<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness</title>
        <author>David J. Chalmers</author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <p>Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the
           staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in
           standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.</p>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <title>Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness</title>
          <date>1995</date>
          <publisher>Journal of Consciousness Studies</publisher>
          
          
          <idno type="record">chalmers1995-hard-problem</idno>
          <note type="staged-file">chalmers1995-hard-problem.txt, the project's staged copy</note>
          <note type="text-sha1">7a45c86ffd7305f5e101aa01c34ec1cbc2eef286</note>
          <note type="rights">open-access</note>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <textClass><keywords><term>philosophy</term></keywords></textClass>
      <particDesc>
        <person xml:id="paper"><p>the paper's own words</p></person>
        <person xml:id="tagger"><p>the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the
          paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation</p></person>
      </particDesc>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change when="2026-10-06"
              who="build_paper_edition.py">0 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them</change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <standOff>
    <spanGrp type="tags">
      <span xml:id="t0" type="claim_type" ana="#claim_type" resp="#paper">
        <label>critique</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t1" type="phenomenon" ana="#phenomenon" resp="#paper">
        <label>conscious experience</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t2" type="method" ana="#method" resp="#paper">
        <label>conceptual-analysis</label>
        <term>conceptual-analysis</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t3" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>THE FIELD&#x27;S PROBLEMS ARE DIVIDED BY THE METHOD THAT ADDRESSES THEM, NOT BY SUBJECT MATTER: the easy problems are DEFINED as those directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science - explanation in terms of computational or neural mechanisms - and the hard ones as those that seem to RESIST those methods. The dividing principle is tractability by an instrument</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t4" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>THE CENTRAL TERM IS DECLARED AMBIGUOUS BEFORE ANYTHING IS CLAIMED ABOUT IT: consciousness is said to be an ambiguous term referring to MANY DIFFERENT PHENOMENA, each needing explanation and some easier than others - so the paper&#x27;s first move is to deny that its subject is one thing</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t5" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>ONE WORD IS SHOWN CARRYING SEVERAL OPERATIONAL SENSES AT ONCE, each attaching to a different test: a state is called conscious when it is VERBALLY REPORTABLE, or when it is INTERNALLY ACCESSIBLE; a system is conscious OF information when it can react on that basis, or attends to it, or integrates it into control of behaviour; an action is conscious when DELIBERATE; an organism is conscious when AWAKE</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t6" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>A VOCABULARY SPLIT IS PROPOSED AND THE COST OF NOT ADOPTING IT IS NAMED: reserve the word for the phenomena of experience and use the LESS LOADED term `awareness` for the straightforward ones - and the stated consequence of the present situation is that `those who talk about consciousness are frequently talking past each other`</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t7" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>A BAIT-AND-SWITCH IS ANATOMISED AS A RECURRING GENRE IN THE LITERATURE, not as a mistake by any one author: the theory delivered TURNS OUT TO BE a theory of one of the more straightforward phenomena - reportability, introspective access, OR WHATEVER - after which the author declares the problem tractable after all, leaving the reader FEELING LIKE THE VICTIM OF A BAIT-AND-SWITCH while the hard problem remains untouched</term>
        <note>about this quote: RE-SLICED AROUND A SPLICED PAGE NUMBER. This file interleaves page numbers BETWEEN LOWERCASE WORDS - &quot;In the second half of the paper, the tone 3 becomes more optimistic&quot; - which the FOOTNOTE pattern in an internal tool cannot see, because it requires a CAPITALISED word after the digit. A guard was added for this shape and refused four spans in this paper, every one a real splice. The span was cut to stop short of it; the quote is verbatim and clean.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t8" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>A TEST IS GIVEN FOR WHETHER A TERM IS EXHAUSTED BY A FUNCTION, AND IT IS A TEST ON THE RESIDUAL QUESTION: someone who says the verbal-report function has been explained BUT NOT reportability is making a TRIVIAL CONCEPTUAL MISTAKE, because ALL IT COULD POSSIBLY TAKE to explain reportability is an explanation of how the relevant function is performed - and the same is said to go for the others</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t9" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>AND THE SAME TEST IS RUN ON THE CONTRAST CASES AND COMES OUT THE OTHER WAY: after every cognitive and behavioural function in the vicinity has been explained there MAY STILL REMAIN A FURTHER UNANSWERED QUESTION - why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience - and the paper states flatly that THERE IS NO ANALOGOUS FURTHER QUESTION in the explanation of genes, or of life, or of learning. One test, several terms, opposite verdicts</term>
        <note>about this quote: RE-SLICED AROUND A SPLICED PAGE NUMBER. This file interleaves page numbers BETWEEN LOWERCASE WORDS - &quot;but you 5 have not explained how it is experienced&quot; - which the FOOTNOTE pattern in an internal tool cannot see, because it requires a CAPITALISED word after the digit. A guard was added for this shape and refused four spans in this paper, every one a real splice. The span was cut to stop short of it; the quote is verbatim and clean.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t10" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>THE METHODS ARE SAID TO BE FITTED TO A CLASS OF PROBLEM BY DESIGN, WHICH IS WHY A RESIDUE REMAINS: the usual methods were developed PRECISELY to explain the performance of cognitive functions and do a good job of it - and as they stand they are ONLY equipped for that, so on the remaining problem the standard approach HAS NOTHING TO SAY. The gap is attributed to the instrument&#x27;s design, not to insufficient effort</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t11" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>A THEORY IS SHOWN TO BE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE VERY LINK IT RELIES ON: the account GAINS ITS PURCHASE by assuming a connection between binding and experience, AND SO CAN DO NOTHING TO EXPLAIN THAT LINK - with the converse stated as the diagnostic, that if the link were understood the neurophysiological detail would be ICING ON THE CAKE</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t12" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[9]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>A RESEARCHER&#x27;S OWN DEFINITION OF HIS TERM, IN HIS OWN WORDS: he sets the really difficult aspects aside as possibly having NO SCIENTIFIC SOLUTION, proposes to focus on things that are EASIER TO STUDY, describes someone noticing a cappuccino and reaching for it - and closes THAT&#x27;S WHAT I CALL AWARENESS. The term is given its scope by an example of responding in a meaningful manner</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t13" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[10]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>ELIMINATION BY REDEFINITION IS NAMED AS A MOVE: some deny the phenomenon outright, and OTHERS ACHIEVE THE SAME EFFECT by allowing that experience exists ONLY IF the word is equated with something like the capacity to discriminate and report. The denial is performed by the definition rather than by an argument</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t14" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[11]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>A CRITERION IS GIVEN FOR WHEN A TERM MAY LEGITIMATELY BE RETIRED, AND IT TURNS ON THE TERM&#x27;S ROLE RATHER THAN ITS TRUTH: the vital spirit was put forward AS AN EXPLANATORY POSIT, to explain certain functions, AND COULD THEREFORE BE DISCARDED once those functions were explained without it - whereas an EXPLANANDUM IN ITS OWN RIGHT is not a candidate for that kind of elimination</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t15" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[12]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>THE OBVIOUS PRECEDENT IS RAISED AND THE DISANALOGY IS LOCATED PRECISELY IN WHAT WAS EVER IN DOUBT: vitalist scepticism was doubt about whether physical mechanisms COULD PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS - while the conceptual claim that explanation of functions IS WHAT IS NEEDED was IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED by both sides. The historical parallel is disarmed by separating the empirical bet from the conceptual premise it never touched</term>
        <note>about this quote: RE-SLICED AROUND A SPLICED PAGE NUMBER. This file interleaves page numbers BETWEEN LOWERCASE WORDS - &quot;but lacking detailed knowledge of 12 biochemical mechanisms&quot; - which the FOOTNOTE pattern in an internal tool cannot see, because it requires a CAPITALISED word after the digit. A guard was added for this shape and refused four spans in this paper, every one a real splice. The span was cut to stop short of it; the quote is verbatim and clean.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t16" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[13]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>A FALLACY ABOUT HOW TWO TERMS COME TO BE LINKED IS NAMED AND GIVEN A LAW: the attractiveness of quantum theories of consciousness is attributed to a LAW OF MINIMIZATION OF MYSTERY - consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious, SO MAYBE THE TWO MYSTERIES HAVE A COMMON SOURCE. The proposed connection is between the two terms&#x27; obscurity, not between their contents</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t17" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[14]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.85">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>A CLASS OF THEORY IS SHOWN TO RUN THE EXPLANATION BACKWARDS: these theories ASSUME THE EXISTENCE of consciousness and USE IT IN THE EXPLANATION of quantum processes. The term appears in the explanans where it was wanted in the explanandum</term>
        <note>about this quote: RE-SLICED AROUND A SPLICED PAGE NUMBER. This file interleaves page numbers BETWEEN LOWERCASE WORDS - &quot;At best, these 11 theories tell us something about a physical role&quot; - which the FOOTNOTE pattern in an internal tool cannot see, because it requires a CAPITALISED word after the digit. A guard was added for this shape and refused four spans in this paper, every one a real splice. The span was cut to stop short of it; the quote is verbatim and clean.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t18" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[15]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>A TEMPTING INDUCTION FROM THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE IS NAMED AND BLOCKED BY SORTING ITS CASES: it is tempting to note that puzzling phenomena have always eventually yielded to physical explanation - but EACH of those was a problem about the observable behaviour of physical objects, coming down to structures and functions, and therefore always the KIND OF THING a physical account might explain. The induction fails because its instances share a property the new case lacks</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t19" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The proposed theory is offered as speculative and only a candidate.</label>
        <note>what this limits: the positive proposal only: THE THEORY I HAVE PRESENTED IS SPECULATIVE, BUT IT IS A CANDIDATE THEORY</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t20" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The central basic principle (double-aspect theory of information) is admitted to be highly speculative and to leave key questions open.</label>
        <note>what this limits: the double-aspect principle specifically: IT IS EXTREMELY SPECULATIVE AND IS ALSO UNDERDETERMINED, LEAVING A NUMBER OF KEY QUESTIONS UNANSWERED</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t21" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>There is very little objective data on which to build a theory of consciousness, because experience is not directly observable.</label>
        <note>what this limits: the evidence base for any theory of consciousness: THE PAUCITY OF OBJECTIVE DATA - experience is not directly observable</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t22" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Theories of this kind cannot be settled by conclusive intersubjective experimental test and so keep a speculative element.</label>
        <note>what this limits: the epistemic status of the whole class of theories, permanently: SUCH THEORIES WILL ALWAYS RETAIN AN ELEMENT OF SPECULATION ... BECAUSE OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONCLUSIVE INTERSUBJECTIVE EXPERIMENTAL TESTS</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t23" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>The central term is stated to be ambiguous, and the paper says the ambiguity leads researchers to talk past one another.</label>
        <note>what this limits: any claim about consciousness stated without saying which phenomenon is meant: the paper states people using the term are frequently talking past each other</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t24" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>The paper states the ambiguity of its central term is exploited by writers in both philosophy and science.</label>
        <note>what this limits: a consciousness claim taken at face value: the paper states the term&#x27;s ambiguity is often exploited by philosophers and scientists alike</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t25" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>using the explanatory framework of cognitive science and neuroscience (computational and neural mechanisms) to demarcate the tractable easy problems of consciousness from the hard problem</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t26" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[0]" resp="#paper">
        <label>consciousness</label>
        <term>consciousness</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t27" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[2]" resp="#paper">
        <label>hard problem</label>
        <term>hard problem</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t28" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[4]" resp="#paper">
        <label>easy problems</label>
        <term>easy problems</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t29" type="senses" ana="#senses[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>consciousness - an ambiguous term referring to many different phenomena, which is the paper&#x27;s starting observation rather than an aside</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t30" type="senses" ana="#senses[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>consciousness - the narrowed convention the paper proposes: reserved for the phenomena of experience</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t31" type="senses" ana="#senses[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>easy problems - those defined NOT by their subject but by their susceptibility to the standard methods of cognitive science</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t32" type="senses" ana="#senses[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>hard problem - the problem of experience: the subjective aspect that remains once the information-processing is accounted for</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t33" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>contradicts → reductive methods for explaining consciousness</label>
        <note>differs in: which part of the problem is addressed: THESE METHODS INEVITABLY FAIL TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THE HARDEST PART OF THE PROBLEM</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t34" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>builds-on → Nagel (1974), &#x27;What is it like to be a bat?&#x27;</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t35" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>builds-on → Levine (1983), the explanatory gap</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t36" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>builds-on → Shannon (1948), information theory</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t37" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[4]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>contradicts → Crick and Koch (1990) neurobiological theory of consciousness (40-Hz binding oscillations)</label>
        <note>differs in: what is assumed against what is explained: CRICK AND KOCH&#x27;S THEORY GAINS ITS PURCHASE BY ASSUMING A CONNECTION BETWEEN BINDING AND EXPERIENCE, AND SO CAN DO NOTHING TO EXPLAIN THAT LINK</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t38" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[5]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>contradicts → Bernard Baars, global workspace theory (A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness)</label>
        <note>differs in: awareness against experience: THE THEORY SHOWS PROMISE AS A THEORY OF AWARENESS, THE FUNCTIONAL CORRELATE OF CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE, BUT AN EXPLANATION OF EXPERIENCE ITSELF IS NOT ON OFFER</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t39" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[6]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>contradicts → Searle (1980), biological naturalism about consciousness</label>
        <note>differs in: whether the substrate matters: CONSCIOUSNESS IS TIED TO A SPECIFIC BIOLOGY, SO THAT A SILICON ISOMORPH OF A HUMAN NEED NOT BE CONSCIOUS - against organisation alone</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t40" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>easy problems —distinct-from→ hard problem</label>
        <term>easy problems</term>
        <term>hard problem</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 1</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t41" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>a century or two — time Chalmers expects the easy problems to take</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t42" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>the easy problems yield to standard cognitive-science methods</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t43" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>the hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t44" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>experience arises from a physical basis with no good explanation of why</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t45" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>the hard problem persists even after all functions are explained</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t46" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>easy problems</label>
        <term>easy problems</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t47" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>the hard problem</label>
        <term>the hard problem</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t48" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>nonreductive explanation</label>
        <term>nonreductive explanation</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t49" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>the hard problem</label>
        <term>the hard problem</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t50" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>easy problems</label>
        <term>easy problems</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t51" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>experience</label>
        <term>experience</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t52" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>function</label>
        <term>function</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
    </spanGrp>
  </standOff>
  <text>
    <body>
      <p><note type="rights">The full text of this article is not redistributable, so it is
      not included here. The evidence sentences are withheld with it; the tag layer and its
      grounding status remain. The article itself is at https://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf.</note></p>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
