In an article earlier this year at Debrief, Tim McMillan, explores what will happen if science finally explains consciousness:

Consciousness, researchers acknowledge, may resist complete explanation for decades—or longer. However, they argue that the field has matured enough to move beyond simply cataloging brain signals toward building theories that can be tested, challenged, and refined.

If that transition succeeds, consciousness science could do more than solve an ancient puzzle. It could reshape how humans understand themselves, their technologies, and their responsibilities to other minds—natural or artificial.

In that sense, the question is no longer just whether consciousness can be explained, but whether society is prepared for what that explanation might reveal.

“What Happens If Science Finally Explains Consciousness? A New Study Explores the Consequences,” February 3, 2026.

Chances are, the explanation will reveal whatever the explainers want it to.

The authors of the study, published at Frontiers in Science, sound optimistic:

We conclude that progress in understanding consciousness will reshape how we see ourselves and our relationship to both artificial intelligence and the natural world, usher in new realms of intervention for modern medicine, and inform discussions around both nonhuman animal welfare and ethical concerns surrounding the beginning and end of human life.

Cleeremans A, Mudrik L and Seth AK (2025) Consciousness science: where are we, where are we going, and what if we get there?. Front Sci 3:1546279. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2025.1546279

Could their findings, if they shed any light, be misused?

Some of us recall the Cancel attempt on prominent neuroscientist Christof Koch when his IIT theory was taken to suggest that preborn children might be conscious. It is a reasonable guess that any theory would only be accepted if it scuffed out such an idea; otherwise, it would just be Canceled, whatever its merits.

Another question arises: Many chickens are being counted here but what is the hatch rate?

We are not short of consciousness theories

Robert Lawrence Kuhn and Hans Busstra reported last year at the Essentia Foundation, that there are at least 325 competing theories of consciousness out there.

Since then, Wiliam Hunter tells us at the Daily Mail that a “radical new theory” is making the rounds:

[The authors] propose something called the ‘Copernican Principle of Consciousness’.

The idea is that we shouldn’t simply assume that humans and our particular type of conscious experience are special or unique…

Once we apply this idea to consciousness, Dr Pober says there’s no reason to think that consciousness needs to rely on flesh and blood.

The big consequence of that idea is that it vastly expands the possible range of life forms that could be having conscious experiences out in the wider universe.

“Scientists propose radical new theory of consciousness – and claim it doesn’t depend on flesh and blood,” June 20, 2026

So we don’t know have any clear idea what consciousness is or how it is produced but we can safely trust that we will find it throughout the universe…

Meanwhile, at ScienceDaily, the Frontiers in Science authors warn,

… rapid advances in AI and neurotechnology are outpacing our understanding of consciousness, creating serious ethical risks. New research argues that developing scientific tests for awareness could transform medicine, animal welfare, law, and AI development. But identifying consciousness in machines, brain organoids, or patients could also force society to rethink responsibility, rights, and moral boundaries. The question of what it means to be conscious has never been more urgent—or more unsettling.

Frontiers. ““Existential risk” – Why scientists are racing to define consciousness.” ScienceDaily. 1 February 2026.

So again, it’s supposed to be a given that machines or brain organoids might be conscious despite our being unsure what it is or how it works. And, if Koch’s experience is any guide, the consensus is also that preborn children cannot possess it. Maybe bees can, sure, but that’s different!

A degenerating paradigm in research?

It is worth asking, is consciousness research a denerating paradigm? Philosopher of science Imre Lakatos (1922–1974) proposed the term to refer to a situation where science is not progressing:

A degenerating research programme … (unlike the theories of Newton and Einstein) either fails to predict novel facts at all, or makes novel predictions that are systematically falsified. Marxism, for example, started out as theoretically progressive but empirically degenerate (novel predictions systematically falsified) and ended up as theoretically degenerate as well (no more novel predictions but a desperate attempt to explain away unpredicted “observations” after the event).

Musgrave, Alan and Charles Pigden, Imre Lakatos, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2026 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.).

So, refining our question, are theories of consciousness even making predictions that are falsifiable? The optimistic researchers quted above believe that they are only just now — well over 300 theories later — reaching the threshold of testability, never mind falsifiability.

Currently, the discipline seems to be obsessed with explaining immaterial consciousness as a material thing or process. Chances are, they will be at it a long time. And they will call it science even when there are 626 theories out there.