New Study Confirms Scientists Still Can’t Explain Consciousness

There’s a saying that theories are like toothbrushes—everyone has one, but no one wants to use someone else’s. It’s meant as a joke, but when it comes to studying consciousness—the mystery of how we experience anything subjectively—it’s surprisingly accurate.

In 2022, British neuroscientist Anil Seth and I compiled a review identifying 22 brain-based theories of consciousness. By 2024, American public intellectual Robert Kuhn, using a broader approach, had tallied over 200.

Against this backdrop, the journal Nature has published findings from an “adversarial collaboration” led by the Cogitate Consortium, examining two leading theories: global neuronal workspace theory and integrated information theory.

Fierce Debates and Elusive Answers in the Science of Consciousness

With countless theories in circulation and a notoriously hard-to-define subject, testing ideas about consciousness has proven extremely difficult. Debates among supporters of different theories have often been intense—and occasionally hostile.

In 2023, tensions peaked after the preliminary announcement of the results now officially published by Cogitate. Dozens of experts signed an open letter claiming that integrated information theory was not just incorrect, but lacked the qualities of a scientific theory altogether.

Despite the challenges, global neuronal workspace theory and integrated information theory remain two of the “big four” leading frameworks in the current discourse on consciousness. (The other two are higher-order representation theories and the local re-entry—or recurrence—theory.)

While difficult to condense, both theories link consciousness to neural activity occurring in various regions of the brain.

Supporters of these two theories, along with several independent researchers, developed predictions based on each theory regarding the patterns of brain activity likely to be linked with consciousness.

Integrated Information Theory: Synchronization in the Posterior Cortex

The group concurred that integrated information theory suggests conscious perception involves ongoing synchronization and activity within the brain’s posterior cortex.

In contrast, global neuronal workspace theory proposes that “neural ignition” occurs at both the onset and offset of a stimulus. Additionally, it predicts that a person’s conscious experience should be decodable from activity in the prefrontal cortex.

These hypotheses (along with others) were tested by “theory-neutral” teams from around the world.

The results were inconclusive. Some findings supported the predictions of one or more theories, while others posed challenges.

For instance, the team did not observe the sustained synchronization in the posterior cortex that integrated information theory had predicted. Additionally, global neuronal workspace theory faced challenges, as not all conscious contents could be decoded from the prefrontal cortex, and no neural ignition was detected when the stimulus was first introduced.

A Step Forward for Science: Advancing Theory-Testing in Consciousness Research

Although this study didn’t provide a clear victory for either theory, it was a significant win for science. It marks a notable step forward in how the consciousness research community approaches theory-testing.

It’s common for researchers to search for evidence that supports their own theories. However, the extent of this bias in consciousness science only became evident in 2022, with the publication of a key paper by several researchers from the Cogitate Consortium. The paper demonstrated that it was possible to predict which theory of consciousness a study would support, based solely on its design.

The majority of attempts to “test” theories of consciousness have been carried out by proponents of those very theories. As a result, many studies have focused more on confirming theories than on identifying flaws or attempting to falsify them.

Achieving Consensus: Agreeing on Testable Predictions for Competing Theories

The first success of this collaboration was getting competing theorists to agree on testable predictions for both theories. This was particularly challenging, as both the global workspace and integrated information theories are formulated in highly abstract terms.

Another accomplishment was conducting the same experiments across different labs, which proved difficult since those labs were not dedicated to the theories being tested.

During the early phases of the project, the team sought guidance from Israeli-US psychologist Daniel Kahneman, the pioneer of the concept of adversarial collaborations in research.

Kahneman noted that the results are unlikely to change anyone’s opinion, even if they strongly supported one theory over another. He emphasized that scientists tend to stay loyal to their theories and will hold onto them despite contrary evidence.

The Potential Benefits of Irrational Stubbornness in Scientific Progress

This kind of irrational stubbornness might appear problematic, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. With the right systems in place, it can actually contribute to scientific progress.

Since we don’t yet know which theory of consciousness is most likely correct, the scientific community should approach the topic from multiple angles.

The research community needs mechanisms for self-correction. Nonetheless, it can be beneficial for individual scientists to remain committed to their chosen theory and keep working within it, even when faced with challenging results.

The Challenge of Understanding Consciousness: Current Methods vs. Potential Shifts

Consciousness is a tough challenge to solve. It’s still uncertain whether current methods of studying consciousness will be effective, or if we’ll need a fundamental shift in our concepts or approaches (or possibly both).

What’s certain, though, is that in order to unravel the mystery of subjective experience, the scientific community must adopt a model of collaborative research.

Read the original article on: Science Alert

Read more: Smart Brain Implants Now Self-Adjust for Better Parkinson’s Treatment