The target article for this issue is about the so-called problem of consciousness and the author suggests a way to define consciousness, and discuss why consciousness has been conceived of as a problem to scientific investigation. Arguments that consciousness cannot be studied empirically are analyzed and refused. From here, the article goes on to suggest a way to perform empirical studies. The author suggests introspection as a sine qua non for consciousness studies, and he discusses with which validity introspective techniques can be applied in experimental settings.
The target article reviews the notion of ‘neural correlates of consciousness’ to explore the explanatory value of such brain measures, and with which strategy such measures can be obtained. It is, furthermore, the argument that with the use of a terminology that is not dependent upon an acceptance of the theoretical frameworks of the cognitive sciences, and that is open to concepts used in general psychology, so-called general psychologists would be able to make relevant operationalisations and empirical testings of their theories.

Target article
Morten Overgaard: On the theoretical and methodological foundations for a science of consciousness

Commentaries
Bernard J. Baars: The mind-body problem is scientifically untestable and irrelevant.
Antti Revonsuo: Notes on the Foundations of Consciousness Research.
Andreas Roepstorff: Outlining the Sandpit of Consciousness Studies: a question of Foundations or of Style?
Erik Schultz: Brain, mind and consciousness
Logan Trujillo: Are verbal reports all we will ever have in a science of consciousness?
Søren Willert: Is consciousness a thing or an adjunct?

Reply
Morten Overgaard: Reply to the commentators.