The Case for Open Phenomenology

By /

First written: 2024-02-26
Last nontrivial update: 2024-03-26
Author: Andromeda ✨

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity, or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames. For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, XII, iii

The Problem

To most effectively model (phenomenal) consciousness we should study its nature at the implementation level of analysis, rather than at higher levels of semantic abstraction.1 This requires us to introspect on the most basic properties and qualities that make up our subjective experiences (i.e., qualia), record our observations (using precise concepts), and present them in a format that is most useful for testing different theories of consciousness. For example, within a given moment of experience, which qualia are present? Where are they located in relation to each other? How do these qualities bind together to form coherent and unified structures? What processes explain their changing behavior across different moments of experience? And what information content do these structures typically encode?

Such questions are central to the philosophical study of phenomenology, yet the status of phenomenology plays but a small role in contemporary research on consciousness. Moreover, the methods and practices prescribed by most academic researchers have too many failure modes to make meaningful progress on the problem of consciousness. Philosophers argue extensively about its theoretical status, but rarely make falsifiable predictions / engage with other mechanisms to pressure test their claims. Scientists not only have a confused ontology, but they are limited to studying third-person proxies of the thing itself (that have a less-than-ideal correlation with phenomenology). We need a new approach – one that balances the rigor and clarity of analytic philosophy with the experimentation and feedback loops of empirical science.

The Solution

I propose a solution to this dilemma: Open Phenomenology, a research program to model consciousness ‘from the inside-out’ by looking at the edge cases of human experience. We all have experiences – indeed, all knowledge comes from experience (48:00) – and so to an extent we are all phenomenologists of a kind. However, our naive relationship with perception and inability to demarcate between phenomenal and semantic properties represented within experience has resulted in our models of consciousness being very narrow and domain-specific. Humans are but organisms whose evolutionary strategy has recruited consciousness as an efficient means to process information about our physical environment (for purposes reducible to the replication of molecular patterns common to all forms of organic life), and the parameters of our world simulations at any given moment are calibrated to predict patterns of perceived stimuli correlated with reproductive success.2 To see things clearly, we need to look past “what the thing represents” or “how things function within my world model” to observe the natural dynamics of qualia under varied conditions. In other words, we need to venture forth into exotic states of consciousness, record information about its phenomenal character, and use this data to construct better models of consciousness.

Open Phenomenology has two primary objectives. First, it seeks to standardize phenomenological research by formally establishing a set of conceptual tools and methods for exploring exotic states of consciousness (e.g., defabricated meditative states or highly-entropic psychedelic states) and capturing non-trivial information about their phenomenal character. Second, it provides a centralized repository for this information to be properly catalogued and disseminated, making it accessible for researchers from different backgrounds to integrate into their own works. I believe that these objectives are individually sufficient to improve the standard of discourse on consciousness, but collectively have the potential to catalyze a new paradigm for the scientific study of consciousness.

Goal 1: Develop an explicit methodology for research

The general aim here is to develop a set of resources / instructions that clearly outline how to do good phenomenological research, with a focus on altered states of consciousness where the relevant information is so easily lost. I imagine this would take the form of a series of blog posts, or short papers, either describing helpful techniques that I / others have developed over the years, or explaining key philosophical background assumptions / frameworks (that, if sufficiently internalized, would improve an individual’s capacity to speak precisely about the ‘what-is-it-likeness’ of their experience).

Here it is important to convey that there is no substitute for (a) a robust epistemology (a phenomenologist is only as good as the tools in their conceptual toolbox), and (b) familiarity / experience with altered states (ideally to the extent that one’s agency is not significantly impaired). This is NOT a call for people to do things to their experience that potentially carry risks. But it is very obvious (to me) when someone lacks (a) or (b).

Relevant resources:

Goal 2: Create an online database for raw reports

A technique that I have developed in the past year involves attempting to capture raw phenomenological data in real-time (rather than post-hoc) via audio capture of spoken words, specifically while in high-energy states of consciousness (e.g., DMT). This data can be easily transcribed, anonymized, and uploaded to an online database for anybody to analyze (e.g., using natural language processing). My opinion is that the current research bottleneck is a lack of data (to a sufficient standard), so it makes sense to optimize for quantity > quality (the latter of which entails spending time writing more detailed reports).3 But this has to be trained (to become muscle memory), and the technique can be improved further.

Relevant resources:

Goal 3: Establish a phenomenology journal

One of the best ways to cement your research topic into the ‘collective consciousness’ of our species and support its long-term proliferation is to create infrastructure that will actively attract & curate information held up to whatever standards you want to enforce (to prevent memetic drift). Establishing a quasi-academic journal seems like a good strategy for achieving this. The reports / papers published here would be more refined that the raw data referenced in goal 2 (but would plausibly include it, if applicable), containing ‘description’ and ‘analysis’ sections with accessible links throughout the text to existing content.4 Peer review would also be great in this context, I think.

Things to do here:

  • Create a template for writing (refined) phenomenology reports
  • Find academic researchers willing to take on editorial responsibilities / other roles (I have leads here)
  • Admin tasks related to establishing an academic journal

Related resources:

(Note: this post is unfinished, but I have too much existing work to fill out the details to a sufficient standard. I would like to spend a few weeks working on this project full-time; if you are interested in sponsoring this please email me.)

  1. This is because in the final analysis, (1) consciousness is real and (2) abstractions are not (see Principia Qualia, pp. 26 & 61). ↩︎
  2. This plausibly explains the prevalence of functionalism (computationalism) in contemporary philosophy of mind and neuroscience (which entails eliminativism about consciousness). ↩︎
  3. There are lots of published trip reports online (e.g., Erowid), but most are not concerned with capturing the phenomenal content of altered states (rather, they are stuck at the semantic level of abstraction). ↩︎
  4. For example, if I use vector field topology to analyze my perception of the flow of energy within my body map, I should ideally include a link to (1) an information source explaining what what this concept is, and (2) other phenomenology reports that corroborate / contradict my findings. ↩︎