The Consciousness Clash
Two Paradigms within the Science of Consciousness are Undergoing a Tectonic Clash; Can this Adversarial Unfoldment be Used as an Opportunity to Obtain a Clearer View of What Constitutes Science and how to Avoid Scientism?
In the quiet halls of neuroscience, a storm has been brewing. At its center lies one of humanity's most profound mysteries: consciousness itself. How does anything physical have subjective experiences, when the qualities of Mind seem intangible? Why does it feel like something to be alive? These questions have recently ignited an unprecedented scientific controversy that reveals as much about the nature of science as it does about the nature of Mind.
Two competing frameworks have emerged as frontrunners in the scientific study of consciousness, with Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) and Integrated Information Theory (IIT) now at the center of a heated scientific clash. This confrontation in the pages of Nature Neuroscience represents a deeper paradigmatic divide in consciousness studies. GNWT exemplifies the computational functionalist approach, which views consciousness as emergent—arising from complex computational processes in the brain's neural networks. In stark contrast, IIT represents a "consciousness-first" paradigm that inverts this logic by beginning with the phenomenological experience of consciousness itself and working backward to determine what physical properties are necessary to generate it.
While other significant theories exist in consciousness research, such as the Hameroff-Penrose Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) model (see our article that explores aspects of Orch-OR) or Joachim Keppler’s Field-Theoretical Model of Cortical Dynamics [1] (to name just a few), the current scientific controversy specifically pits GNWT against IIT. This reflects the fundamental tension between viewing consciousness as a computational phenomenon that emerges from sufficient complexity versus understanding it as a fundamental property with intrinsic causal power that requires specific structural and dynamical features to manifest [2].
The conflict between these approaches recently reached a boiling point when over 100 scientists signed an open letter declaring IIT to be "pseudoscience" [3] — a serious accusation in scientific circles. However, like the infamous letter of "Hundred Authors Against Einstein", such dictatorial committees that seek to establish scientific validity via fiat can themselves be characterized as anti-scientific. This dramatic development has prompted two highly respected neuroscientists, Alex Gomez-Marin and Anil Seth, to call for a more productive dialogue in their recent article “a science of consciousness beyond pseudo-science and pseudo-consciousness”, published in Nature Neuroscience [4].
The Battle of Paradigms
To understand this clash, we must first grasp what's at stake. The computational functionalist paradigm, which dominates much of neuroscience and artificial intelligence research, suggests that consciousness emerges from the right kind of information processing in the brain. In this view, computation (or more specifically computational complexity) is sufficient to generate a state of subjective experience. From this view, consciousness is essentially a sophisticated form of computation.
Integrated Information Theory, developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, takes a radically different approach. It begins with the phenomenology of consciousness – the structure of experience itself – and identifies essential features that must be present in all conscious experiences. From these "axioms," it derives mathematical "postulates" about what physical systems must possess to generate consciousness.
IIT's core claim is that consciousness corresponds to integrated information (represented by the Greek letter phi, Φ) – a measure of how much a system's parts influence each other in ways that cannot be reduced to the sum of its components. The higher the Φ, the greater the consciousness.
This theory leads to some counterintuitive conclusions. It suggests that consciousness might exist in systems we wouldn't normally consider conscious, potentially including simple networks of logic gates or even, in some interpretations, plants. These implications have made IIT controversial, to say the least.
The Pseudoscience Accusation
The recent letter signed by over 100 academics, including prominent figures in consciousness research, argues that IIT's core claims are untestable in principle and that its counterintuitive implications make it pseudoscientific. They express concern about IIT's public promotion and potential ethical implications for issues ranging from AI sentience to abortion and the treatment of coma patients.
In response, Tononi and his colleagues defend IIT's scientific legitimacy, arguing that it makes testable predictions and has explanatory power [5]. They characterize the criticism as coming from a "self-appointed tribunal" attempting to dictate what approaches are permissible in consciousness research.
The Pseudoscience Label as Anti-Scientific Rhetoric
The increasing use of the "pseudoscience" label as a rhetorical weapon in scientific discourse deserves critical examination. When wielded against theories like IIT, this term often functions more as an attempt to delegitimize competing frameworks than as a genuine scientific critique. Science progresses not through consensus or popularity contests, but through the systematic testing of hypotheses against empirical evidence. History reveals numerous examples of initially dismissed theories—from continental drift to quantum entanglement—that later became foundational to our understanding of the world.
The very essence of scientific inquiry demands that theories stand or fall based on their explanatory power and empirical adequacy, not on whether they conform to current paradigmatic expectations. While direct empirical testing represents the gold standard, many scientific theories—particularly those addressing complex phenomena like consciousness—require creative indirect testing methodologies. Einstein's general relativity, for instance, made predictions that could only be tested during specific astronomical events, and some of the predictions could not be tested until nearly 100 years after the initial proposal (like gravitational waves). Imagine scientists of the time saying “there is no way to test gravitational waves, so general relativity makes untestable predictions and is therefore pseudoscience”; this is tantamount to what many theories today face if they are perceived to be outside of the paradigmatic consensus.
The science of consciousness is a highly prone target for the pseudoscience accusation; in fact, it is only within the last 30 years or so that it has even been acceptable to discuss consciousness within the context of a scientific theory. Yes, aspects of consciousness are very challenging to test empirically, that is why a central facet is the hard problem of consciousness, which relates to the seeming near-intractable difficulty of explaining subjective phenomenal awareness via the objective reductionist method normally employed by science to identify and explain why and how certain physical processes give rise to subjective experience, or qualia [6]. The challenge for consciousness researchers isn't to dismiss counterintuitive theories as pseudoscientific, but to develop increasingly sophisticated methods for their empirical evaluation.
When over 100 scientists sign a letter declaring a theory pseudoscientific rather than engaging with its claims through rigorous experimentation, they risk engaging in precisely the kind of dogmatic thinking that science was designed to overcome. When prominent scientists band together to dismiss theories through collective proclamation rather than empirical testing, they mirror other historical examples of scientific gatekeeping, such as the medical establishment's initial rejection of Ignaz Semmelweis's lifesaving handwashing protocols or the decades-long dismissal of Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory—cases where scientific consensus served to impede rather than advance knowledge.
A Call for Scientific Maturity
In their thoughtful commentary, Gomez-Marin and Seth offer a perspective that rises above the fray. They argue that while IIT is indeed counterintuitive and complex, these qualities are not scientific sins – especially when addressing a challenge as profound as consciousness.
They point out that the accusation of pseudoscience rests primarily on testability concerns, reflecting a particular philosophy of science associated with Karl Popper, who emphasized falsifiability. But they note that other philosophical perspectives might better capture how science works in practice, especially when grappling with problems that fall outside mainstream paradigms.
Gomez-Marin and Seth highlight that while IIT's core claims may be difficult to test directly with current methods, the theory does generate testable predictions. They cite two major collaborative projects – COGITATE and INTREPID – that have attempted to test predictions derived from IIT against those from competing theories.
The authors also challenge the false dichotomy presented in the debate. They note that computational functionalism is not the only alternative to IIT, and that many other approaches exist, including non-computational functionalist theories and biological naturalist perspectives that emphasize the importance of biological substrates for consciousness [7].
Beyond Tribalism in Science
What makes Gomez-Marin and Seth's intervention particularly valuable is their call for epistemic humility and metaphysical pluralism. They remind us that the scientific study of consciousness is still in its infancy, having been considered a legitimate field for only about three decades.
They warn against the dangers of scientific tribalism, where researchers become so invested in their preferred theories that they lose the ability to consider alternatives fairly. As they eloquently put it: "Metaphysical pluralism and epistemic humility are rare but relevant virtues."
The authors draw historical parallels to other scientific controversies, including the publication of "Hundred Authors Against Einstein" in 1931, as previously mentioned, which attempted to discredit the theory of relativity. Einstein reportedly responded: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" They also mention Carl Sagan's refusal to sign a statement against astrology, not because he believed in astrology, but because he found the statement's tone authoritarian and contrary to scientific principles.
The Path Forward
Gomez-Marin and Seth suggest that this controversy offers an opportunity for growth. They call for a science of consciousness that balances openness to counterintuitive ideas with rigorous methodology. They advocate for healthy diversity in theoretical approaches and a willingness to be bold in tackling the hard problem of consciousness.
Their perspective reminds us that science progresses not just through the accumulation of data, but through conceptual revolutions that transform how we understand the world. The history of science is filled with ideas that were initially dismissed as absurd – from continental drift to quantum entanglement – only to be later accepted as fundamental truths.
The consciousness debate also highlights the unique challenges of studying a phenomenon that we experience directly but can only observe indirectly in others. Unlike many scientific objects of study, consciousness is not just something we investigate – it's the very medium through which all investigation occurs.
Why This Matters
This scientific clash matters beyond the confines of neuroscience. How we understand consciousness has profound implications for how we treat other potentially conscious beings, from animals to artificial intelligence systems. It influences medical ethics regarding patients in vegetative states and shapes our understanding of mental health conditions.
Moreover, the debate reflects broader tensions in science between competing philosophical frameworks and methodological approaches. It raises questions about what counts as legitimate science and how we should navigate areas where traditional scientific methods may be insufficient.
As non-specialists, we might be tempted to wait on the sidelines until the experts reach consensus. But Gomez-Marin and Seth suggest a more engaged approach: appreciating the complexity of the problem, remaining open to diverse perspectives, and recognizing that in the face of consciousness, a certain humility is warranted.
They conclude with a beautiful metaphor borrowed from the poet Rumi: "Beyond ideas of pseudo-science and pseudo-consciousness there is a field. Let's meet there." This invitation to transcend polarized thinking offers wisdom not just for consciousness researchers, but for anyone seeking to understand complex, contested domains of knowledge.
In an age of increasing polarization, their call for intellectual generosity and epistemic humility provides a model for how we might approach not just the mystery of consciousness, but all the profound questions that define our humanity.
Towards a Unified Science of Consciousness
Our previous work on "The Hard Problem of Consciousness, AI Self-Awareness, and the Definition of Materialism" laid crucial groundwork by examining some of the assumptions that are prevalent in reductive and physicalist approaches to consciousness. In that analysis, we demonstrated how algorithmic models of mind inevitably fail to account for qualitative experience—what philosophers call "qualia"—and why computational functionalism provides an incomplete framework for understanding consciousness. We argued that the "hard problem" persists precisely because materialist models typically reduce consciousness to information processing, yet offer no explanation for how or why such processing should generate subjective experience.
This critique directly addresses the shortcomings of approaches like GNWT (characterizing consciousness primarily as a computational phenomenon emerging from neural networks). While such models explain certain functional aspects of awareness, they cannot bridge what we call the "explanatory gap" between physical processes and phenomenal experience. No matter how sophisticated the computational architecture, these models ultimately fail to explain why there is "something it is like" to be conscious [8].
Our analysis further challenged the conventional understanding of materialism itself, noting that there is not yet a satisfactory explanation for what material is. So, we must first define what is meant by “material”, because at the quantum scale one must rival with nonlinear interactions such as entanglement at large distances, uncertainties, and divergences, such as the bare mass and bare charge of particles, and most importantly, the Planck scale density of electromagnetic quantum vacuum fluctuations.
So, what is normally meant by “material”, such as the stuff you can touch and feel—like the analogy of particles being little billiard balls—does not hold in quantum mechanics. Moreover, if we are going to follow the reductionist method, it must go all the way and not stop at neurons and the neuronal synapse, it must go to the quantum level of atoms and even the vacuum state of the field from which subatomic particles form. At that scale, material is a much more dynamic information-dense substance than what traditional physicalist would presume.
Our work has delved into what precisely is the nature of "material", showing that it is a spatially-extended multiply-connected system that cannot be considered in isolation, i.e., it is not like little billiard balls.
Reductionist approaches to understanding consciousness in the brain generally go to the level of the neuron, but we must be more reductive than that by looking at the quantum level of atoms and even the vacuum state of the field from which subatomic particles form. Our work (Haramein & Brown) has explored how the brain acts as a system of nested harmonic oscillators coupling across scales, like an antenna tuning into information flows at the Planck scale and engaging in continuous feedback mechanisms, like that between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields.
While the GNWT-IIT debate represents a significant dichotomy in consciousness research, our work offers a more fundamental framework that transcends both computational emergence and phenomenological approaches by situating consciousness within the dynamics occurring in the very structure of spacetime. In our papers "The Unified Spacememory Network" and "Unified Physics and the Entanglement Nexus of Awareness," (both available to view and download at ISF Research) we propose that consciousness arises within information dynamics from the Planck scale to the atomic scale, like feedback and integration among the interacting network of particles of the universe.
The Spacememory Architecture of Consciousness
At the heart of our model is what we call the unified spacememory network—a multiply-connected geometry of spacetime at the Planck scale. This architecture consists of microscopic wormhole connections (micro-wormholes) forming a quantum network that enables nonlocal information exchange across spatial and temporal domains. What we describe aligns with and extends the concept first proposed by the preeminent physicist John Archibald Wheeler, who termed this fundamental structure "quantum spacetime foam." Wheeler, who coined the terms "black hole" and popularized "wormhole," hypothesized that at the Planck scale, spacetime is not smooth but exhibits a foamy, turbulent geometry with dynamic topological fluctuations. Our model quantifies this foam structure, demonstrating that these wormhole connections, approximately 4.33×10^40 per proton surface, create an intricate web that connects all spacetime coordinates and quanta, with matter (like the atoms in your brain) forming "nodes" or "hubs" in this global information network. Unlike Wheeler's primarily qualitative description, our approach provides specific calculations for the density of these connections and their role in consciousness and information processing.
Also, unlike computational models that view consciousness as emerging from sufficiently complex neural computations, our framework suggests that consciousness is intrinsic to the recursive information encoding and feedback processes of this quantum spacetime micro-wormhole network. The very structure of spacetime contains spacememory—the capacity for information encoding, memory, and hysteresis at the fundamental level of reality, in the entanglement nexus of the quantum vacuum itself (see our article quantum energy teleportation protocol for more on the science of how the quantum vacuum carry an infinite amount of quantum entanglement).
Bridging IIT and Beyond
Our model offers conceptual connections to Integrated Information Theory while extending far beyond it. Like IIT, we recognize that integration of information is critical to consciousness. However, rather than viewing phi (Φ) as merely a product of brain activity, we suggest that integration occurs through the connectivity of the spacememory network itself, with the brain acting more as a transceiver for consciousness rather than its generator.
Table 1. From "Unified Physics and the Entanglement Nexus of Awareness", delineation of the primary elements engendering consciousness from proto-consciousness.
The spacememory model addresses limitations in both computational and phenomenological approaches by providing a physical mechanism for how consciousness can be both fundamental to reality (addressing IIT's insights) while explaining the evolution of increasingly complex conscious systems (acknowledging computational functionalism's observations about emergent properties).
Experimental Implications
Our framework makes several testable predictions. Systems that maintain quantum critical states should exhibit non-random behaviors influenced by nonlocal information exchange through the spacememory network. This would manifest as coherent, ordered dynamics that cannot be explained by local interactions alone. In biological systems, particularly in the ordered water structures and aromatic rings of biomolecules like DNA and microtubules, or ATP generated in mitochondria, these quantum effects create strong correlation across macromolecular assemblies.
One specific prediction is that the tautomerization of nucleobases in DNA, influenced by quantum tunneling effects, may represent a mechanism by which nonlocal temporal influences drive adaptive mutations and evolutionary development – creating what appears as directed, non-random genetic change. Predictions like this are testable and empirical evidence has already been seen (see my article Study Reveals Indications of Environmental Sensing by Genetic Apparatus Driving Non-Random Mutation for Directional Adaptation).
Consciousness as Universal Connectivity
In summary, our unified physics approach positions consciousness not as an emergent property of neural computation, nor solely as a phenomenological starting point, but as an intrinsic characteristic of the interconnected information dynamics of spacetime itself. The brain-body system functions primarily as a receiver and transducer of consciousness rather than its generator, connecting to and processing information from the universal spacememory network.
This perspective helps explain why consciousness appears simultaneously deeply personal yet seemingly unbounded, how subjective experience relates to objective reality, and why living systems exhibit remarkable coherence and goal-oriented behavior across all scales. By recognizing the fundamental role of quantum spacetime connectivity in consciousness, we move toward a truly unified science of mind that bridges physical, biological, and phenomenological domains.
References
1. Keppler, Joachim. (2025). The Fundamental Principle Underlying Conscious Processes and Necessary Conditions for the Formation of Conscious States. 10.13140/RG.2.2.26179.72480.
2. C. Consortium et al., “An adversarial collaboration to critically evaluate theories of consciousness,” Jun. 26, 2023, bioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/2023.06.23.546249.
3. IIT-Concerned et al. Nat. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-025-01881-x (2025).
4. A. Gomez-Marin and A. K. Seth, “A science of consciousness beyond pseudo-science and pseudo-consciousness,” Nat Neurosci, pp. 1–4, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41593-025-01913-6.
5. G. Tononi et al., “Consciousness or pseudo-consciousness? A clash of two paradigms,” Nat Neurosci, pp. 1–9, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41593-025-01880-y.
6. Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219.
7. A. Seth, “Conscious artificial intelligence and biological naturalism,” Jun. 30, 2024, OSF. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/tz6an.
8. Nagel, Thomas (1974). "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?". The Philosophical Review. 83 (4): 435–450. doi:10.2307/2183914.
