

Connections Master

• Consciousness: the hard problem and the mind-body debate 20.06.01 is the direct prerequisite. That unit fixed qualia, the knowledge argument, the Chinese Room, and the major positions; this unit deepens the explanatory-gap framing (Levine) and the typology of physicalist responses (type-A vs type-B, the phenomenal concepts strategy). The two units are best read as a pair.

• Scientific theories of consciousness 20.06.03 pending is the proposed successor. Integrated information theory and global workspace theory are attempts to move the hard problem from philosophy into empirical science; the hook out records that the hard problem motivates those theories and constrains what they could achieve.

• The measurement problem in quantum mechanics 20.03.01 connects through the Wigner–von Neumann strand in which consciousness plays a causal role in wave-function collapse. If consciousness triggers collapse, a complete physical theory must say what consciousness is — importing the hard problem into the foundations of physics.

• Consequentialism and animal ethics 20.02.07 pending connects through moral status. Whether an entity has moral standing depends partly on whether it is conscious, so the criteria for phenomenal consciousness directly underwrite animal ethics (Singer, Regan, Birch).

• Advaita Vedanta 20.12.01, Buddhism 20.11.01, Daoism 20.13.01, and Confucianism 20.10.01 are the comparative hooks. Eastern traditions offer first-person phenomenologies of awareness that resist the subject-object framing generating the hard problem, and the comparative literature presses which features of the debate are local to the Western tradition.

• Sensation and perception [29.03] and theory of mind [29.06] connect through the empirical psychology and development of conscious experience, anchoring the philosophical debate to measurable cognitive structure.

Cross-domain to the philosophy of language [§22]: the ineffability of qualia — the apparent impossibility of communicating what red looks like to someone who has never seen it — connects to the private-language argument (Wittgenstein) and to the limits of linguistic expression.

Historical and philosophical context Master

The modern mind-body problem begins with Descartes' Meditations (1641): mind and body as distinct substances, interacting through the pineal gland. The interaction problem — how a non-physical mind moves physical matter without violating conservation laws — was recognised immediately and remains the strongest objection to substance dualism. Property dualism, the contemporary descendant, drops the separate substance while keeping irreducible mental properties.

The identity-theory programme of the mid-twentieth century (U. T. Place 1956; J. J. C. Smart 1959) argued, by analogy with scientific reductions like temperature = mean kinetic energy, that mental states would be identified with brain states through empirical investigation. Functionalism followed in the 1960s and 1970s (Putnam, Fodor), motivated by multiple realisability: the same mental state could be implemented in silicon as in carbon. Functionalism became the default of cognitive science.

Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" (1974 ^{[source pending]}) reframed the debate. Nagel argued that the subjective character of experience — the "what it is like" — cannot be captured by any objective physical description, because the bat's point of view is inaccessible to us no matter how complete our physical knowledge of its sonar. Nagel did not argue for dualism; he argued that we lack the conceptual resources to solve the problem. Levine's "Materialism and Qualia" (1983 ^{[source pending]}) sharpened the point into the explanatory gap: even granted a mind-brain identity, the question "why does it feel like this?" remains intelligible.

Jackson's knowledge argument (1982) turned the gap into a formal anti-physicalist inference through Mary's Room. Jackson himself later recanted ("Mind and Illusion," 2001), accepting that Mary gains not a new fact but a new ability — yet the argument's force is independent of its author's later views. The 1980s and 1990s saw the physicalist responses crystallise: the ability hypothesis (Lewis, Nemirow), the phenomenal concepts strategy (Loar 1990, Papineau 2002), and the representationalist account (Tye, Dretske).

Chalmers' "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" (1995 ^{[source pending]}) and The Conscious Mind (1996 ^{[source pending]}) gave the debate its contemporary shape. Chalmers named the hard/easy distinction, argued that no reductive explanation of phenomenal consciousness is available, and developed the zombie argument and a naturalistic property dualism (or panpsychism, on some readings) in which consciousness is governed by psychophysical laws. The terminology became standard, and the hard problem displaced the generic "mind-body problem" as the focal question.

The same period saw the radical physicalist counter. Dennett's Consciousness Explained (1991) argued that consciousness as standardly conceived is a confusion generated by faulty introspection; his illusionism, later named and defended by Frankish (2016), denies the datum that generates the hard problem. The eliminativist strand (P. M. Churchland, P. S. Churchland) presses that folk psychology will be revised away by mature neuroscience.

The current field is a productive deadlock. No position commands majority assent. The phenomenal concepts strategy, Russellian monism, illusionism, panpsychism, and mysterianism are all live research programmes, each paying a different price for the explanatory gap. The adversarial collaboration between scientific theories (IIT vs GWT) and the rise of the meta-problem as a self-diagnostic of the debate are signs of an active field, even though a resolution is not in sight.

Bibliography Master

1. Chalmers, D. J. — "Facing up to the problem of consciousness", Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3), 200-219 (1995).

2. Chalmers, D. J. — The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Oxford University Press, 1996).

3. Chalmers, D. J. — "Phenomenal concepts and the explanatory gap", in Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge, ed. T. Alter and S. Walter (Oxford University Press, 2007).

4. Chalmers, D. J. — "The meta-problem of consciousness", Journal of Consciousness Studies 25(9-10), 6-46 (2018).

5. Chalmers, D. J. — "Panpsychism and panprotopsychism", in Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism, ed. T. Alter and Y. Nagasawa (Oxford University Press, 2015).

6. Levine, J. — "Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap", Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64(4), 354-361 (1983).

7. Nagel, T. — "What is it like to be a bat?", The Philosophical Review 83(4), 435-450 (1974).

8. Jackson, F. — "Epiphenomenal qualia", The Philosophical Quarterly 32(127), 127-136 (1982).

9. Jackson, F. — "Mind and illusion", in Minds and Causes, ed. A. O'Hear (Cambridge University Press, 2001).

10. Block, N. — "On a confusion about a function of consciousness", Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18(2), 227-247 (1995).

11. Kripke, S. A. — Naming and Necessity (Harvard University Press, 1980).

12. Soames, S. — Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity (Oxford University Press, 2002).

13. Dennett, D. C. — Consciousness Explained (Little, Brown and Co., 1991).

14. Dennett, D. C. — "Quining qualia", in Consciousness in Contemporary Science, ed. A. Marcel and E. Bisiach (Oxford University Press, 1988).

15. Frankish, K. — "Illusionism as a theory of consciousness", Journal of Consciousness Studies 23(11-12), 11-39 (2016).

16. Loar, B. — "Phenomenal states", in Philosophical Perspectives, 4: Action Theory and Philosophy of Mind, ed. J. Tomberlin (Ridgeview, 1990), pp. 81-108.

17. Papineau, D. — Thinking about Consciousness (Oxford University Press, 2002).

18. Balog, K. — "Acquaintance and the mind-body problem", in Current Controversies in Philosophy of Mind, ed. U. Kriegel (Routledge, 2014).

19. Stoljar, D. — "Physicalism and phenomenal concepts", Mind and Language 20(2), 155-181 (2005).

20. Stoljar, D. — "Ignorance and the limits of phenomenal concepts", Journal of Consciousness Studies 23(11-12), 79-97 (2016).

21. Block, N. and Stalnaker, R. — "Conceptual analysis, dualism, and the explanatory gap", The Philosophical Review 108(1), 1-46 (1999).

22. Tye, M. — Ten Problems of Consciousness (MIT Press, 1995).

23. Lewis, D. — "What experience teaches", in Proceedings of the Russellian Society, ed. W. Lycan (University of Sydney, 1988).

24. Nemirow, L. — "What is it like to be a Julia?", Philosophical Topics 33(1), 1-24 (2005).

25. Churchland, P. M. — "Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes", The Journal of Philosophy 78(2), 67-90 (1981).

26. Churchland, P. S. — "Consciousness: the transmutation of a concept", Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64(1), 18-40 (1983).

27. Pereboom, D. — Consciousness and the Prospects of Physicalism (Oxford University Press, 2011).

28. Russell, B. — The Analysis of Matter (Kegan Paul, 1927).

29. Strawson, G. — "Realistic monism: why physicalism entails panpsychism", Journal of Consciousness Studies 13(10-11), 3-31 (2006).

30. Goff, P. — Consciousness and Fundamental Reality (Oxford University Press, 2017).

31. Seager, W. — "Panpsychism and substance", Journal of Consciousness Studies 23(11-12), 132-155 (2016).

32. McGinn, C. — "Can we solve the mind-body problem?", The Journal of Philosophy 88(6), 304-323 (1989).

33. Yablo, S. — "Islands and all that: the conceivability of zombies", Journal of Consciousness Studies 16(2-3), 23-43 (2009).

34. Searle, J. R. — The Rediscovery of the Mind (MIT Press, 1992).

35. Husserl, E. — Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy — First Book (1913; trans. F. Kersten, Kluwer, 1983).

36. Zahavi, D. — Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective (MIT Press, 2005).

37. Merleau-Ponty, M. — Phenomenology of Perception (1945; trans. D. Landes, Routledge, 2012).

38. Heidegger, M. — Being and Time (1927; trans. J. Stambaugh, SUNY Press, 2010).

39. Nagărjuna — Műlamadhyamakakărikă (c. 2nd century CE; trans. J. Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Oxford University Press, 1995).

40. Griffin, D. R. — Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness (University of Chicago Press, 2001).

41. Birch, J. — "Animal sentience and the precautionary principle", Animal Sentience 2(16) (2017).