The field of consciousness studies has been in turmoil since over 100 researchers signed a letter last September, attacking neuroscientist Christof Koch’s leading Integrated Information Theory (IIT) theory of consciousness. Among other things, the theory’s panpsychist leanings could lead to a perception that unborn children have some sort of consciousness, which, to put it mildly, is an unpopular point of view in that field.

In June of that year, Koch had also famously lost a 25-year wager (1998–2023) with philosopher of mind David Chalmers that a signature of consciousness would be found in the human brain. It wasn’t.

A bit of background

An article by Mariana Lenharo at Nature earlier this week provides some background and assesses the damage. In 2019, Nassau-based Templeton World Charity Foundation committed funds to five consciousness-related projects, based on an “adversarial” approach. In one project, led by neuroscientist Lucia Melloni from the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt, we are told,

The aim of each collaboration is to move consciousness research forward by getting scientists to produce evidence that supports one theory and falsifies the predictions of another. Melloni’s group is testing two prominent ideas: integrated information theory (IIT), which claims that consciousness amounts to the degree of ‘integrated information’ generated by a system such as the human brain; and global neuronal workspace theory (GNWT), which claims that mental content, such as perceptions and thoughts, becomes conscious when the information is broadcast across the brain through a specialized network, or workspace. She and her co-leaders had to mediate between the main theorists, and seldom invited them into the same room.

Mariana Lenharo, “The consciousness wars: can scientists ever agree on how the mind works?”, Nature, 17 January 2024

Things did not go as well as hoped with the adversarial collaboration, as it is called. The field is dominated, we are told, by “big personalities” who could not recognize potential flaws in their own theories or strengths in those of others. Melloni seems to feel that it is her job to try to change that (“If I have one regret, I think it would be that I did not manage to make them see that there is something valuable in both of their ideas.”) but that would be trying to change human nature…

When the letter denouncing Koch’s theory landed last year — after a long, slow, angry simmer, one suspects — it did a lot of damage:

Chaos ensued. The letter provoked blowback from other scientists who felt that such an attack could aggravate divides and hurt the field’s credibility. Signatories reported receiving ominous e-mails containing veiled threats. Researchers on both sides of the aisle lost sleep over accusatory tweets. Some even contemplated leaving science altogether.

Lenharo, “How the mind works?”

Mathematician Johannes Kleiner tried organizing an online gathering to discuss the future of the scientific study of consciousness but participants were urged “not to mention the open letter directly.” That’s somewhat like convening a meeting in the church basement and asking attendees to ignore the fact that the gas stove in the kitchen is on fire.

Meanwhile, research continues, of course. But the origin and aftermath of the episode raise a question: Is a materialist approach to the human mind doomed to always end up like this? That is, if neuroscientists are looking for a material basis for the human mind, chances are they are looking for something that isn’t there. Progress will then be measured in conflicts, not insights. But maybe they would not have it any other way.

You may also wish to read: Neuroscience has never provided much evidence for materialism. In a chapter of the new book, Minding the Brain, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor points out that many great neuroscientists were non-materialists. Great neuroscientists weren’t dualists in spite of the evidence but because of it. Their research, however it was spun, really did not support a materialist view of the mind.