2023 Society for Neuroscience feature story: Perceiving, constructing and exploring the concept of consciousness
by: wesley ilana schnapp
Awakening each day involves a symphony of experiences: knowing who we are, recognizing familiar faces, absorbing our surroundings, reminiscing about our past and anticipating the future. As night falls, we surrender to another slumber, only to awaken once more to the tangible world around us. Yet, within this intricate dance lies a profound mystery captivating scientists, philosophers and monks alike: consciousness. What is the origin of our experience and existence in this universe and can it be captured by our definition of science?
Attendees mingle while discussing the many functions of the brain and nervous system - as well as the latest research findings and other related initiatives - at the the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) conference in Washington DC, November 2023. Interactions and movement in space and time embody the concept of consciousness in an ironic way. Photo source: Wesley Schnapp
Defining consciousness
At its core, consciousness is a multi-faceted concept and, thus, challenging to define. It is an ambiguous term and can include a range of concepts such as feeling and behaving, sense of self, awareness, and free will. Some may even argue there are layers of consciousness.
Joseph LeDoux, Ph.D., neuroscientist and author, suggests that there are four realms of existence that make us human: bodily, neural, cognitive and conscious. Some aspects are shared with animals, while others seem to be uniquely human.
Human consciousness also involves knowing both one’s history and present state, as highlighted by Allison Paradise, M.S., trained neuroscientist and founder of two non-profit organizations, at a satellite symposium associated with the 2023 Society for Neuroscience (SfN) conference. Rather than solely a state of awareness or perception of the body state, it is the ability to recall, edit and create. The satellite event was hosted by the group, Exploring Consciousness.
Many other interpretations of consciousness exist. Based on their own sense of being, however, most people would likely agree that consciousness is as an experience of being in and perceiving the world, existing at both an individual and collective level. Nevertheless, it remains unclear: is consciousness a philosophy, a science, a belief or a harmonious blend of all?
How do we study consciousness?
Identifying a biophysical basis for the subjective experience of consciousness poses a daunting challenge. A plethora of theories from various perspectives attempt to address the question, making it a complex interdisciplinary pursuit. The common assumption, however, is that consciousness is rooted in the brain.
With the development of innovative tools for tracking brain activity over the last few decades, there has been significant progress in the field of neuroscience-based study of consciousness. The neural correlates of consciousness predicts conscious experience is associated with certain activity patterns of neurons. Established in the 1990s by Francis Crick, a scientist most well-known for discovering the structure of DNA, and Christof Koch, the current President and Chief Scientific Officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, this theory continues to make strides in distinguishing between conscious and unconscious experience using brain imaging techniques.
Despite the progress, there are gaps in the theory. Even Koch admits we need more.
“We need a testable theory that explains which pieces of highly excitable matter are associated with consciousness. We know this piece of matter [the brain] is, but what about other pieces of matter? And how can consciousness fit in with scientific naturalism?” Koch said during a presentation at the 2023 SfN conference. His presentation was part of a symposia titled, “Advances in the Neuroscientific Study of Consciousness: Novel Frameworks to Bridge the Gap Between Theories, Experiments, and Clinical Relevance."
Integrated information theory (IIT) posits that consciousness emerges from the way information is processed within a system of neural circuits, and that more integrated systems have higher levels of consciousness. For instance, a worm has 302 neurons whereas a human has 86 billion, and, thus, is a simple understanding for the different levels of consciousness between the two species, according to this theory.
Physics and mathematics contribute through theories like electromagnetic field dynamics and microtubule quantum vibrations, exploring consciousness at an even more fundamental and objective level. Computational approaches, such as the global neuronal workspace theory (GNWT), propose conscious experience as a result of information relayed across the brain, like a computer machine.
Philosophical and theoretical perspectives add abstract dimensions to the discourse. At the SfN satellite symposium, Bernarndo Kastrup, Ph.D., executive director of Essentia Foundation, suggested perception of our external world is an interpretation of internal mental states.
“We have an external world that is objective from our perspective, but the external world isn’t physical … it is fundamentally qualitative,” Kastrup explained. He used the mathematical concept of a “Markov blanket” to describe the theory. With this perspective, he argued that there is no need to address the hard problem of consciousness – the question of how to explain subjective experience in physical terms – because it is all experiential.
Donald Hoffman, Ph.D., professor of cognitive science, computer science and philosophy at UC Irvine, challenges basic assumptions of space and time, suggesting that such concepts arise from consciousness itself.
“Physicists recognize that spacetime is doomed. It cannot be fundamental. And they’re moving beyond. They’re finding new structures,” Hoffman informed the audience at the SfN satellite symposium.
Hoffman offered the thought-provoking idea that this aligns with evolutionary theory, quoting Steven Pinker, another renowned cognitive psychologist: “Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life and death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness.” Hoffman believes if our assumption of fundamental aspects of nature are imprecise, then presuming that the brain – a piece of physical matter understood on the basis of what we know as fundamental – leads to consciousness raises a number of uncertainties.
While these philosophical views are enticing, they often lack tangible evidence, which is inherent to the nature of the discipline.
Experimental studies, which tend to involve non-ordinary states of consciousness induced by psychedelics, near-death experiences or meditation, provide a unique angle to the exploration. Historically, we depended only on anecdotes and introspective analysis. More recently, however, we have expanded into more empirical neuroscience with development of innovative technologies that allow for measuring changes in brain activity during such uncanny experiences.
At its core, consciousness is a multi-faceted concept and, thus, challenging to define. It is an ambiguous term and can include a range of concepts such as feeling and behaving, sense of self, awareness, and free will. Some may even argue there are layers of consciousness.
Joseph LeDoux, Ph.D., neuroscientist and author, suggests that there are four realms of existence that make us human: bodily, neural, cognitive and conscious. Some aspects are shared with animals, while others seem to be uniquely human.
Human consciousness also involves knowing both one’s history and present state, as highlighted by Allison Paradise, M.S., trained neuroscientist and founder of two non-profit organizations, at a satellite symposium associated with the 2023 Society for Neuroscience (SfN) conference. Rather than solely a state of awareness or perception of the body state, it is the ability to recall, edit and create. The satellite event was hosted by the group, Exploring Consciousness.
Many other interpretations of consciousness exist. Based on their own sense of being, however, most people would likely agree that consciousness is as an experience of being in and perceiving the world, existing at both an individual and collective level. Nevertheless, it remains unclear: is consciousness a philosophy, a science, a belief or a harmonious blend of all?
How do we study consciousness?
Identifying a biophysical basis for the subjective experience of consciousness poses a daunting challenge. A plethora of theories from various perspectives attempt to address the question, making it a complex interdisciplinary pursuit. The common assumption, however, is that consciousness is rooted in the brain.
With the development of innovative tools for tracking brain activity over the last few decades, there has been significant progress in the field of neuroscience-based study of consciousness. The neural correlates of consciousness predicts conscious experience is associated with certain activity patterns of neurons. Established in the 1990s by Francis Crick, a scientist most well-known for discovering the structure of DNA, and Christof Koch, the current President and Chief Scientific Officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, this theory continues to make strides in distinguishing between conscious and unconscious experience using brain imaging techniques.
Despite the progress, there are gaps in the theory. Even Koch admits we need more.
“We need a testable theory that explains which pieces of highly excitable matter are associated with consciousness. We know this piece of matter [the brain] is, but what about other pieces of matter? And how can consciousness fit in with scientific naturalism?” Koch said during a presentation at the 2023 SfN conference. His presentation was part of a symposia titled, “Advances in the Neuroscientific Study of Consciousness: Novel Frameworks to Bridge the Gap Between Theories, Experiments, and Clinical Relevance."
Integrated information theory (IIT) posits that consciousness emerges from the way information is processed within a system of neural circuits, and that more integrated systems have higher levels of consciousness. For instance, a worm has 302 neurons whereas a human has 86 billion, and, thus, is a simple understanding for the different levels of consciousness between the two species, according to this theory.
Physics and mathematics contribute through theories like electromagnetic field dynamics and microtubule quantum vibrations, exploring consciousness at an even more fundamental and objective level. Computational approaches, such as the global neuronal workspace theory (GNWT), propose conscious experience as a result of information relayed across the brain, like a computer machine.
Philosophical and theoretical perspectives add abstract dimensions to the discourse. At the SfN satellite symposium, Bernarndo Kastrup, Ph.D., executive director of Essentia Foundation, suggested perception of our external world is an interpretation of internal mental states.
“We have an external world that is objective from our perspective, but the external world isn’t physical … it is fundamentally qualitative,” Kastrup explained. He used the mathematical concept of a “Markov blanket” to describe the theory. With this perspective, he argued that there is no need to address the hard problem of consciousness – the question of how to explain subjective experience in physical terms – because it is all experiential.
Donald Hoffman, Ph.D., professor of cognitive science, computer science and philosophy at UC Irvine, challenges basic assumptions of space and time, suggesting that such concepts arise from consciousness itself.
“Physicists recognize that spacetime is doomed. It cannot be fundamental. And they’re moving beyond. They’re finding new structures,” Hoffman informed the audience at the SfN satellite symposium.
Hoffman offered the thought-provoking idea that this aligns with evolutionary theory, quoting Steven Pinker, another renowned cognitive psychologist: “Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life and death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness.” Hoffman believes if our assumption of fundamental aspects of nature are imprecise, then presuming that the brain – a piece of physical matter understood on the basis of what we know as fundamental – leads to consciousness raises a number of uncertainties.
While these philosophical views are enticing, they often lack tangible evidence, which is inherent to the nature of the discipline.
Experimental studies, which tend to involve non-ordinary states of consciousness induced by psychedelics, near-death experiences or meditation, provide a unique angle to the exploration. Historically, we depended only on anecdotes and introspective analysis. More recently, however, we have expanded into more empirical neuroscience with development of innovative technologies that allow for measuring changes in brain activity during such uncanny experiences.
The interdisciplinary nature of consciousness studies creates an overlap between mathematical, computational and philosophical perspectives, with neuroscience often at the center. Yet, an important question remains: why do we assume consciousness must only have a physical basis? Graphic created by Wesley Schnapp with Canva
The collaborative frontier
While each perspective brings value, conflicts and disagreements arise, highlighting the challenge of unifying diverse theories.
Fortunately, others do recognize the benefit of collaboration and open-mindedness. Some institutes, such as the UC Santa Cruz History of Consciousness department, University of Arizona Center for Consciousness Studies and California Institute for Human Science, are integrating various fields to encourage a more holistic approach.
Another group, Collaboration on GNWT and IIT: Testing alternative theories of experience (COGITATE), is pioneering the idea of opposing theories joining forces to combat the problem of confirmation bias that often accompanies ideologies.
Lucia Melloni, Ph.D., professor at Max Plank Institute for Empirical Aesthetics and member of the COGITATE team of researchers, explained benefits of this approach in changing and improving the field of consciousness studies during her presentation at the 2023 SfN conference.
“The idea here is actually to harness disagreement,” Melloni said. “It requires a lot of intellectual humility … [but] if we want to make progress, we need to become intellectually curious.”
Beyond the boundaries of science?
Consciousness, with its subjective, personal and abstract nature, often mirrors a belief system. Be that as it may, beliefs cannot always be proven by the scientific method. Other related topics are hard to address with what we know as science, such as the untouchable concept of spirituality or how consciousness fits in with the greater universe around us.
But are we limited by our current definition of science? Might consciousness involve something beyond what we know as defined by the current laws of physics, motion or thermodynamics?
Alex Sielaff, M.A., doctoral student who researches experimental existential psychology and psychedelic sciences while teaching undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Arizona, questions the boundaries of science.
“Our culture has such a strong grip on us by viewing things that are learned by science as true, and anything else as not,” Sielaff said. He points out that even before we realized the Earth revolved around the sun, it was still happening. Whatever consciousness is, we just don’t know it yet. Is it a product of the physical body, or is it not? If not, we have an abundance of unanswered questions and untouched territory.
Rethinking the study of consciousness
There appears to be a general consensus that we need some sort of revolutionary change to better understand consciousness. Meetings of consciousness researchers are portraying their conferences with emphasis on an imperative radical change by using titles such as "Neuroscience needs a revolution to understand consciousness" and "A Revolution in Neuroscience: Alternative Models of Consciousness."
The Galileo Commission Report, written by experts in the field, explores ideas of consciousness that go beyond the brain. Described as “Beyond a Materialist Worldview: Towards an Expanded Science,” the document challenges current scientific views while presenting novel and contentious topics.
Stepping into the realm of what might seem to be pseudoscience could be a necessary, albeit controversial, step for progress.
In our collective pursuit of understanding consciousness, we may never completely define it or determine its root cause. Comparable to other scientific fields, the more we uncover, the more questions arise. Theories will continue to be refined and replaced. As we grapple with the complexities of human experience, the mind, and seemingly spiritual concepts, the journey into the study of consciousness continues to be a captivating odyssey, never ceasing to challenge our very understanding of reality.
Personal reflection
The divergent experiences at the SfN conference event and the satellite symposium highlight intriguing dynamics within the consciousness studies community. The former boasted a bustling crowd, overflowing with engagement and interest, while the latter saw a notably smaller turnout than anticipated.
Were the attendees of the SfN “Advances in the Neuroscientific Study of Consciousness” symposia simply absent from the satellite event, perhaps due to scheduling conflicts with other SfN events? Or does it hint at a hesitancy among neuroscientists to engage with diverse perspectives and the public sphere?
The irony is palpable: while the SfN symposia emphasized collaboration and open-mindedness, the smaller attendance at the satellite symposium suggests a potential reluctance to fully embrace these principles. As we enter into a time where “lived experiences” are gaining recognition and value, I’m hopeful for the rigorous aspects neuroscience to integrate with the humanity side of consciousness. Only through inclusive and collaborative efforts can we hope to unravel the mysteries of consciousness and truly advance our understanding of the human experience.
This piece was written by Wesley Ilana Schnapp, a science journalism student and a PhD candidate in the University of Arizona Neuroscience Graduate
While each perspective brings value, conflicts and disagreements arise, highlighting the challenge of unifying diverse theories.
Fortunately, others do recognize the benefit of collaboration and open-mindedness. Some institutes, such as the UC Santa Cruz History of Consciousness department, University of Arizona Center for Consciousness Studies and California Institute for Human Science, are integrating various fields to encourage a more holistic approach.
Another group, Collaboration on GNWT and IIT: Testing alternative theories of experience (COGITATE), is pioneering the idea of opposing theories joining forces to combat the problem of confirmation bias that often accompanies ideologies.
Lucia Melloni, Ph.D., professor at Max Plank Institute for Empirical Aesthetics and member of the COGITATE team of researchers, explained benefits of this approach in changing and improving the field of consciousness studies during her presentation at the 2023 SfN conference.
“The idea here is actually to harness disagreement,” Melloni said. “It requires a lot of intellectual humility … [but] if we want to make progress, we need to become intellectually curious.”
Beyond the boundaries of science?
Consciousness, with its subjective, personal and abstract nature, often mirrors a belief system. Be that as it may, beliefs cannot always be proven by the scientific method. Other related topics are hard to address with what we know as science, such as the untouchable concept of spirituality or how consciousness fits in with the greater universe around us.
But are we limited by our current definition of science? Might consciousness involve something beyond what we know as defined by the current laws of physics, motion or thermodynamics?
Alex Sielaff, M.A., doctoral student who researches experimental existential psychology and psychedelic sciences while teaching undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Arizona, questions the boundaries of science.
“Our culture has such a strong grip on us by viewing things that are learned by science as true, and anything else as not,” Sielaff said. He points out that even before we realized the Earth revolved around the sun, it was still happening. Whatever consciousness is, we just don’t know it yet. Is it a product of the physical body, or is it not? If not, we have an abundance of unanswered questions and untouched territory.
Rethinking the study of consciousness
There appears to be a general consensus that we need some sort of revolutionary change to better understand consciousness. Meetings of consciousness researchers are portraying their conferences with emphasis on an imperative radical change by using titles such as "Neuroscience needs a revolution to understand consciousness" and "A Revolution in Neuroscience: Alternative Models of Consciousness."
The Galileo Commission Report, written by experts in the field, explores ideas of consciousness that go beyond the brain. Described as “Beyond a Materialist Worldview: Towards an Expanded Science,” the document challenges current scientific views while presenting novel and contentious topics.
Stepping into the realm of what might seem to be pseudoscience could be a necessary, albeit controversial, step for progress.
In our collective pursuit of understanding consciousness, we may never completely define it or determine its root cause. Comparable to other scientific fields, the more we uncover, the more questions arise. Theories will continue to be refined and replaced. As we grapple with the complexities of human experience, the mind, and seemingly spiritual concepts, the journey into the study of consciousness continues to be a captivating odyssey, never ceasing to challenge our very understanding of reality.
Personal reflection
The divergent experiences at the SfN conference event and the satellite symposium highlight intriguing dynamics within the consciousness studies community. The former boasted a bustling crowd, overflowing with engagement and interest, while the latter saw a notably smaller turnout than anticipated.
Were the attendees of the SfN “Advances in the Neuroscientific Study of Consciousness” symposia simply absent from the satellite event, perhaps due to scheduling conflicts with other SfN events? Or does it hint at a hesitancy among neuroscientists to engage with diverse perspectives and the public sphere?
The irony is palpable: while the SfN symposia emphasized collaboration and open-mindedness, the smaller attendance at the satellite symposium suggests a potential reluctance to fully embrace these principles. As we enter into a time where “lived experiences” are gaining recognition and value, I’m hopeful for the rigorous aspects neuroscience to integrate with the humanity side of consciousness. Only through inclusive and collaborative efforts can we hope to unravel the mysteries of consciousness and truly advance our understanding of the human experience.
This piece was written by Wesley Ilana Schnapp, a science journalism student and a PhD candidate in the University of Arizona Neuroscience Graduate