Consciousness is perhaps the most intricate puzzle ever posed to science: how can subjectivity emerge from brain matter? The "hard problem" continues to challenge the research of neuroscientists and philosophers, but the main theories in the field and technological advances suggest at least one path.
Understanding the origin of consciousness means understanding how the brain activities of perception, learning and decision making give rise to the subjective flow of conscious experience. In a paper of 1995 the philosopher David Chalmers he called it a "difficult problem", and perhaps he didn't even imagine how difficult it was. A path that intertwines science and philosophy. Well. Where are we on this journey?
The main theories compared
Please know that this is an informative article for a site, Futuro Prossimo, which has the declared aim of igniting curiosity in research. We are not encyclopaedists: we provide a more complete set of information and sources for further investigation. Why am I writing this to you? So that the "purists" of neuroscience do not think that this is bignami. This is a starting point and orientation among the most accredited theories.
Don't worry if for simplicity's sake I mention just two: the "classic", born in the 80s, Global Workspace Theory (GWT), proposed by cognitive scientists Bernard Baars e Stan Franklin. This theory views consciousness as a "byproduct" of information processing that drives behaviors.
Another influential theory, since 2004, is the Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Integrated information theory by Giulio Tononi, Italian neuroscientist working in the USA. According to this theory, consciousness emerges when information is sufficiently integrated, regardless of the system.
Studies focus on so-called “neural correlates,” the brain patterns associated with specific conscious states, to identify potential “signatures” that identify the emergence of awareness. And, apart from the research?
Increasingly cutting-edge technologies, research continues
In 1998 the neuroscientist Christof Koch he bet with the philosopher David Chalmers that within 25 years science would find clear neural correlates. He lost the bet, and he paid for it too: with a case of port wine. In 2023, data obtained with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and neural electrodes were not considered conclusive. We have moved forward, we are studying neural implants and pathways that will allow us to "recover" more and more people from comas. Some, including his own Chalmer, now co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness at New York University, are even probing the connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. But it's still not enough.
Koch admitted defeat, but also relaunched the bet for another 25 years, trusting in technological progress. Will we talk about it again in 2048?
No. The truth is that even if the neural correlates are identified within the next 25 years, explaining how consciousness arises from matter remains an immense challenge. Interdisciplinarity and new generations of researchers give rise to hope for new steps forward. The solution to the puzzle, however, still seems to me to be a distant horizon. Imagine the debate on "sentient" artificial intelligence.
