A team of neuroscientists, known as the Cogitate Consortium, embarked on an ambitious study to test two rival theories of consciousness: Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory. The goal was to put these theories to the test in a controlled experiment, but the results were met with criticism from experts.
The researchers designed a comprehensive study that scanned the brains of 267 volunteers using three different techniques: electrodes inserted into the brain during surgery, fMRI machines, and magnetoencephalography. They asked participants to play video games that measured their conscious awareness of seeing things. The findings showed that both theories made accurate predictions about what was happening in the brain but also had limitations.
Dr. Lucia Melloni, a neuroscientist at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, stated, “Both theories are incomplete.” This sentiment resonated with Dr. Anil Seth, who praised the study’s scale and discovery of shortcomings in each theory. However, critics like Dr. Joel Snyder pointed out that the experiment did not precisely test either theory, which may generate confusion.
Despite this controversy, Dr. Seth saw value in pitting theories against each other, even if it doesn’t lead scientists to kill their own ideas. “The best we can hope for from a successful adversarial collaboration is that other people may change their minds,” he said. The debate surrounding the Cogitate Consortium study highlights the ongoing challenge of understanding consciousness and the importance of continued scientific inquiry.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/science