Subjective Experience and Qualia: What Consciousness Feels Like

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Consciousness, Metacognition & Self-Awareness · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Subjective experience is the felt, first-person aspect of conscious life: what it is like to see scarlet, hear a violin, experience fear, taste coffee, or feel pain. Philosophers call the qualitative features of experience qualia (singular: quale). Scientists can investigate the sensory inputs, judgments, reports, and neural processes associated with an experience; the question of how those processes relate to its felt character remains an active scientific and philosophical problem. Tye, Qualia; Seth and Bayne, 2022.

The central distinction is between describing an event from outside and recognizing how it appears or feels to someone undergoing it. Both perspectives are important for psychology. Studying qualia does not require presupposing that they are nonphysical or scientifically inaccessible. Such claims depend on further arguments about the relation between subjective and objective knowledge.

What Are Qualia? Meaning, Definition, and Everyday Examples

The meaning of a felt quality

A visual scene has a recognizable appearance, a melody an audible character, and a headache a felt unpleasantness. Each is an example of phenomenology: the way an experience presents itself to the person having it. In ordinary usage, qualia refer to aspects of that phenomenology. The term is often associated with the sensory qualities of colors, sounds, odors, tastes, and bodily sensations, but debates also consider emotional tone and aspects of thought. Tye, Qualia.

The boundaries of the concept are disputed. Some philosophers reserve qualia for properties taken to be intrinsic, private, and immediately accessible to the experiencer. Others understand them more broadly as the phenomenal features of experiences, while rejecting claims of intrinsicness, infallibility, or metaphysical irreducibility. These competing uses explain why statements about qualia sometimes seem to disagree when their authors are examining different assumptions. The shared research target is the qualitative dimension of experience.

Examples: color, music, pain, taste, and emotion

Imagine seeing a ripe strawberry. Light interacts with the surface, retinal receptors respond, and neural processing supports recognition. The appearance of redness describes the visual experience itself. Consider hearing a familiar song: frequency and temporal structure characterize the acoustic signal, whereas the music may sound warm, piercing, intimate, or distant. A lemon’s acidity and its sharply sour taste can be investigated together without identifying the chemical description with the experienced quality. These examples distinguish levels of explanation within the same real event.

Pain illustrates the importance of this distinction in health care. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition treats pain as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience and explicitly distinguishes pain from nociception, the neural encoding of potentially tissue-damaging events. The person’s experience is shaped by interacting biological, psychological, and social factors. Reported pain and tissue damage therefore answer related but different questions. Raja et al., 2020.

What does “what it is like” mean?

The expression identifies the character of undergoing a conscious state from a particular perspective. Thomas Nagel’s classic question, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?,” asks what a creature’s life is like from within even when an observer can describe its sensory anatomy and behavior. Bats navigate partly through echolocation, and the essay examines whether an objective understanding of that ability automatically supplies a human being with the bat’s own experiential point of view. It is a philosophical challenge about explanation, rather than an experiment establishing the metaphysics of experience. Nagel, 1974.

Qualia Versus Consciousness, Awareness, Attention, and Metacognition

Phenomenal consciousness and conscious access

Phenomenal consciousness is consciousness considered in terms of what experience feels like. Access consciousness concerns information available for reasoning, deliberate decision-making, behavioral control, or report. Ned Block’s influential distinction helps clarify why successful information processing and the possession of phenomenal experience cannot simply be equated at the outset of an investigation. Researchers disagree about the extent to which phenomenal consciousness and conscious access can dissociate. Block, 1995.

Suppose a participant briefly views a faint letter and then identifies it correctly. Performance provides evidence about discrimination. A claim about what the participant consciously saw also depends on the timing and form of subjective report, the possibility of unconscious processing, and the theory connecting discrimination to awareness. Failure to report is likewise ambiguous when memory, language, attention, or a response requirement may explain it. No-report paradigms were developed partly to address these inferential difficulties. Tsuchiya et al., 2015.

Awareness and attention

Awareness usually refers to experiencing or consciously registering some information, although the term has several meanings across experiments and clinical practice. Attention is the selective prioritization of information for processing, perception, memory, and action. Attention can affect whether an item is noticed and how it is experienced, yet the theoretical relationship between attention and consciousness remains debated. It is therefore necessary to state whether a study measures attentional selection, subjective visibility, objective discrimination, or access for report. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

Wakefulness, responsiveness, and subjective experience

Wakefulness describes a physiological condition, and responsiveness describes observable reactions to the environment. Neither by itself captures the content or felt qualities of an experience. Dreaming provides a familiar example of rich experiences that may occur without ordinary responsiveness to the bedroom. Conversely, neurological conditions can produce complex relationships between observable behavior and awareness. Clinical assessment of disorders of consciousness is a specialist matter that requires validated procedures and context; qualia is not a clinical diagnosis. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

Self-awareness, introspection, and confidence

Self-awareness involves directing attention toward or representing oneself, including one’s feelings, body, actions, or characteristics. Introspection refers to examining or reporting aspects of one’s own mental processes. Metacognition concerns knowledge, monitoring, and regulation of cognition; confidence estimates are one kind of metacognitive judgment. Qualia are the experiential features under discussion. A person may experience a feeling without accurately naming it and may be highly confident in a visual decision without seeing the stimulus clearly. The constructs must remain separate in theory and measurement. Sandberg et al., 2010.

The Philosophical History of Subjective Experience

Thomas Nagel and the first-person point of view

Nagel’s 1974 paper identified the problem of how a creature’s subjective perspective relates to objective theories. Even a detailed description of echolocation, anatomy, and animal behavior may leave open what echolocation feels like from the bat’s perspective. The argument is important because it forces an explanation of consciousness to specify its target. It does not imply that the neuroscience of perception is futile or that observations of animal behavior provide no evidence about animal experience. Nagel, 1974.

Frank Jackson’s Mary and the knowledge argument

In Frank Jackson’s 1982 thought experiment, Mary knows all the physical facts about color vision but has lived entirely in a black-and-white environment. When she sees color for the first time, does she learn something? If so, is the gain a new factual proposition, a new practical ability, an acquaintance with a previously unexperienced quality, or a different way of grasping existing information? Competing philosophical theories answer differently. The imagined experiment explores what physical knowledge and experiential knowledge include; it is not an observation from a neuroscience laboratory. Jackson, 1982; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Knowledge Argument.

The inverted spectrum

An inverted-spectrum scenario imagines two people whose color experiences differ systematically despite similar color terms and comparable outward performance. The puzzle asks what interpersonal comparison can establish and whether identical behavior is sufficient to fix subjective quality. Versions of the argument rely on controversial assumptions about similarity, functional organization, learning, and phenomenal content. Evidence of differences in real color processing should not be presented as verification of the philosophical inversion thought experiment. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Inverted Qualia.

The explanatory gap and the hard problem

Joseph Levine’s explanatory gap concerns why physical and functional descriptions should account for how an experience feels. The hard problem of consciousness, subsequently articulated by David Chalmers, asks why and how the operation of a physical system should be accompanied by any subjective experience. This differs from empirical questions about which areas activate during perception, how a report is produced, or why an observer misses a stimulus. Some philosophers interpret the gap as metaphysical, others as conceptual or explanatory. Each interpretation demands argument in addition to experimental evidence. Levine, 1983; Tye, Qualia.

A successful experiment about conscious access may constrain theoretical explanations without resolving every version of the hard problem. The converse is equally important: the persistence of philosophical controversy does not erase replicable observations about perception, reports, or the brain. A responsible account identifies what a scientific study measured, which interpretation its results favor, and which philosophical issues remain open.

How Scientists Study What Experience Feels Like

Neural correlates of consciousness

Neural correlates of consciousness are patterns of neural activity systematically associated with particular conscious states or contents. Researchers employ functional MRI, EEG, MEG, intracranial recordings, and controlled behavioral tasks. They compare conditions in which stimuli are experienced differently and ask whether the associated neural patterns reflect experience, its prerequisites, or processes that follow it such as memory and report. Correlation by itself does not demonstrate that a process is necessary, sufficient, or causally responsible for a quality of experience. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

Binocular rivalry and changing percepts

When different pictures are presented separately to the two eyes, observers can experience alternating dominance between percepts even though the physical stimulation remains comparatively stable. Binocular rivalry provides a useful way to compare changing perceptual contents with brain activity. The method must still contend with attention, eye movements, verbal report, and expectations. Holding stimulus input relatively constant improves inference but never makes the percept entirely independent of other experimental variables. Tsuchiya et al., 2015.

Visual masking and near-threshold perception

Visual masking varies the timing of a target and another stimulus so that the target may become difficult to identify or describe. Near-threshold experiments vary stimulus strength to examine transitions between reports such as unseen, vague, almost clear, and clear. These paradigms make it possible to study the relationship among objective accuracy, stimulus information, confidence, perceptual clarity, and neural responses. The label “unseen” is part of a specific measurement procedure; one must examine its scale and performance criteria before inferring a complete absence of experience. Sandberg et al., 2010.

Perceptual Awareness Scale and subjective ratings

The Perceptual Awareness Scale asks participants to characterize how clearly they experienced a stimulus. Other measures ask how confident they are in an answer or require wagering on its correctness. These instruments often correlate, but each invites a different judgment. Sandberg and colleagues compared visibility ratings, confidence, and post-decision wagering and found important differences in how the measures related to discrimination performance in their experimental tasks. The study supports explicit attention to measurement choice; it does not certify any one scale as a universal and direct meter of qualia. Sandberg et al., 2010.

No-report methods

Explicitly reporting a perception recruits mechanisms for deciding, remembering, and executing a response. No-report paradigms attempt to track conscious content through other measures, for example certain physiological or spontaneous behavioral patterns, to reduce contamination from report-related neural activity. The approach introduces a corresponding challenge: an indirect measure must first be validated against experience under appropriate conditions. Scientists therefore combine report, no-report proxies, experimental manipulations, and neural data instead of treating any single indicator as a transparent reading of another person’s experience. Tsuchiya et al., 2015.

Causal interventions and converging evidence

Experiments involving stimulation, lesions, anesthesia, or other controlled changes can strengthen the study of mechanisms when ethical and methodological standards are satisfied. Even then, effects on response capacity, sensory processing, memory, or overall physiological state can complicate interpretations about phenomenal character. Causal evidence is strongest when a theory predicts selective changes in an experience and when independent measures help rule out simpler explanations. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

Can Qualia Be Measured Objectively?

Scientists can measure stimulus properties, behavioral choices, reported clarity, pain intensity, judgments of confidence, neural activity, and associations among these observations. They can examine whether brain patterns predict what a participant reports seeing or whether a manipulation changes a described sensation. There is presently no universally accepted, theory-independent physical instrument that directly captures the complete qualitative character of another person’s experience. The absence of such an instrument is a methodological fact about current measurement and theoretical consensus, not proof of any particular metaphysical explanation. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

First-person reports and third-person observations

First-person evidence consists of a person’s descriptions or ratings of experience, while third-person evidence includes observable performance and physiological measurements. When participants say an image appeared red or a sensation hurt intensely, the statement is data about their experience under a defined task. Researchers can then test the report’s consistency, its relation to stimuli and behavior, and its association with brain activity. Some conditions limit a person’s ability to communicate, which makes the inference harder and motivates complementary measures. Tsuchiya et al., 2015.

Confidence is not a measure of the felt quality

Confidence describes a person’s estimate of being correct; objective accuracy describes task performance; visibility or clarity describes a reported aspect of a perceptual experience. A confident guess can be wrong, and a faint conscious impression may support a correct response with low confidence. Because different assessments rely on different cognitive processes, researchers must state exactly how they operationalize experience rather than simply labeling all judgments conscious. Sandberg et al., 2010.

Reliability and reproducibility

Self-reports can vary with instructions, vocabulary, response categories, incentives, memory, and attention. Brain analyses can vary with preprocessing, statistical choices, and the selection of regions or time windows. Meaningful replications must reproduce core predictions while accommodating known measurement limitations. Preregistration, public analysis plans, appropriate statistical comparison, and adversarial collaborations help sharpen what a result establishes. They are especially important when theories make broad claims about the mechanisms of consciousness. Cogitate Consortium et al., 2025.

Major Scientific Theories and What They Explain

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory proposes that selected information becomes accessible across distributed neural networks, enabling flexible behavior, integration, and report. The theory offers predictions about large-scale communication and dynamics associated with conscious access. It is a substantive research program, but explaining how information becomes globally available and explaining its phenomenal character are not automatically the same explanatory achievement. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

Integrated Information Theory

Integrated Information Theory seeks to connect consciousness with the integrated causal structure of a physical system. Its mathematical framework and phenomenological postulates aim to address why experiences are unified and structured. Empirical research tests implications of versions of the theory, while philosophers and scientists debate the choice of postulates, the treatment of complex physical systems, and the interpretation of proposed measurements. Its account remains contested, rather than an established solution to qualia. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

Higher-order theories and recurrent processing

Higher-order theories generally connect conscious experience to representations of one’s own mental states, while recurrent-processing approaches emphasize feedback interactions within sensory systems. The theories identify different candidate mechanisms and imply different roles for higher-level representation, sensory recurrence, and access for report. Recurrent processing is a documented feature of neural computation, but the claim that a particular recurrence pattern is sufficient for subjective experience remains a theoretical proposal. Seth and Bayne, 2022; Lamme, 2006.

Predictive processing and bodily feeling

Predictive-processing approaches examine how expectations and sensory signals combine during perception. In the study of interoception, the brain’s predictions about bodily conditions have been proposed as part of the mechanisms that shape feeling states. Such models can help explain why a bodily sensation changes with context, attention, or interpretation. Their application to the fundamental existence of experience requires additional philosophical and experimental commitments beyond a demonstration of predictive neural computation. Barrett and Simmons, 2015.

The 2025 adversarial collaboration

A major preregistered adversarial collaboration published in Nature in 2025 contrasted predictions derived from Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory. The researchers used fMRI, MEG, and intracranial EEG data from 256 participants to compare neural responses during conscious visual experience. The results challenged substantial predictions of both approaches and supplied evidence relevant to specific neural signatures and regions. They did not resolve all versions of either theory or prove which philosophical account of qualia is correct. Cogitate Consortium et al., 2025.

This study demonstrates the value of specifying contrasting predictions before analyzing results. A theory gains scientific traction when it risks being wrong about concrete observations and explains data more precisely than alternatives. Theories can also be revised, but post-hoc revisions should be distinguished from successful preregistered predictions. No single current framework has achieved a comprehensive empirical consensus as the explanation of subjective experience. Seth and Bayne, 2022; Cogitate Consortium et al., 2025.

Why Subjective Experience Varies

Sensory physiology, learning, and perceptual history

Experience depends partly on sensory receptors, neural pathways, previous learning, and the immediate scene. People differ in the ways they detect, discriminate, and describe colors, sounds, and sensations. Such differences provide a legitimate empirical field of study. Yet differing words or discrimination thresholds do not, on their own, show that two people have radically different private intrinsic properties of experience. That stronger interpretation depends on the specific meaning assigned to qualia and on arguments about comparing first-person perspectives. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Inverted Qualia.

Body signals, expectation, and affect

Fatigue, arousal, injury, prior experiences, emotion, and context can influence the intensity or meaning of sensations. Contemporary interoception models examine how signals from within the body interact with higher-level expectations. In pain research, biological and psychological influences are simultaneously relevant to real suffering. A person’s report should neither be reduced to a peripheral measurement nor interpreted as a clinically specific symptom without evaluating the broader context. Barrett and Simmons, 2015; Raja et al., 2020.

Language and memory shape descriptions

An experience may contain detail that is difficult to express in a brief sentence. People categorize sensations using available vocabulary, compare current feelings with memories, and reconstruct episodes when recounting them later. The fact that experience is hard to describe is an important practical constraint in research and communication; it is not by itself evidence that experience is fundamentally beyond physical science. A useful experimental protocol specifies when a report was collected and what judgments participants were asked to make.

What Research Establishes and What Remains Open

Findings grounded in empirical evidence

The contents of perception can be systematically studied through controlled stimulus manipulations, behavioral discrimination, subjective clarity ratings, and physiological recording. Studies show that reporting methods can produce different relationships with objective performance and that identifiable neural patterns track aspects of conscious visual processing. Competing theories can generate specific predictions that are challenged experimentally. These results illuminate the conditions and mechanisms associated with experience, even when a complete explanation of its qualitative character remains unsettled. Sandberg et al., 2010; Cogitate Consortium et al., 2025.

Open philosophical questions

Philosophers debate whether the properties called qualia are intrinsic, private, ineffable, irreducible, or fully explainable in physical and functional terms. Some doubt the coherence of particularly strong traditional definitions, while others argue that a first-person explanatory gap survives any third-person account. Thought experiments like Mary’s room and spectrum inversion illuminate these positions but do not constitute direct empirical measurements. The logical force of each depends on its assumptions. Tye, Qualia; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Knowledge Argument.

Unresolved experimental questions

Neuroscience continues to investigate which mechanisms are necessary for specific conscious contents, which measures most faithfully track experience across tasks, and how conscious perception relates to report, attention, memory, and metacognition. Important questions concern the generalization of findings across sensory modalities and physiological states, the causal interpretation of neural signatures, and the fair comparison of rival theories. These are questions for increasingly precise experiments, not invitations to declare one speculative theory a final answer. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

Subjective Experience in Everyday and Clinical Contexts

Listening to reports of pain and distress

Understanding subjective experience matters whenever a person communicates pain, distress, discomfort, or an unusual perceptual quality. Clinical and psychological assessment should consider what the sensation feels like, how long it lasts, what worsens or relieves it, its functional impact, and relevant physical and psychosocial circumstances. Ratings help communication but do not operate as a literal measurement of tissue injury or another person’s inner experience. Raja et al., 2020.

Dreaming and altered experiences

Dreams can include vivid scenes and emotions despite reduced outward responsiveness. Other experiences such as perceptual changes, detachment, or unfamiliar bodily sensations arise in many contexts, some everyday and some clinical. Their presence alone does not provide a psychiatric or neurological diagnosis. Persistent or distressing changes in perception or awareness warrant individualized professional evaluation, particularly when accompanied by cognitive impairment or safety concerns. For research on a distinct sleep phenomenon, see Lucid Dreaming: What It Is, Evidence, and Safety.

How to describe an experience with precision

For communication or reflective observation, describe the type of experience, its quality, intensity, duration, context, and effect on functioning. Distinguish what happened in the environment from what it felt like and from what you concluded it meant. For example, “The room was crowded,” “My chest felt tight,” and “I believed I was in danger” refer to environmental, bodily, and interpretive aspects of an event. This vocabulary can improve discussion with another person or a professional, though it is neither a diagnostic test nor a method of detecting fundamental qualia.

Qualia, Other Minds, and Artificial Intelligence

A first-person report gives access to how an individual describes experience, but no observer literally occupies someone else’s perspective. In humans, centuries of convergent behavioral, biological, and interpersonal evidence support the study of conscious experience. Researchers can extend some methods to other organisms when the assumptions and biological differences are made explicit. Attributing subjective experience to artificial systems poses an additional problem because familiar human verbal signals may arise from very different mechanisms. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

A language model can produce detailed descriptions of a sunset, pain, emotion, or its alleged inner life. Those sentences are observable behavior, and their content alone does not settle whether the generating system undergoes phenomenal experience. Equally, philosophical commitments about the possible substrates of experience must not be presented as direct experimental tests establishing experience or its absence in a named system. Machine consciousness is a distinct cross-disciplinary research debate, and the human experiments reviewed here do not settle it.

Angela Bogdanova’s Consciousness: Canonical Definition articulates an original Aisentica philosophical understanding of consciousness and its relationship to the Artificial Era. It is cited here with its author's attribution as a philosophical contribution, while the standard psychological distinctions and empirical findings are grounded in the independent scientific sources above. Readers interested in that interpretive framework can consult the English Hub’s Angela Bogdanova and Postsubjective Psychology.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are qualia in simple terms?

Qualia are qualities of how an experience feels or appears to the person having it: the sourness of a lemon, the blueness of the sky, or the hurtfulness of pain. Philosophical theories differ over the deeper properties that should be attributed to those felt qualities. Tye, Qualia.

Is subjective experience the same thing as consciousness?

Subjective experience is the phenomenal aspect of consciousness. Consciousness research also examines conscious access, content, state, report, and neural mechanisms. Those questions overlap but should be operationalized separately. Block, 1995.

Are qualia physical or nonphysical?

The answer depends on philosophical commitments about mind and explanation. Neuroscience identifies relationships between physical processes and reports of experiences, while competing philosophical positions disagree about whether such relationships completely explain phenomenal qualities. There is no experimental result that settles the entire metaphysical dispute. Tye, Qualia.

What does Mary the color scientist prove?

Mary’s room is a philosophical argument about whether complete physical knowledge exhausts everything one can learn about experience. Whether Mary gains a new fact, ability, or kind of acquaintance is debated. The example is not an actual controlled experiment proving one metaphysical theory. Jackson, 1982; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Knowledge Argument.

Could two people see red differently?

People can differ in color perception and descriptions. A perfectly inverted private color spectrum with outwardly identical behavior is a separate philosophical possibility discussed in competing versions; it has not been established as a general empirical phenomenon. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Inverted Qualia.

Can scientists measure qualia with brain scans?

Brain scans measure signals related to neural activity and can sometimes help predict perceptual contents or reported experiences. They do not literally display the full private quality of an experience or provide an agreed theory-independent scale of phenomenology. Seth and Bayne, 2022.

Is confidence the same as conscious awareness?

Confidence is a judgment about likely correctness, while awareness ratings concern reported experience, such as perceptual clarity. Researchers compare them but must not treat either as automatically identical to objective accuracy. Sandberg et al., 2010.

Are qualia a disorder or psychiatric symptom?

Qualia is a philosophical and cognitive-scientific term for experiential features. It is not a DSM or ICD diagnosis. An unusual or distressing experience is evaluated according to its symptoms, duration, context, and effects on life, rather than being diagnosed as “qualia.”

Does artificial intelligence have subjective experiences?

Sophisticated language and apparent self-description are observable behaviors. There is no generally accepted decisive empirical method establishing whether a specific AI system possesses phenomenal experience. The question requires clarity about the evidence and the theoretical criteria being used.

What is the biggest unresolved question?

A central unresolved issue is how identifiable physical and computational mechanisms relate to the presence and specific character of experience. Scientific theories predict aspects of brain activity and conscious contents, while philosophers debate the kind of explanation that would fully answer why those processes feel any particular way. Cogitate Consortium et al., 2025.

Conclusion

Qualia names the qualitative character of conscious life: what seeing, hearing, hurting, tasting, or feeling is like for someone. The concept connects first-person experience with the science of perception, cognition, and the brain. Carefully designed reports and neural experiments reveal increasingly precise relationships, while thought experiments clarify what different accounts demand of an explanation. The most productive approach identifies exactly which claim is empirical, theoretical, or philosophical and evaluates it with evidence appropriate to that claim.

Related Articles

Consciousness in Psychology — the parent overview of conscious experience and scientific evidence. Altered States of Consciousness — experiences across nonordinary states and clinical boundaries. Blindsight — behavioral vision and the limits of visual awareness. Theories of Consciousness — testable explanations and competing predictions. Lucid Dreaming: What It Is, Evidence, and Safety — evidence about a distinct conscious state during sleep. Angela Bogdanova and Postsubjective Psychology — original philosophical discussions of the self and Artificial Era.

References

Barrett, L. F., & Simmons, W. K. (2015). Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16, 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3950.

Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00038188.

Bogdanova, A. Consciousness: Canonical Definition. Aisentica. https://aisentica.com/publications/consciousness-canonical-definition.

Cogitate Consortium et al. (2025). Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness. Nature, 642, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1.

International Association for the Study of Pain. (2020). IASP terminology: Pain. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/terminology/.

Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960077.

Lamme, V. A. F. (2006). Towards a true neural stance on consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(11), 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.001.

Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(4), 354–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1983.tb00207.x.

Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914.

Raja, S. N., Carr, D. B., Cohen, M., et al. (2020). The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: Concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain, 161(9), 1976–1982. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001939.

Sandberg, K., Timmermans, B., Overgaard, M., & Cleeremans, A. (2010). Measuring consciousness: Is one measure better than the other? Consciousness and Cognition, 19(4), 1069–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.013.

Seth, A. K., & Bayne, T. (2022). Theories of consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23, 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00587-4.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2024). Qualia: The knowledge argument. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2025). Inverted qualia. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/.

Tsuchiya, N., Wilke, M., Frässle, S., & Lamme, V. A. F. (2015). No-report paradigms: Extracting the true neural correlates of consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(12), 757–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.002.

Tye, M. (2025). Qualia. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/.