Unpacking the complexities of consciousness: Theories and reflections

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Pub Date : 2025-02-08 DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106053
Liad Mudrik , Melanie Boly , Stanislas Dehaene , Stephen M. Fleming , Victor Lamme , Anil Seth , Lucia Melloni
{"title":"Unpacking the complexities of consciousness: Theories and reflections","authors":"Liad Mudrik ,&nbsp;Melanie Boly ,&nbsp;Stanislas Dehaene ,&nbsp;Stephen M. Fleming ,&nbsp;Victor Lamme ,&nbsp;Anil Seth ,&nbsp;Lucia Melloni","doi":"10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As the field of consciousness science matures, the research agenda has expanded from an initial focus on the neural correlates of consciousness, to developing and testing theories of consciousness. Several theories have been put forward, each aiming to elucidate the relationship between consciousness and brain function. However, there is an ongoing, intense debate regarding whether these theories examine the same phenomenon. And, despite ongoing research efforts, it seems like the field has so far failed to converge around any single theory, and instead exhibits significant polarization. To advance this discussion, proponents of five prominent theories of consciousness—Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT), Higher-Order Theories (HOT), Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Recurrent Processing Theory (RPT), and Predictive Processing (PP)—engaged in a public debate in 2022, as part of the annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC). They were invited to clarify the explananda of their theories, articulate the core mechanisms underpinning the corresponding explanations, and outline their foundational premises. This was followed by an open discussion that delved into the testability of these theories, potential evidence that could refute them, and areas of consensus and disagreement. Most importantly, the debate demonstrated that at this stage, there is more controversy than agreement between the theories, pertaining to the most basic questions of what consciousness is, how to identify conscious states, and what is required from any theory of consciousness. Addressing these core questions is crucial for advancing the field towards a deeper understanding and comparison of competing theories.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56105,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","volume":"170 ","pages":"Article 106053"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425000533","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the field of consciousness science matures, the research agenda has expanded from an initial focus on the neural correlates of consciousness, to developing and testing theories of consciousness. Several theories have been put forward, each aiming to elucidate the relationship between consciousness and brain function. However, there is an ongoing, intense debate regarding whether these theories examine the same phenomenon. And, despite ongoing research efforts, it seems like the field has so far failed to converge around any single theory, and instead exhibits significant polarization. To advance this discussion, proponents of five prominent theories of consciousness—Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT), Higher-Order Theories (HOT), Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Recurrent Processing Theory (RPT), and Predictive Processing (PP)—engaged in a public debate in 2022, as part of the annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC). They were invited to clarify the explananda of their theories, articulate the core mechanisms underpinning the corresponding explanations, and outline their foundational premises. This was followed by an open discussion that delved into the testability of these theories, potential evidence that could refute them, and areas of consensus and disagreement. Most importantly, the debate demonstrated that at this stage, there is more controversy than agreement between the theories, pertaining to the most basic questions of what consciousness is, how to identify conscious states, and what is required from any theory of consciousness. Addressing these core questions is crucial for advancing the field towards a deeper understanding and comparison of competing theories.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
466
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society publishes original and significant review articles that explore the intersection between neuroscience and the study of psychological processes and behavior. The journal also welcomes articles that primarily focus on psychological processes and behavior, as long as they have relevance to one or more areas of neuroscience.
期刊最新文献
Perceived stress in adults with epilepsy: A systematic review Causal relationship between B vitamins and neuropsychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis An item-level systematic review of the presentation of ADHD in females. Five hypothesized biological mechanisms linking adverse childhood experiences with anxiety, depression, and PTSD: A scoping review The impact of socio-environmental factors on brain structure over the early life course of preterm-born individuals - A systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1