Scientists testing two leading theories of consciousness have uncovered valuable new insights, showing how adversarial collaboration can advance understanding of this profound mystery.
Although the research team found insufficient evidence to support or rule out either theory conclusively, their work uncovered several clues that will inform future efforts to unravel the origins of consciousness.
Study Tests Key Differences Between Top Theories of Consciousness
Since the French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist René Descartes first wrote “Je pense, donc je suis” (I think, therefore I am) in his 1637 Discourse on the Method, physicists, biologists, neurologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers have debated the nature and origin of human consciousness. Known as the hard problem of consciousness, the conundrum has spawned several competing theories.
Many of these proposed concepts suggest biological explanations for consciousness, including a region of the brain referred to as a gateway to consciousness or another mechanism operating across several brain regions. Scientists have also explored whether or not consciousness may arise out of ‘Eureka’ moments, lucid dreams may represent a higher state of consciousness, complex human memory could be the key, or even the idea that the entire universe may be conscious.
The top two theories of consciousness evaluated by the Allen Institute scientists are the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and the Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT). According to a statement announcing the team’s findings, IIT proposes that consciousness is an emergent property that occurs when information inside a complex system, like the human brain, is “highly connected and unified.” This consciousness exists for as long as the information is consciously perceived.
The research team explained that GNWT proposes that disparate parts of a connected brain network will bring essential pieces of information “to the forefront of our minds.” This widely broadcast information collection enters the conscious mind, “and this produces conscious experience.” Although testing both ideas has proven challenging, the team behind the latest study decided to examine both studies simultaneously.
Tests Offer Tantalizing Results, Few Solutions
Unlike proposals to study consciousness by connecting a human brain to a quantum computer, the Allen Institute team used conventional tools like functional magnetic resonance imaging, magnetoencephalography and intracranial electroencephalography to examine various brain regions for data supporting IIT or GNWT.
256 human participants were shown “suprathreshold” stimuli (images) while the researchers monitored the blood flow, magnetic, and electrical activity within each subject’s brain. According to the study, these tools found information related to conscious activity in the visual, ventrotemporal, and inferior frontal cortex, “with sustained responses in occipital and lateral temporal cortex reflecting stimulus duration, and content-specific synchronization between frontal and early visual areas.”
The researchers note that these findings offer some support for parts of both IIT and GNWT, “while substantially challenging key tenets of both theories.” For example, the study did not find enough lasting connections in back-of-the-brain regions associated with IIT to support the idea. However, the study also did not find the connections in front-of-the-brain regions proposed in GNWT to place one idea above the other.
“It was clear that no single experiment would decisively refute either theory,” explained Anil Seth, Ph.D., a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex. “The theories are just too different in their assumptions and explanatory goals, and the available experimental methods too coarse, to enable one theory to win out over another conclusively.
Adversarial Collaboration and the Search for the Truth
The adversarial collaboration produced mixed results and could not offer a definitive explanation for the hard problem of consciousness. Still, the team feels that their work could be critical in research to help people in limited states of consciousness, while offering valuable data to those still searching for the bigger answer.
“The findings of the collaboration remain extremely valuable,” Seth said. “Much has been learned about both theories and about where and when in the brain information about visual experience can be decoded from.”
Along with their findings, the team believes their successful effort shows how researchers exploring competing theories can work together to achieve valuable results. They also suggest that such “collaborative yet critical” joint operations can reduce confirmation bias and accelerate scientific progress.
“Adversarial collaborations are a powerful social process, little used because of its challenging nature, within any field that has competing theories,” said Christof Koch, Ph.D., meritorious investigator at the Allen Institute. “The bio-medical field could hugely profit by ‘friendly’ competition among theories—neurobiological or others. But it requires a great deal of cooperation and work.”
“Unravelling this mystery is the passion of my entire life,” Koch added.
Christopher Plain is a Science Fiction and Fantasy novelist and Head Science Writer at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his books at plainfiction.com, or email him directly at christopher@thedebrief.org.