Unpacking the complexities of consciousness: Theories and reflections

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
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.
揭开意识的复杂性:理论与反思。
随着意识科学领域的成熟,研究议程已经从最初关注意识的神经关联扩展到发展和测试意识理论。人们提出了几种理论,每种理论都旨在阐明意识与大脑功能之间的关系。然而,关于这些理论是否研究了同样的现象,存在着持续而激烈的争论。而且,尽管正在进行的研究努力,似乎到目前为止,该领域还没有围绕任何单一理论收敛,而是表现出明显的两极分化。为了推进这一讨论,五种著名的意识理论——全球神经元工作空间理论(GNWT)、高阶理论(HOT)、集成信息理论(IIT)、循环处理理论(RPT)和预测处理(PP)——的支持者在2022年参与了一场公开辩论,作为意识科学研究协会(ASSC)年会上的一部分。他们被邀请澄清其理论的解释,阐明支撑相应解释的核心机制,并概述其基本前提。随后是一场公开讨论,深入探讨了这些理论的可测试性、可能反驳它们的潜在证据,以及共识和分歧的领域。最重要的是,这场辩论表明,在这个阶段,关于什么是意识,如何识别意识状态,以及任何意识理论都需要什么等最基本的问题,理论之间的争议多于共识。解决这些核心问题对于推动该领域深入理解和比较竞争理论至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信