Our conscious experiences often shape our lives with positive joy. Feel the sunlight on your skin, listen to the birds singing, and embrace the moment. However, we also encounter pain. I recently fell down the stairs and my knee is hurting; I often find myself feeling pessimistic and in distress. Why have we, as living beings, evolved cognitive abilities that encompass not just pain and suffering, but also positive experiences? Dr. Albert Nguyen from Ruhr-Universität Bochum and Dr. Carlos Montemayor from San Francisco State University suggest distinguishing three fundamental phenomena of phenomenal consciousness: basic arousal, general arousal, and reflexive (self-)consciousness.
Scholars believe that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. Image credit: NASA / ESA / JPL-Caltech / STScI / Sci.News.
“From an evolutionary standpoint, basic arousal was the first to develop, providing the fundamental ability to place the body in a state of alert in life-threatening situations, enabling organisms to survive,” Dr. Nguyen stated.
“Pain serves as a highly effective means of detecting bodily harm and the related threat to life.”
“This often triggers survival mechanisms such as fleeing or freezing.”
The subsequent evolutionary stage is the emergence of general attention.
This allows you to concentrate on a single item even when overwhelmed with information.
For example, if we see smoke while someone is speaking to us, our focus shifts entirely to the smoke in search of its source.
“This enables us to learn about new correlations. Initially, it establishes a basic causal relationship: smoke comes from a fire and indicates its location,” Dr. Montemayor remarked.
“Furthermore, targeted attention allows us to discern complex scientific relationships.”
Humans, along with certain animals, then develop reflexive (self-)consciousness.
This capability allows for a nuanced reflection not only on ourselves but also on our past and future.
We can create a self-image and incorporate it into our actions and plans.
“Reflexive consciousness, in its fundamental form, developed alongside the two primary forms of consciousness,” Dr. Nguyen explained.
“In such instances, conscious experience is less about perceiving the surroundings and more about consciously acknowledging aspects of oneself.”
“This encompasses not just the state of your body, but also your perceptions, feelings, thoughts, and actions.”
“A simple example would be recognizing oneself in a mirror, which is a form of reflexive consciousness.”
“Children begin to develop this ability by 18 months, and some animals such as chimpanzees, dolphins, and magpies have demonstrated this as well.”
“The core function of reflexive conscious experience enhances our ability to integrate into society and collaborate with others.”
The team’s paper will be published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
_____
Albert Nieuwen and Carlos Montemayor. 2025. Three types of phenomenal consciousness and their functional roles: Development of the ALARM theory of consciousness. fill. transformer. R.Soc.B 380 (1939): 20240314; doi: 10.1098/rstb.2024.0314
“If you create a sound by clapping your hands together, what sound is produced by clapping just one hand?”
At the start of his book, neuroscientist Nikolai Kukushkin asserts that if you meditate on this Zen Buddhist koan (a paradox utilized for training Zen monks) long enough, it might unveil the roots of the mind and even human experience.
Yet, as many Buddhists recognize, the path to enlightenment is often lengthy and arduous, although it is ultimately fulfilling. One Hand Clap is no different.
The book, initially published in Russian, has been translated into English by the author, who is presently affiliated with New York University. In it, Kukushkin delves into the origins of life and its evolution across a notably varied spectrum. He encourages us to contemplate origin stories through what he terms the idea or essence of nature, rather than a simplistic reductionist approach.
With an understanding of the subtleties of such terms, Kukushkin asserts: Idea If you find that term unsettling or unscientific, you may simply refer to it as essence: Natural Ideas: The Rational Outcomes of Choice.” He relates this to Plato’s concept of the Idea of Nature, known as Eidos or essence.
Through this lens, hydrothermal vents—his favored locations for the origin of life—transform from mere porous rocks and flowing liquids into patterns of activity observable throughout nature. For instance, existence demonstrates a tendency to become progressively intricate by tapping into greater energy sources. This dynamic is common to deep-sea vents, photosynthetic cells, and humans utilizing fossil fuels.
Other essences differentiate between movement and freedom, or desire and preference. However, I discovered that Kukushkin’s research on the sea slug Aplysia revealed how this unassuming creature devised abstract concepts vital for its survival, offering the clearest demonstration of this capability.
The book spans multiple pages and describes interactions among sensory neurons, motor neurons, muscles, and the siphon, which is a crucial respiratory organ on the slug’s back. Kukushkin notes that each neuron’s activity conveys a “different meaning,” such as “touching the tail” or “touching the body regardless of location.” When the slug learns the sources of potential danger (considering that the siphon must be safeguarded at all times), it employs the abstraction of “dangerous contact regardless of location” to make suitable decisions.
Kukushkin argues that similar patterns of abstraction and identification underpin our thought processes, albeit with greater complexity in the human mind. On this foundation of simple abstractions, we build numerous additional concepts that shape every facet of experience, from vision to language.
One Hand Clap encompasses a vast array of topics, giving it the feel of an engaging lecture series peppered with humorous sketches. Some may find Kukushkin’s joviality somewhat excessive. Yet, don’t dismiss it.
Contemporary scientists often refrain from attributing rationality and creativity to biological or chemical systems, steering clear of concepts involving agency and direction in life. Kukushkin highlights that ancient thinkers faced no such dilemmas. Recently, there has been a revival of ideas among certain biologists suggesting that evolution may, in a sense, occur “on purpose.”
Scientists might worry that this perspective resembles pseudoscience or the “intelligent design” of a religious faction. However, especially when tackling profound questions like the origins of life and consciousness, we may need to revisit concepts that provoke discomfort by association.
Despite being constituted of the same matter as the physical world, our subjective experiences involve something remarkably distinct—the “hard problem” of consciousness.
For Kukushkin, the resolution is found in a long arc. Eidos spans from atoms to cells to brains, being objective in their existence “out there.” However, we usually perceive abstraction as internal and subjective. “What if subjectivity is merely an intricate form of objectivity? What if every notion is an essence?” he contemplates.
“
Kukushkin recommends thinking about the story of the origin of life in terms of what he calls the concept or essence of nature. “
This is an ingenious attempt to argue that objectivity and subjectivity are two aspects of the same phenomenon. If contemplated thoroughly, Kukushkin asserts, complex problems can be resolved. Personally, I find the phenomenal nature of conscious experience, which intertwines our senses, emotions, and thoughts, more comprehensible when viewed through this lens. However, I wrestle with appreciating how it can bridge the divide between subject and object entirely.
This conundrum may never find a resolution. Yet, for now, One Hand Clap serves as an enlightening koan: the journey toward understanding is often more significant than the understanding itself.
A diverse group of neuroscientists evaluated two rival theories of consciousness: Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Neuron Workspace Theory (GNWT). IIT posits that consciousness arises when information within a system is intricately connected and unified, provided it is consciously recognized and functions as a cohesive entity. In contrast, GNWT proposes that a network of brain regions emphasizes significant information, bringing it to the forefront of our awareness and broadly sharing it as it enters consciousness, thereby forming a conscious experience.
Various theories elucidate how subjective experiences emerge from neural activity. While these theories have independent support, they have not been directly compared. Ferrante et al. We present an open science adversarial collaboration that juxtaposes Integrated Information Theory (IIT) with Global Neuron Workspace Theory (GNWT) through a theoretical Chinese consortium. Image credit: NASA/ESA/JPL-CALTECH/STSCI/SCI.NEWS.
Both philosophers and scientists have engaged in the pursuit of understanding the subjective aspects of consciousness (like experiencing pain or seeing vivid rainbows) and their connection to brain’s physical processes.
This endeavor has led to the simultaneous development of various consciousness theories, offering conflicting interpretations of the neural foundations of consciousness.
Moreover, empirical support for any given theory often hinges on methodological choices, pointing to potential confirmation bias in testing these theories.
A convergence of consciousness theories into a broadly accepted neuroscience framework could have profound medical, social, and ethical repercussions.
To facilitate this aim, the authors examined both IIT and GNWT through expansive open science adversarial collaborations designed to foster progress in consciousness research based on constructive disagreements.
“IIT proposes that consciousness results from the cooperation of various brain regions, integrating information much like a cohesive team effort,” the researchers noted.
“It arises from how these regions are interconnected and how they communicate, extending beyond just individual brain parts.”
“However, this research did not uncover sufficient sustained connections in the brain’s posterior areas to substantiate this notion.”
“The GNWT posits that consciousness is localized in the brain’s frontal regions, but this study also found inadequate evidence to support this idea,” they added.
This study included 256 participants, marking a significant milestone for this kind of experimentation.
Researchers displayed various visual stimuli and monitored the brain’s activity while participants viewed these stimuli using three common neuroimaging methods that track blood flow and electrical/magnetic activity.
“Our findings indicate a functional link between neurons in the early visual areas and those in the frontal regions, helping illuminate how perceptions are intertwined with thoughts,” they remarked.
“These results underscore the prefrontal cortex’s significance in consciousness, suggesting that while it plays a vital role in reasoning and planning, consciousness itself may be tied to sensory processing and perception.”
“In essence, intelligence pertains to actions taken, while consciousness refers to mere existence.”
“This discovery could reshape our understanding of consciousness and inform issues related to loss of consciousness, such as in comas and nutrition.”
Understanding the origins of consciousness could aid in identifying “secret awareness” in patients who are severely injured yet unresponsive.
“It became evident that no theory could definitively refute the other,” commented Professor Anil Seth from the University of Sussex.
“The theories pursue fundamentally different objectives in their assumptions and explanations, and the available experimental methods are too coarse to allow one theory to conclusively prevail over the other.”
“Regardless, the findings from this collaboration remain invaluable. There’s a wealth of insights to gain about both theories, along with new understandings of when and where visual experiences can be discerned in the brain.”
Survey results this week will be featured in the journal Nature.
____
O. Ferrante et al. (Cogged the consortium). An antagonistic examination of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theory. Nature Released on April 30th, 2025. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-0888-1
While the nature of consciousness may remain elusive, neuroscientists have made significant strides in understanding it. The journey is far from over.
“Numerous theories exploring consciousness exist, so further theories may be superfluous,” states Oscar Ferrante, a neuroscientist at the University of Birmingham.
If you seek an explanation for how our brains create subjective experiences, you might explore adaptive resonance theory or dynamic core theory. Additionally, the theory of primary expression and semantic pointer competition should not be overlooked. A 2021 survey identified 29 distinct theories of consciousness.
Dr. Ferrante is part of a group aiming to consolidate this proliferation of theories. Yet, they face challenges due to the typical approach scientists take towards consciousness studies. They propose theories, conduct experiments, gather evidence, and often claim their theory reigns supreme.
“We are discouraged from abandoning our ideas,” remarked Lucia Meloni, a neuroscientist at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany.
Seven years ago, Dr. Meloni and 41 other scientists launched an extensive study on consciousness to break this cycle. Their goal was to unite rival groups to design an experiment that would assess the predictive power of both theories regarding conscious experiences in the brain.
The Cogitate Consortium team recently published their findings in Nature. However, this study encountered the same contentious conflicts they aimed to avoid.
Dr. Meloni and like-minded colleagues started planning their research in 2018, adopting a strategy known as hostile collaboration—where scientists with opposing theories partner with neutral researchers. They selected two theories for examination.
The first, known as the Global Neuronal Workspace Theory, was introduced in the early 2000s by Collège de France’s Stanislas Dehaene. This theory posits that our conscious experiences arise when key brain areas distribute sensory information across the brain.
The second theory, Integrated Information Theory, developed by the University of Wisconsin’s Giulio Tononi, does not link consciousness to specific brain regions. Instead, it begins with essential characteristics of conscious experience, such as feeling unique and possessing rich, coherent details. Madeleine.
Researchers then examined which physical networks, such as the brain, could facilitate this experience. They concluded that a substantial amount of information must be processed across various networks and integrated to form a cohesive experience.
The Cogitate Consortium’s experiment aimed to potentially test both theories, garnering support from proponents of both.
“This collaboration was significant as it was the first attempt to reconcile differences rather than engage in isolated pursuits,” noted Dr. Meloni.
However, they knew that hostile collaboration would require substantial effort. They enlisted many young researchers, including Dr. Ferrante, and spent two years designing experiments and setting up lab equipment. By the latter half of 2020, they began scanning the brains of 267 volunteers across eight labs in the US, Europe, and China.
Volunteers played video games designed to gauge their conscious perception. In one game, participants were tasked with catching a colored disc when it changed to striped. Occasionally, blurred faces appeared on the screen, prompting volunteers to indicate what they had noticed.
To capture data comprehensively, researchers employed three distinct methods to measure brain activity.
Some volunteers who had undergone surgery for epilepsy consented to have electrodes temporarily placed in their brains. The second group utilized fMRI to assess blood flow in the brain, while a third group underwent magnetic EEG testing to record the brain’s magnetic field.
By 2022, the researchers shifted focus to data analysis. The three techniques produced consistent results. Both theories made accurate predictions regarding brain activity during conscious experiences, but also had incorrect predictions.
“Both theories are incomplete,” remarked Dr. Ferrante.
In June 2023, Dr. Meloni presented the findings at a New York conference, and the Cogitate Consortium submitted their results for publication, hoping to see their work in print.
Hakwan Lau, a neuroscientist at Sungkyunkwan University, was invited to review the paper but made a critical assessment. He believed the consortium failed to clearly outline where in the brain they would test predictions for each theory.
“Making a compelling case that the project tests theories meaningfully is challenging,” Dr. Lau stated in a July review.
Having developed his own consciousness theory, Dr. Lau published an evaluation online in August, and later co-authored an open letter criticizing both the Cogitate experiments and Integrated Information Theory. A total of 124 experts endorsed the letter.
The group labeled “IIT agree” directed much of its critique at integrated information theory, calling it pseudoscience in a recent analysis.
Critics highlighted that Integrated Information Theory extends beyond just a brain function theory—implying that a system capable of integrating information, even a plant, may possess some level of consciousness.
Critics contended that the Cogitate Consortium’s experiment failed to address the foundational aspects of the theory, thereby not adequately challenging its claims. “As researchers, we must safeguard the public from scientific misinformation,” Dr. Lau and his colleagues asserted.
Their letter, published online in September 2023, ignited a flurry of debate on social media. The authors later provided a commentary to elucidate their concerns, which was featured the following month in Nature Neuroscience.
In response, Dr. Tononi and his colleagues, in a published letter defended IIT, claiming that the critics’ letters were “full of enthusiasm and lacking in facts,” and asserting that the new commentary merely aimed to reshape the discussion.
Meanwhile, the Cogitate Consortium paper continued through the peer review process. Upon its release on Wednesday, it drew a spectrum of responses.
Anil Seth, a neuroscientist at the University of Sussex, expressed admiration for the study’s scale and the identification of shortcomings in both theories. “I’m pleased to see that,” he remarked. “That’s an impressive achievement.”
However, some critics of IIT continued to voice concerns. Joel Snyder, a psychologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, noted that the predictions from each team might have been generated by alternative theories, indicating the experiment wasn’t a true test of either.
“This is likely to cause confusion,” Dr. Snyder commented.
Dr. Lau reflected in an email that the recent research does not appear to have narrowed down the numerous theories of consciousness. “Recent discussions leave me with the impression that these issues haven’t significantly advanced any theory,” he wrote.
Nonetheless, Dr. Seth acknowledged the value of testing competing theories, even if scientists are reluctant to discard their ideas. “The best outcome of a successful hostile collaboration is that it may lead others to reconsider their views,” he stated.
If you are reading this, chances are you believe you are conscious. It’s easy to assume that your loved ones, your not-so-loved ones, and even your peculiar neighbors are also conscious beings, experiencing the world just like you.
But what about newborn babies, who are unable to communicate their thoughts or understand the world around them? None of us can remember our experiences as infants, so the question remains: are they aware? What about babies still in the womb?
These intriguing questions have captured the interest of neuroscientists, including Dr. Joel Frolich, who describes this inquiry as a scientific “frontier.”
According to Frolich, there has been limited research on the onset of consciousness until recent years. It was predominantly a topic for philosophers, with neuroscience only starting to delve into it more recently.
Researchers have now devised innovative methods to uncover when consciousness emerges in a newborn or a fetus and explore these unanswered questions.
Quest for Clues
Based on a study by Frolich and philosopher Professor Tim Bain, the consensus seems to point towards at least five months before consciousness likely emerges.
By this age, the infant not only displays wakefulness but also exhibits clear signs of engaging with the world around them.
This conclusion stems from a “cluster-based” approach, where a combination of indicators like brain activity patterns, responses to stimuli, and signs of recognition are considered, rather than relying on a single marker of consciousness.
While younger babies may not exhibit all the signs of consciousness, they show some indicators, which can also be present in fetuses.
At five months old, neuroscientists identified clusters of markers suggesting consciousness – credit: Anuti via Getty
Key to Consciousness
One significant marker of a conscious brain, according to neuroscientists like Frolich, is the default mode network. This network of brain regions is active during restful states, such as daydreaming or contemplating the future.
Research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown that newborns have a rudimentary form of this default mode network.
Another crucial clue is the local-global effect, where the brain’s ability to detect pattern changes signifies working memory and potential consciousness. This was evident in studies on infants and even in fetuses.
Scanning the fetus can be difficult due to all the tissue that the scanning device needs to pass through to reach the uterus. Ultrasound uses sound waves, and magnetic EEG uses magnetic fields. – Credit: Half Point Image via Getty
Unveiling the Womb
Behavior and attention are additional factors that hint at consciousness. Young babies around four months old demonstrate the ability to choose where to focus their attention, suggesting a level of awareness. Similar observations have been made with fetuses.
In a 2017 study, neuroscientists conducted experiments on pregnant individuals, illuminating the uterus with lights and gauging fetal responses using ultrasound.
These findings shed light on the potential emergence of awareness in infants or fetuses, prompting contemplation on ethical implications but reassuring that consciousness likely isn’t present until later in pregnancy.
Neuroscientific discoveries may have broader implications for understanding consciousness in other entities, such as artificial intelligence, urging the development of a unified theory of consciousness.
Read more:
About our experts:
Dr. Joel Frolich: A postdoctoral researcher specializing in fetal neuroscience at the Helmholtz Centre Munich, University of Tubingen. Frolich utilizes magnetic enemies for studying fetal and infant development and serves as a research consultant for the Institute for Advanced Consciousness in California.
The problem of consciousness is one of the greatest mysteries in science
Yuichiro Kayano/Getty Images
It's been two years since we opened our New York office, and we're excited to share it with you. New Scientist is launching a new live event series in the US. It starts in New York on June 22nd. A one-day masterclass on the science of the brain and human consciousness. To celebrate this, we've unlocked access to his five in-depth features that explore the mysteries of the human heart.
Perhaps there is no greater mystery in human experience than consciousness. In the simplest terms, it's about being aware of our existence. It is our experience of ourselves and the world.
It's less clear how and why this happens, and whether other living things, or indeed machines or forms of artificial intelligence, can experience consciousness in the same way that we do.
For much of human history, the idea that consciousness could somehow be explained or fully understood seemed fanciful and beyond the scope of scientific study. However, in recent decades, we have come closer than ever to identifying the physical structures, mechanisms, and neural networks responsible.
As neuroscientist Christoph Koch had to admit last year, we're not there yet. “When you're young, you have to believe that things are simple,” said Koch, who has been working with philosopher David Chalmers for 25 years to find out exactly which brain cells give rise to life by 2023. He admitted that he lost the bet. into our conscious experience of the world.
Still, Koch doesn't have to think too hard. We're always getting a little closer, from what happens inside our brains when we sleep and dream to how increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence is challenging the meaning of the world. It brings out fresh insights into everything. Be aware – and how can a machine even recognize this if it happens?
One day master class on consciousness
Join us on June 22nd in New York City for an instant expert event on the latest science of consciousness and the human brain.
All three discoveries were made in the past five years, and the more scientists experiment with animals, the more they discover that many species have an inner life and may be sentient. It shows that. A surprising range of organisms show evidence of conscious thought and experience, including insects, fish, and some crustaceans.
That’s why a group of top animal cognition researchers has released a new statement they hope will change the way scientists and society view and care for animals.
Nearly 40 researchers signed the petition. New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness” was first presented Friday morning at a conference at New York University. This comes at a pivotal moment, as a plethora of research on animal cognition collides with debates about how different species should be treated.
The declaration says there is “strong scientific support” that birds and mammals have conscious experience, and that there is a “realistic possibility” that consciousness exists in all vertebrates, including reptiles, amphibians, and fish. It has said. The possibility extends to many organisms without backbones, including insects, decapod crustaceans (including crabs and lobsters), and cephalopod molluscs such as squid, octopuses, and cuttlefish, he added.
“If an animal has a real possibility of conscious experience, it would be irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal,” the declaration reads. “We should consider welfare risks and use evidence to inform our responses to these risks.”
Jonathan Birch, professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics and principal investigator of the Fundamentals of Animal Senses project, is also one of the signatories of the declaration. He said many scientists had previously thought questions about animal consciousness were unanswerable, but the declaration shows his field is moving in a new direction.
“This has been a very exciting decade for the study of animal minds,” Professor Birch said. “People are boldly going out there in ways that have never been done before, and are excited about the possibility that animals like bees, octopuses, and squids are somehow having conscious experiences.”
From “automaton” to perceiver
There is no standard definition for animal perception or consciousness, but these terms generally refer to the ability to have subjective experiences, i.e. the ability to feel and map the outside world, and to feel emotions such as pleasure and pain. Refers to ability. In some cases, it may mean that the animal has some degree of self-awareness.
In this sense, the new declaration goes against long-standing orthodoxy in historical science. In the 17th century, French philosopher René Descartes argued that animals are nothing more than “material automatons” without souls or consciousness.
Rajesh Reddy, assistant professor and director of the animal law program at Lewis & Clark College, said Descartes believed that animals “cannot feel or suffer.” “There was something stupid and anthropomorphic about feeling sorry for them or empathizing with them.”
In the early 20th century, prominent behavioral psychologists promoted the idea that science should study only observable behavior in animals. rather than emotions or subjective experience.. But in the 1960s, scientists began to reconsider. Research began to focus on animal cognition, primarily other primates.
Birch said the new declaration attempts to “embody an emerging consensus that rejects the 100-year-old view that there is no way to study these issues scientifically.”
Indeed, there has been a recent surge in new discoveries that support the new declaration. As scientists develop new cognitive tests and test existing tests on a wider range of species, there are some surprises.
For example, consider the mirror mark test that scientists sometimes use to see if animals recognize themselves.
The fish were placed in an aquarium covered with mirrors, but no abnormal reactions were observed. However, when the cover was removed, seven out of 10 fish launched an attack toward the mirror, indicating that they may have interpreted the image as a rival fish.
After a few days, the fish calmed down and attempted strange behaviors never seen before in this species, such as swimming upside down in front of a mirror. Afterwards, some spent an unusual amount of time in front of the mirror observing their bodies. The researchers then placed brown spots under the fish’s skin to resemble parasites. Some fish tried to scrape off the mark.
“They’re able to see wrasse perform a series of steps that you can only imagine seeing in incredibly intelligent animals like chimpanzees and dolphins,” Birch said. “No one in a million years would have expected a small fish to pass this test.”
Birch said these experiments are part of a growing body of animal consciousness research over the past 10 to 15 years. “You have a much broader canvas to study a much wider range of animals, not just mammals and birds, but also invertebrates like octopuses and squid,” he said. “And people are talking about this idea more and more in relation to insects.”
Reddy said researchers may soon need to completely reorient their research, as more and more species are showing these signs.
A new legal perspective
Reddy said the change in scientists’ understanding of animal sentience could have implications for U.S. law, which does not classify animals as sentient at the federal level. Instead, animal-related laws primarily focus on conservation, agriculture, or the treatment of animals by zoos, laboratories, and pet retailers.
“The law moves very slowly and follows society’s views on many of these issues,” Reddy said. “This declaration, and other measures to remind the public that animals are more than just biological automatons, could greatly increase support for increased protections.”
Helge Karl/Getty Images/iStockphoto
State laws vary widely. Ten years ago, Oregon passed a law recognizing that animals are sentient and capable of feeling pain, stress and fear, forming the basis of progressive judicial opinion in the state, Reddy said. he said.
meanwhile, Washington and California These are among the states where lawmakers this year are considering bans on farming octopuses, a species in which scientists have found strong evidence of sentience.
British law has recently changed to consider octopuses as living organisms, just like crabs and lobsters.
“Once you realize that animals are intelligent, the concept of humane slaughter starts to become important. You have to make sure that the methods you’re using on the animals are humane,” Birch said. says. “For crabs and lobsters, very inhumane methods such as dropping them into a pot of boiling water are very common.”
They call it “the irrational validity of mathematics.” Physicist Eugene Wigner has the fascinating ability to describe and predict all kinds of natural phenomena, from the movements of planets and the strange behavior of fundamental particles to the effects of the universe, simply by manipulating numbers. He coined the term in the 1960s to summarize the facts. A collision between two black holes billions of light years away. Some are now wondering whether mathematics succeeds where all else fails, figuring out what it is that allows us to ponder the laws of nature in the first place.
That’s a big question. The question of how matter creates felt experiences is one of the most vexing problems we know of. And sure enough, the first fleshed-out mathematical model of consciousness sparked a huge debate about whether it could tell us anything meaningful. But as mathematicians strive to hone and expand the tools for looking deep within themselves, they are faced with some surprising conclusions.
In particular, they make clear that if we are to achieve an accurate account of consciousness, we must abandon our intuitions and realize that all kinds of inanimate objects, perhaps the entire universe, can be conscious. It seems to suggest that we may need to accept it. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution,” he says. Johannes KleinerMathematician at the Munich Center for Mathematics and Philosophy in Germany.
If so, it’s been going on for a long time. Philosophers have wondered about the nature of consciousness for thousands of years, but to little avail. Then half a century ago, biologists got involved. they discovered…
Article amended on May 4, 2020Fix: The campus of the Norwegian Inland University of Applied Sciences, where Hedda Hassel-Morch is based, has been updated to change the attribution of research on the effects of sleep or sedation on Phi.
Is consciousness a collection of discrete states that we move between?
PM Images/Getty Images
What is consciousness? This is perhaps the greatest mystery remaining in the human brain. No wonder it's known as the “hard problem.” We also cannot agree on whether consciousness is one thing or whether it is various states. But a new way to explore that question sheds interesting light on this most elusive of concepts.
We use words like “blacking out” to describe fainting or falling asleep, but researchers believe that consciousness is much more than simply flipping a metaphorical switch from “on” to “off.” I have long understood that it is complicated. However, there is still much debate as to whether it is a single phenomenon with many continuous shades, as imagined as a dimmer switch, or a collection of discrete states, like separate television channels. there is.
Thinking about consciousness from a physicist's perspective may help answer this question. That's because the brain is constantly transitioning between states defined by patterns of electrical signals, and physicists have metrics to study such busy, ever-changing systems. In 2014, robin carhart harris University of California, San Francisco and colleagues hypothesized that entropy may be particularly useful.
Entropy describes how chaotic a system is. One measure of entropy is how many different microscopic configurations (such as the arrangement of water molecules within a glass) exist within a particular macroscopic property (such as the volume of a glass). Researchers proposed that brain states have greater entropy when measured…
Two weeks before the pandemic lockdown in March 2020, I flew to Tucson, Arizona, and knocked on the door of a suburban ranch-style home. I was there to visit Stuart Hammeroff. He is an anesthesiologist and co-inventor with Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose of a radical proposal for how conscious experience arises: that it has its origins in quantum phenomena in the brain.
Such ideas, in one form or another, have existed on the fringes of mainstream consciousness research for decades. There is no solid experimental evidence that quantum effects occur in the brain, as critics claim, and aside from a clear idea of how quantum effects produce consciousness, they come in from the cold. Not that it was. “It was very popular to bash us,” Hammeroff told me.
But after a week of questioning him about the concept, I realized that at least his version of quantum consciousness is widely misunderstood. Partly, I think it’s Hammeroff’s fault. He gives the impression of a single package. In fact, his ideas are a series of independent proposals, each forcing us to confront important questions about the relationship between fundamental physics, biology, and the indescribable thing called consciousness. I am.
Furthermore, during my visit I saw several experiments that Hammeroff had proposed come to fruition, and it became clear that his ideas could be applied to experimental research. Researchers have now provided preliminary evidence suggesting that fragile quantum states can persist in the brain and that anesthetics can influence those states.
Two weeks before the pandemic lockdown in March 2020, I flew to Tucson, Arizona, and knocked on the door of a suburban ranch-style home. I was there to visit Stuart Hameroff. He is an anesthesiologist and co-inventor with Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose of a radical proposal for how conscious experience arises: that the origins of conscious experience lie in quantum phenomena in the brain.
Such ideas, in one form or another, have existed on the fringes of mainstream consciousness research for decades. There is no solid experimental evidence that quantum effects occur in the brain, as critics claim, and aside from a clear idea of how quantum effects produce consciousness, they come in from the cold. Not that it was. “It was very popular to bash us,” Hameroff told me.
But after a week of questioning him about the concept, I realized that at least his version of quantum consciousness is widely misunderstood. Partly, I think it’s Hameroff’s fault. He gives the impression of a single package. In fact, his ideas are a series of independent proposals, each forcing us to confront important questions about the relationship between fundamental physics, biology, and the indescribable thing called consciousness.
Furthermore, during my visit I saw several experiments that Hameroff had proposed come to fruition, and it became clear that his ideas could be applied to experimental research. Researchers have now provided preliminary evidence suggesting that fragile quantum states can persist in the brain and that anesthetics can influence those states.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
