Not another model of consciousness, but an experimental razor

Abstract Consciousness Studies as an emergent scientific discipline finds itself in the peculiar position of having an abundance of theories, yet none are seemingly capable of bringing about an expert consensus regarding the ontology and causal processes of consciousness. The current state of the field is reflected upon, along with the advocation of a proposed approach to help progress the field further. This approach of an experimental razor is demonstrated by example, through which the filtration of a series of experimental studies identifies 3 potential neural correlates of consciousness, both of which can be used to verify or falsify existing theories of consciousness.

Introduction

When a newborn child is first born into the world, its state of consciousness is undeniably different to the consciousness that is experienced by a mature adult. On the path of reaching this more stabilized level of consciousness, the newborn must first pass through a few crucial phases of neurodevelopment along the way. During the first couple years of life, every child must go through a phase of synaptic blooming - an intense period of synaptogenesis where many new connections are formed₁. This is subsequently followed by an equally crucial phase called synaptic pruning -a natural process where less-used or weaker connections are pruned away, allowing the stronger connections to function more efficiently while laying the foundations for more complex cognitive functions to develop. The core thesis of this essay is that the Field of Consciousness Studies itself is metaphorically entering this pruning stage in its own development- or at least it should be, otherwise it’s at risk of arresting its own development.

The newly born scientific field of Consciousness Studies has just passed its synaptic “blooming” phase - which is best exemplified by Robert Kuhn’s recent 2024 paper “A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications”₂. In this monumental achievement, he has created an in-depth taxonomy and description of 209 distinct contributions and models of consciousness. After completing this monstrous task, he dismally remarks at the end of his paper “I’d like to say we have progressed. I’m not sure I can”. This ontological uncertainty about consciousness - despite this mass proliferation of theories - is also epitomized by the recent payment and renewal of a famous bet between two experts in the field: David Chalmers (who was the first to posit the infamous Hard Problem of consciousness₆) and the neuroscientist Christof Koch₃. In 2023, Chalmers officially won this 25-year-old bet between them, receiving the payment of a case of wine from Koch, who gracefully acknowledged that there was “no clear neural correlate of consciousness” as of yet found. We are thus in the paradoxical position of simultaneously having too many theories to choose from, but none of them supposedly being enough, leaving us with the question - where do we go from here?

In this essay, the opportunity will be taken to share some thoughts about what I see as potential directions for the field, having recently been immersed in researching this topic for the writing of my accidental thesis on consciousness. I facetiously say accidental because initially, my paper was supposed to be on hypnagogia (or sleep paralysis), and what was naively intended to only be a small section dedicated to what part of the brain switches consciousness on during sleep paralysis quickly became the rabbit hole of a 35,000-word dissertation. This forced me to abandon my initial topic until I felt I had reached a satisfactory answer to this question - of which I’m happy to report to have eventually attained. Furthermore, it is of my position that we are close to having not onlyone, but three neural correlates of consciousness, and that Koch may be similarly closer to receiving a case of wine from Chalmers than he might otherwise suspect. I will offer what I take to be a reasonable defense of this admittedly bold claim, sharing a concise distillation of the findings from my prior investigation, while first taking the liberty to reflect on the field’s state of proliferation and uncertainty, and proposing what to do about it without being impeded by scientific prose.

Evaluative Methodologies

Similarly to toddlers, the Field of Consciousness Studies and its 209 theories need to go through a phase of synaptic pruning to start narrowing down which of the contributions are the most useful, viable and ultimately experimentally supported along its wide-ranging bandwidth₂. Any one of these theories could’ve potentially gotten at least something right, but how would we even know?

(fig. 1) Reference: Kuhn, R.L. (2024)₂

Chalmers and Koch have long suggested that progress would come from establishing a clear neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) - meaning there’s a relatively agreed upon consensus in the field about the minimally sufficient neural processes which result in the generation of consciousness_4,5. Even so, they suggest we’d still be left with solving the explanatory gap between those NCC’s and Chalmers’ Hard Problem₆- which refers to how exactly does phenomenological experience get generated out from a physical process? Nonetheless, they recommend that finding NCC’s will help put us on the road to solving it.

The subjective nature of consciousness makes it notoriously difficult to study, due to it being inaccessible to anyone except the ‘being’ who is currently experiencing it. Despite this intrinsic difficulty, there are still ways to investigate consciousness, each with their own benefits and limitations - an excellent article by Wayne Wu addressing this very subject is referenced here₇. By my own estimate, there seem to be 4 primary methods of studying it: introspection, philosophy, clinical and ethological based observations, and scientific experimentation.

The introspective method’s usefulness is derived by perhaps being the only way of directly observing the experiential phenomenology of consciousness, although it is likewise limited by this same reliance on accurate subjective reporting₇. It can descriptively tell us what consciousness is like, but not what explains its generation.

Clinical and ethological based observations (say from a psychologist or ethologist) provide a similar benefit of observing the dynamic workings of both conscious and unconscious processes by working closely with many different people/animals. Taken by itself however, there’s also the looming risk of suffering Karl Popper-like accusations of such clinically-derived theories being “unfalsifiable” - a blow of which the field of Psychoanalysis has arguably never recovered from₈.

Philosophy on its own has arguably been the dominant method of investigating consciousness, perhaps partly due to its willingness to contend with the mystery (while most fields of science have historically shied away from it, sometimes out of prejudice). However, as a method it relies upon a series ofaxioms to build its proposed model; even if it’s logically and systematically consistent, these axioms and conclusions often still need empirical verification. The proof in its inability to facilitate a consensus on its own is the fact that it has thus far failed to achieve such a consensus, despite having had many centuries now to do so (for example, spanning as far back as the 17^th century when Descartes proposed his famous dictum of “I think therefore I am”).

While the last method - the scientific method with its experimental studies - can offer this verification, it too has its limitations. Beyond establishing methodological rigor, the primary issue is the accurate interpretation of the found results. The scientific method is necessarily reductive in scope: while it’s effective in establishing facts, the ontology of consciousness is arguably too broad to be explained and verified in a single study or experiment. Rather, it will more likely take a series of studies, which themselves require an assembly process to stitch together its many facts into a coherent ontological model; this relationship would be akin to the distinction of theoretical and experimental physics both informing one another. Furthermore, any strong evidence of an NCC should be independently replicated to help facilitate consensus building, to meet the criteria of an NCC being clear.

Thus, the rigor and skills of applied philosophical thinking towards experiments as a synergetic fusion is necessary. This synergy of the philosophical and scientific mindset operating together and being applied to discovering NCC’s has been expounded upon by Chalmers, pointing out some useful interpretative caveats that should be considered when attempting to investigate consciousness scientifically₉. It therefore would be beneficial for those whoare morephilosophically orientatedto increase their focus towards the experimental, offering interpretations of the current evidence while also critically considering the underlying question of: what would verify or falsify any claim or theory about consciousness?

Scientists should equally be challenged to come up with mechanistic explanations for empirically based observations made by psychological clinicians about the dynamic workings of consciousness (eg. trauma & dissociation, feelings & instincts, and the “unconscious”); in this way, each camp can beneficially inform one another. Any complete model of consciousness should ultimately be required to explain such genuine psychodynamic phenomena.

The same explanatory requirement for consciousness models also applies to introspective reports regarding its phenomenology. To further illustrate with a more obscure example of an introspective-based report, I’ll share a personal anecdote that occurred at some point during the writing of my thesis. I had a dream where a respected microbiologist-trained teacher of mine pointed out to me that the body is mostly made up of water, while implying it had some relationship to consciousness and the so-called mind-body problem. Up to this point, water hadn’t at all been on my radar with regards to investigating the topic of consciousness, but I curiously ended up searching the academic literature and found an existing body of papers - a sub-field in quantum biology dedicated to this very topic of the potential connection between water and consciousness_{10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18}.

Specifically, there is a unique state of water that goes by many names such as Interfacial, Ordered, or Exclusion Zone (EZ) water₁₀, which seems to be capable of hosting the property of quantum coherence, while also playing a role in DNA related interactions_19,20,₂₁. The literature search even provided me with an important finding about the interaction between anesthesia and EZ water that was directly relevant to my thesis, which I cited in my (currently) unpublished paper₂₂. The resulting impact that this had on me was informing my thinking about a potential hypothesis for how consciousness may potentially arise and operate down at the micro-biological (or cellular) level. Those who are understandably skeptical of micro-organisms having any level of consciousness should first familiarize themselves with the ground-breaking work of the biologist Michael Levin, who has found that they can possess surprisingly intelligent problem-solving capabilities (109).

I’m not here to expound upon, or advocate for, a water-based consciousness, nor is it necessarily one of the three NCC’s that I do want to argue for. In fact, I’ve experienced and subsequently documented a grand total of 11 such dreams and inner experiences during the span of writing my thesis - all hinting towards different aspects of the underlying ontology and workings of consciousness. Rather, I share this personal story to make a couple of points: 1) is that introspective means may be a valid method of exploring the ontological nature of consciousness, and 2) if legitimate, any model of consciousness must be able to account for the underlying mechanisms of explaining such occurrences. I emphasize however that while such insights may bestow ideas, they still ultimately require additional verification - this requirement of testing ideas also serves as a principle of psychological hygiene when navigating both internal and externally arrived upon suppositions about consciousness.

There’ve been other examples in the history of science where dreams have led to a new discovery, a famous example is Kekulé’s discovery of the circular shape of the Benzene ring which he realized upon seeing an image of a snake eating its own tail during a dream₂₃. Even across Kuhn’s ‘Landscape of Consciousness’₂, it’s not uncommon for inner experiences to shape a pioneer’s model of consciousness, such as Federico Faggin₂₄ (a physicist and inventor of the microprocessor) and Tom Campbell₂₅ (a physicist and former NASA scientist). Other models such as Steve & Pauline Richards Psycho-Systems Analysis offer explanatory modelling for such phenomena through their theory of Informational Monism and Informational Superpositioning_26.27. Campbell points out that people with certain metaphysical belief systems such as Idealism generally find it easier to accept the plausibility of such ‘parapsychological phenomenon’, as opposed to those subscribed to scientific Materialism₂₅. This highlights the cautionary overlap of subjective belief systems interfering with, and biasing one’s modelling of consciousness.

In summary of the 4 investigative methodologies described, their limitations all seem to occur most prevalently when only the singular method is used by itself. They all offer valid tools to be used for the overall investigation of consciousness - to which the overall field should ideally be harmoniously ‘firing on all 4 cylinders’ by drawing insights from each method, minimizing the interference of overly prejudicial divides occurring between them.

The Science of Consciousness Studies

Given that science will inevitably lead this previously mentioned pruning phase through experimental filtration, consciousness studies as a science should be addressed. Some believe that consciousness is too ineffable for scientific study, however, this is not the case. One effective means of scientifically studying it is investigating the mechanisms which lead to its elimination, such as comas or anesthesia; evidence in these directions will be further elaborated on in later sections.

Consciousness studies necessitates a multi-disciplinary based approach in addressing its fundamental questions and no single discipline has any claim to its sole-ownership, or is otherwise capable of solving its issues on its own. This is evident due to the fact that the generation of our consciousness involves and is predicated upon, multiple levels of analysis operating simultaneously: our psychological experience, the neuroscience of the brain, the biological workings of neuronal (and other) cells, the organic chemistry that facilitates their functions, the physics that fundamentally govern those workings, and philosophy to help investigate and tie it all together in a logically coherent way. Where among these levels does consciousness arise? At bare minimum, all levels should be included in the investigation for their contributing role, leaving no stone left unturned.

The inefficiencies of limiting our perspective into only one discipline have long since been pointed out by prominent authors and academics such as the recently passed Steven Rose₂₈, where such a singular-minded approach is metaphorically like the parable of a group of blind men each touching a different part of an elephant and each consequently arriving on their own incorrect appraisal. Thus, a meta-framework capable of encapsulating all levels of analysis is necessary, such as George Engel’s Bio-Psycho-Social (BPS) medical model (which includes sub-divisions from the sub-atomic level all the way up to the ecosphere)₂₉. However in using this, one shouldn’t conflate all of the levels into a vague ‘holism’ that ignores the mechanistic dynamics and interactions within and between the levels. The case as to why this BPS scaffold is necessary will only become more self-evident as this essay progresses.

The structurally based tendency of academia to incentivize specialization, compounded with the prejudices in various disciplines against encouraging their students to study consciousness, has in all likelihood been a contributing factor to this proliferated state we currently find ourselves in. While these prejudices have been waning with the presence of more professional conferences, competitions, and the growing popularity of interest among the general public, it is still a rarity for academic institutions to have degrees or departments in Consciousness Studies (although there are a few notable exceptions who’ve begun pioneering the discipline, such as the University of Arizona’s Center for Consciousness Studies₃₀). This momentum of formalization needs to continue to be built upon. The mass proliferation of different theories of consciousness is emblematic of this lack of centralized cohesion across the field; a multi-disciplinary formalization of the Field of Consciousness Studies is needed to address or make substantial progress on its fundamental problems.

Consciousness studies is therefore a “Jack-of-all-Trades” type of science, but simultaneously requires the expertise of specialists, both in drawing upon their research and in offering rigorous peer-review from the knowledge base of their respective fields - to keep the “dreamers” in check and grounded in reality. Both of these two ends of the spectrum must work harmoniously together and encourage one another: the assembly and vision of the polymath, and the expertise and scrupulousness of the specialist.

The pioneers across this “Landscape of Consciousness” should be honoured and respected for their contributions, for braving this exploration into the enigmatic and elusive foray of investigating one of the deepest mysteries of mankind. As much as I’ve pointed out this issue of there being too many theories, their collective efforts have put us in the advantageous position to begin to systematically evaluate them - especially now that Kuhn has provided us with a clear picture of the broad spectrum of ideas regarding its potential ontology. Some commentators have even called Kuhn’s achievement “a pivotal moment” in the history of consciousness studies₃₁. I’d agree with this sentiment and further argue that it could be considered malignant growth - from this point onward - for the branches on the trees of this ‘Landscape’ to continue to proliferate without any concentrated efforts to trim and integrate these findings through a dedicated evaluation process. Progress towards further understanding consciousness and establishing its neural correlates will be unlikely to originate from another newly proposed model of consciousness; rather, progress will come from the humble contributions of many scientific and experimental verifications building upon each other, with the assistance of focused philosophical attention, to either verify or falsify the numerous propositions made from across this ‘Landscape’ of theories.

Right now, we don’t need another model of consciousness, what we need are more innovative ways to start filtering down and gauging the veracity of what we already have, and for the broader field to be aware of what we already know.

The field has already begun moving in this direction, as evident by the recent Templeton World Charity Foundation’s adversarial collaborations on consciousness which has put leading theories head-to-head, challenging them to propose verifiable experiments about their model’s predictions, while providing grants for these experiments to be conducted₃₅. This is an excellent initiative and this momentum should continue to be built upon to move the field and discussions forward.

As a sub-field, philosophy of mind has overall put us in a favourable position by generating a wide bandwidth of different models of consciousness available as options, which have been taxonomically categorized within Kuhn’s ‘Landscape’ (eg. Materialism, Dualism, Idealism, Panpsychism, and Quantum)₂. It has also highlighted important questions that each of these schools of thought face: such as Chalmers identifying the ‘Hard Problem’₆ which Materialism famously struggles with, or William James pointing out the ‘Combination problem’ that Panpsychism likewise faces₃₂, or the obverse ‘De-combination problem’ that Idealism-bent metaphysic’s face₃₃. Another issue that all metaphysics equally face is what specifically determines and differentiates qualia into its specific representation - the ‘Qualia Problem’. There’s no guarantee that the same factor which determines a particular tone of qualia to form is also the same mechanism which causes experience to phenomenologically arise; albeit they must necessarily be intrinsically connected (you can’t have qualia without experience, nor experience without qualia).Finding out the neural correlates of qualia then makes for a promising testing ground for evaluating theoretical attempts at solving the Hard Problem.

From my purview, the Hard Problem, (de)Combination Problem, Qualia Problem, and finding the NCC’s are collectively the 4 Primary Problems of Consciousness Studies. They all fundamentally get to the core essence of what we all know to be consciousness: “what it is like to be something” (to quote Thomas Nagel’s famous essay ‘What is it like to be a bat?’₃₄). All other issues I would categorize as Periphery Problems of Consciousness, which would include important issues that are no doubt related to consciousness, but by a degree of separation (eg. “unfree will”, the “so-called unconscious”, disorders of consciousness, artificial intelligence consciousness, parapsychology, ect…).
One can (and should) argue about what deserves to be included within both the Primary and Periphery Problems - this is simply what my own subjective consciousness deems to be important for the field to focus on. The more important aspect of this all is the organizational structure to help orientate the Field of Consciousness Studies into a more coherent focus - its contents can be debated. To be clear, I’m not advocating for homogenous unity of belief systems, rather to bring more of a heterogeneous cohesion that is unified by common goals and problems. Any scientific field has its core questions of interest, historical canon of important figures, discoveries, and evidence, along with its overarching theoretical models. As such, the above is an outline of how the Field of Consciousness Studies could look (fig. 2).

(fig. 2) The Field of Consciousness Studies

A Razor of Experimental Evidence

Given that there are 209 different models of consciousness on ‘The Landscape’, it may be too high of a bar and expectation for any single researcher of consciousness to know every theory to a high level of expertise or have the capacity and bandwidth to assess them all in any given paper. Therefore, researchers could evaluate the theories from the starting points of their own ‘spheres of interest’, with the intention of pruning away what can be left behind from these theories and keeping what has good reason or supporting evidence to keep.

This would be an effective method to lead this phase of pruning, through the evaluative search for experimental verification and falsification. The end result for the individual researcher, through the accumulation of such experimental evidence, is the production of an Experimental Razor or filter that can then be built upon, or applied to, evaluating any theory of consciousness. Anyone who engages in such an exercise will have their own Razor, which can then be tested and compared against other such Razors to further the discussion forward by debating what evidence should be included or excluded.

In the overall field, the end result of many individual researchers doing this exercise will be: a collective pruning of the theories of consciousness, a better collective awareness and alignment of what the current experimental research shows, more discussions around the implications of experimental results, and ideally a clearer picture of what consciousness must ontologically involve.

To demonstrate, the following sections will present an overview of my own Experimental Razor, along with the 3 previously promised contenders for the neural correlates of consciousness.

But first, it’s important for any investigation to specify a definition of consciousness so it’s clear what exactly is being sought out. The definition used in this paper is from Steve & Pauline Richards model of Psycho-Systems Analysis, where consciousness is defined as “a complexity of information that is capable of representing itself, to itself, and to other complexities of information”₂₇; their metaphysical framework of Informational Monism underpins this₂₆. One doesn’t need to subscribe to an informational based metaphysic to utilize this definition, consciousness could alternatively be defined as any phenomenological experience occurring, or a subjective ‘that which it is like to be something’ per Nagel, or the other side of Chalmers’s Hard Problem.

The guiding question serving as a throughline to this investigation is finding out the generating source of experiential consciousness in the human brain, and what mechanistically enables a complexity of information to represent itself to itself? The focus is on finding the minimal requirements, both necessary and sufficient, to the generation of phenomenological experience.

NCC #1 - Location in the Brain: the left medial parabrachial nuclei

My investigation found that the location of the brain most likely to be foundationally responsible for the generation of consciousness is the brainstem’s left-medial parabrachial nuclei (mPBN) of the pons, as both a starting point and sine qua non of its generation. The following will walk through the evidence of why I believe this to be the case, which follows on from Mark Solms’s hypothesis outlined in his book The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness_36,37. Here, he builds a strong case for consciousness arising from the brainstem’s Reticular Activating System (RAS) and Periaqueductal Grey (PAG)₃₆.

In doing so, he presents many studies as converging evidence from disparate sources to make his argument about where in the brain consciousness ultimately arises from, and a few of these studies will be shared here.

Perhaps the most convincing (as well as heartwarming) of the cases regarding what region of the brain is minimally sufficient to facilitate the generation of consciousness, was the case of a 3-year-old girl born with a clinical condition called hydranencephaly. People with this condition are born without a cerebrum or forebrain, and only with a brainstem and cerebellum. If one were to adhere to the predictions made from cerebrum focused models of consciousness₃₈ (such as Higher Order Theories (HOTs)Global Neuronal Workspace, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and Re-entry and Predictive Processing theories), one would predict that this girl wouldnot have any conscious experience at all. However, this does not seem to be the case. She responds very emotionally to stimuli that would be expected for any 3-year-old, such as “expressing pleasure through smiling and laughter, and aversion by fussing… crying… [with] their faces being animated by these emotional states”(fig. 3)₃₉.

As Solms puts it, “it’s not only that she’s awake, but there’s a reactive mind with feelings and content”₄₀. This is very strong evidence that there’s still a sense of subjective experience occurring within these people, despite not having any forebrain at all. Decorticated rats and other mammals also retain the capacity for the usual behaviours that are indicative of the animal being conscious₃₉. Arguments denying that there’s any sentience present within these decorticated cases would seem to only rely on solipsistic appeals₄₀, or a reductive-anthropomorphized definition of consciousness as strictly being the higher-order cognitive self-awareness inherent to human beings.

Conscious experience can occur without the cerebrum; therefore, consciousness isn’t foundationally dependent on these higher cortical structures, and it must be generated much deeper in both our anatomical and phylogenetic brain: somewhere within the brainstem or the cerebellum. This finding simultaneously narrows down the search while falsifying any cerebrum based NCC’s, unless one chooses to deny that the above-mentioned girl - or any other such cases - are conscious.

Another way to find NCC’s is by finding what causes consciousness to switch off, such as the state of being comatose. Solms leverages lesion and coma studies to further narrow down what locations are ultimately necessary for the generation of consciousness; if they weren’t necessary, then a lesion to the affected area wouldn’t disrupt consciousness and it would continue on being generated elsewhere. Using such studies, he narrows it down to the brainstem’s RAS (whose functional operationality is used in the determination of “Brain Death” within medical contexts₄₂), but highlights a region within the Pons called the Parabrachial Nuclei (PBN) - this specific region is the area of the brain stem where the smallest lesions “cause a total loss of consciousness”_36,43,44. Critiques coming from cerebrum-based proprietors, such as Koch, claim that this region only enables consciousness but “are not content providers”₄₅, however Solms rebukes this quite effectively by pointing out that hydranencephaly patients clearly demonstrate the ‘contents’ of affective qualia₃₆.

Upon learning this, I became curious about the PBN - what exactly is so special about its component parts or networks that make it critically important to the generation of consciousness? Upon looking for a differentiating factor, I found that only lesions in the medial PBN sub-region (mPBN) cause coma, and this asymmetrically only applies to the left-side rather than the right_46,47. This demonstrates that the mPBN is necessary as a sine qua non to the generation of consciousness. Further studies found that electrically stimulating this region’s glutamatergic neurons causes wakefulness from sleep, more essentially so when compared with other wakefulness related clusters in the brainstem_48,49, while others found stimulation even caused emergence from anesthetic unconsciousness_50,51. These studies provide evidence that this neuronal group is ‘necessary’ for the generation of consciousness.

Upon investigating the neural morphology, there didn’t seem to be any unique characteristic differences within these types of neurons other than a relatively higher density of grey matter, indicating the abundance of dendritic connections₅₂. What’s more interesting however was its associated network of connections: the PBN has been described by various neuroscience researchers as a “general alarm system” for pain and aversion, and a “major hub” for receiving inputs from all primary internal and external sensory systems_53,54,55. Furthermore, photoactivation of a certain type of glutamatergic PBN neurons alongside giving mice a novel stimulus is enough to create a “fear memory” for the stimulus, and when these same neurons are chemically deactivated, the mice become “relatively fearless”₅₅; this demonstrates that these neurons are capable of at least generating the qualitative content of ‘fear’, rather than simply being responsible for ‘contentless arousal’.

Given the above evidence, I hypothesize that the reason this particular location of the left mPBN should be crucial to consciousness among all other regions of the brain, is due to it having a fundamental role in the modulation of arousal, serving a dual purpose of modulating both sleep/wake cycles and the arousal of homeostatic inputs into phenomenological experience. Lesions in this area likely cause coma because it disrupts the underlying mechanism primarily responsible for conscious arousal, debilitating both sleep and conscious wakefulness, as evident by the coma and anesthetic state being physiologically different to sleep itself₅₆. In short, it serves as a ‘gate-keeper’ being chiefly responsible for modulating signals into phenomenological experience, and the existing research already supports it as being a strong contender for a clear NCC, in terms of locations in the brain.

However, at this point in my investigation I was still unsatisfied as there didn’t seem to be an evident mechanism to explain how this ‘arousal into conscious experience’ actually occurs. I was looking for a physiological-based mechanism that could account for this generation; action potentials are constantly firing (in a standard Hodgkin’s and Huxley sense₅₆) across the entire brain in other terminating locations and don’t necessarily generate consciousness. Therefore, while perhaps being necessary, action potential firings and terminating neuronal networks did not seem sufficient in themselves to explain how experience arises - there must be another factor.

NCC #2 - Dendritic Microtubule’s Resonance Chain

The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model of consciousness from Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose offered a solution to this above mentioned issue: gamma EEG synchrony_58,59,60, which itself is supported by many independent studies in its ability to detect if conscious attention is present within a neuronal connectome_61,62,63. For reference, Hameroff elaborates more on this correlation within his 2010 paper The "conscious pilot"-dendritic synchrony moves through the brain to mediate consciousness₅₉. Its utility as a NCC is reliable enough to even be used in medical contexts where it’s standard practice in anesthesiology to use this 40Hz electromagnetic radiation (EMR) signal of gamma EEG to measure anesthetic depth to detect if the patient is conscious - surely an important metric to get right due to the painful stakes of proceeding with surgery while still conscious. This is because cross brain gamma synchrony is disrupted by anesthesia_60,64.

It’s known that dendritic-somatic membranes of neurons (and not axonal firings) are responsible for the generation of the “local field potentials” that give rise to the electrical activity picked up by EEG equipment, including the gamma frequency range_60,65. Hameroff proposes that this specifically originates from the dendritic cytoskeletal microtubules; as supporting evidence for this proposition, 40Hz EMR oscillations have indeed been detected directly within them₆₆.

While there may be a correlation between gamma synchrony and the conscious state, which has in fact long been regarded as a potential NCC contender by even Koch (and Crick) in their 1990 landmark paper₆₇, there are issues associated with it being a clear NCC. As evidenced by Koch taking the loss in his bet with Chalmers, he has since backed off from this stance, citing that “gamma synchrony can occur in the absence of consciousness”₅. While there still may be an argument that gamma synchrony is necessary for consciousness, the cited evidence demonstrates that by itself, it isn’t sufficient for its generation. Nonetheless, the correlate of gamma synchrony has proven to be a useful clue about the nature of consciousness - a signpost towards it, if nothing else.

However, Hameroff doesn’t necessarily attribute the generation of consciousness to gamma synchrony itself, but rather to supposed quantum properties within the dendritic microtubules - an exposition on the full theory of the model can be found in their 2014 review paper on Orch OR₆₀. Rather than rehashing descriptions of their model, the focus here will instead be on summarizing the experimental evidence supportive of their predictions. Many people consider the suggestion of quantum states occurring within the ‘warm, wet, and noisy’ environment of the brain impossible, but experimental evidence has already proven that microtubules are able to host such quantum effects: microtubules have been demonstrated to exhibit the intrinsically quantum phenomenon of ‘superradiance’₆₈, as well as ‘ballistic conductance’₆₉.

Hameroff and Penrose propose that specific features of microtubules create the pre-requisite conditions needed to maintain a quantum state. To briefly summarize, this is due to the microtubule’s tubulin proteins being composed of non-polar, organic carbon molecules, who’s aromatic structure facilitates coherent oscillations of their pi-orbital electron clouds due to van der Waals London Dispersion forces, thus forming a quantum Fröhlich coherence_60,70. It is evident here from this brief technical explanation how the levels of biology, organic chemistry, and physics are all necessary to model consciousness, hence the necessity of having a full bio-psycho-social framework₂₉.

As for the epistemological reasoning of why Hameroff contends that consciousness occurs within the microtubules, he takes a similar ‘process of elimination’ approach that Solms does with coma studies, except starting from a different angle: his expertise in being an anesthesiologist. Under anesthesia, a person loses consciousness while their other bodily functions still operate₅₈. Therefore, finding out the mechanism of the interaction between anesthesia and the brain that results in a loss of consciousness makes for an excellent method of figuring out what ultimately generates consciousness.

Several studies implicate microtubules as being the primary interaction site of anesthesia to cause its consciousness debilitating effects. First off, neuronal membrane receptors have been demonstrated to be insufficient as an explanatory mechanism, this is best exemplified by the authors of a landmark 2008 review on the subject declaring that a “new paradigm” may be needed to explain how anesthesia works_59,71,72,73. Also: proteomic and genomic studies show that anesthesia alters microtubule-related gene expression₇₄, anesthesia has been confirmed to bind to microtubules in tadpoles (with the authors concluding that the interaction contributes to the loss of consciousness)₇₅, anesthesia has been shown to dampen quantum optical effects within microtubules₇₆, and perhaps the most striking evidence is that microtubule stabilizing drugs have the effect of delaying anesthesia onset times or requiring a higher potency of anesthetic dose - both in humans and rats_77,78. Doubters to this proposition of anesthetic interaction primarily occurring within microtubules must offer a sufficient explanation and mechanism as to why microtubule stabilizing drugs would delay the onset of anesthetic induced unconsciousness.

Going beyond the anesthesia studies, if consciousness began within the dendritic microtubules, and we know that axonal action potentials are responsible for the transmission of signals and information processing in the brain (which facilitates downstream actions like motor movements), then we’d predict that microtubules would have the a priori ability to influence this process. This is exactly what has been experimentally found by Anirban Bandyopadhyay and his colleagues. Bandyopadhyay’s group has compiled a body of evidence over the years demonstrating electro-magnetic effects in microtubules, which form a ‘scale invariant hierarchy’ of increasing frequency speeds from Hz up to MHz to THz, at each level from the neuron down to the microtubule and its ordered water layer, respectively_{69,79,80,81,82}. Each of these layers have a bi-directional influence on each other through electric and magnetic field effects, which is detected in what he calls a ‘triplet of triplet’ frequency signature shown in the figure below (fig. 4). [See Figure 4 at the end of the essay.] Some critics rightfully point out that these studies require independent replication, but may not be aware that this has already begun to happen, as there have been independent studies which demonstrate that microtubules are capable of hosting electrical signalling capabilities₈₃ and emitting EMR fields₈₄.

A highlight from this body of research from Bandyopadhyay is that these microtubule MHz frequencies have been detected to occur just prior to neuronal firing, which implicates the capability of microtubules to influence and modulate the firing of action potentials, as well as regulate spike timing_81,82. It is even stated in the paper that “if the microfilament core is dissolved chemically, the filamentary wiring disappears, and all the neurons fire as if no neighbours exist”₈₂. Therefore, it’s been demonstrated that microtubules play a critical role in neuronal synchrony - the importance of which is best described by Pascal Fries Communication through Coherence (CTC) theory, as synchronous firing is a requirement for effective neuronal communication_63,85.

These MHz frequencies, as well as ‘triplet of triplet signatures’, have now been detected not only in vitro, but also in vivo (in humans nonetheless) by using next-generation EEG technology invented by Bandyopadhyay which can detect MHz signals - he’s named this technology Dodecanogram (DDG)_86,87. Furthermore, these signals are significantly modulated in response to anesthetic dosage, revealing a neural correlate signature of ‘unconsciousness’₈₇.

However, the proposition of MHz frequencies (as classical EMR fields) being responsible for the generation of consciousness faces the same issues that gamma synchrony does. For one, gamma EEG synchronizes in wave form phase across the entire brain with ‘zero-phase-lag-coherence’, which is unable to be explained by classical mechanisms; action potential transmissions are too slow and EMR fields are “shunted” by neighbouring glial cells_58,91,92,93. Hameroff and Penrose therefore propose that quantum entanglement explains the underlying mechanism which facilitates this ‘zero-phase-lag’ gamma synchrony across the brain₆₀. They suggest that this entanglement occurs within dendritic microtubules, and ‘gap junctions’ between neuronal cells allow for microtubules to entangle across neurons, across the brain.

Another issue is that these MHz bursts are still detected while under anesthesia, albeit in a modulated signature without the ‘triplet of triplet’ resonance chain_87,88. Furthermore, if one were to attribute consciousness solely to these classical MHz and THz frequencies, they would also seemingly have to accept that this creates consciousness anywhere these relatively faster frequencies are present, including common electronic devices such as kitchen microwaves (MHz to GHz)₈₉ or airport security scanners (THz)₉₀. Unless one is comfortable with accepting that consciousness is present in the microwave and heats up your leftover lasagna, then some other ingredient must also be present for consciousness to occur. To carry on with using this savory dish as a metaphor, lasagna only truly becomes lasagna when all of its different layers are present together: the layers on their own are just the individual ingredients of pasta, meat, cheese, and sauce until they all combine to form Garfield’s favourite food. This multi-leveled ‘layering’ is precisely akin to what Bandyopadhyay found as being the strongest neural correlate of consciousness found to date: the multi-leveled ‘triplet of triplet resonance chain’ of nested frequencies.

After Bandyopadhyay and Hameroff’s previously mentioned study found the ‘neural correlate of unconsciousness’ using DDG technology₈₇, they conducted follow up experiments which found that the presence of this multi-leveled ‘triplet of triplet resonance chain’ as a signature, is a more effective NCC than gamma EEG synchrony₈₈. This ‘triplet of triplet’ signature disappeared alongside both anesthetic and coma induced unconsciousness, while correlating with the emergence of conscious states - in vivo₈₈. By using this DDG device, this signature outperformed the standard bispectral index (BIS) anesthetic depth indicator (which is based on gamma EEG) in correlating with the presence of consciousness_64,88.

Using these new neural correlates of consciousness and unconsciousness even enabled them to save two patient’s lives in the medical center where this was being studied! This incredible feat happened when a signal of consciousness was picked up using their new correlates (which wasn’t picked up by the standard BIS measuring device) and they were able to make a medical intervention in response to this signal in time to save the patient’s life. This was due to the patient experiencing some arousal in response to having life-threatening levels of hypoglycemia while they were unconscious₈₈, showcasing the medically relevant importance of accurately understanding these signals of conscious and unconscious states.

This finding from Bandyopadhyay then has the pending potential to serve as the closest NCC found to date, being both sufficient and necessary to the generation of consciousness₈₈. Although unclear right now, further publishing and replication of these results may bring about such clarity, and perhaps even serve as Chalmer’s quipped ‘consciousness meter’, acting as a clear NCC₉.

But a question remains about the ontology of this ‘triplet of triplet resonance chain’; as a reader and observer of these findings, it’s unclear whether this ‘resonance chain’ is strictly classical in nature, or does it require quantum effects (which have been found in microtubules and are a crucial component to Orch OR theory) to meaningfully cohere and connect these levels to create consciousness? Would the EMR interference and phase effects of the multi-scaled classical EMR frequency ranges (Hz to MHz to THz) combine in a vat to somehow generate conscious experience, if one could engineer such conditions to somehow create a similar multi-scaled ‘classical resonance chain’?

Or is a quantum-ingredient necessary?

NCC #3 - A quantum pre-requisite for consciousness

Throughout the course of my research into consciousness, I have become quite convinced that phenomenological consciousness requires a quantum state to be generated. I would even venture to betboth Chalmers and Koch each a case of wine that the NCC will ultimately require a quantum pre-requisite, andthis will be demonstrably clear within 15 years - the case of which will be supported in this section. To be clear, the criteria of what constitutes quantum is the hosting of a meaningful quantum state that is capable of intrinsically quantum phenomena such as entanglement, superposition, ect…

To start, I’ve already mentioned how it’s been proven that microtubules are capable of hosting quantum effects_68,69, but this doesn’t necessarily implicate that consciousness must be quantum. The classically inexplainable phenomena of zero-phase-lag gamma synchrony, where gamma EEG oscillates in synchronous phase (meaning a coherent wave-form) across the entire brain, has likewise already been discussed_58,91,92,93; the same inherent limitations would also apply to the MHz and THz EMR frequencies that make up Bandyopadhyay’s resonance chain. If quantum entanglement is necessary a priori to facilitate this synchronous firing, and therefore also downstream actions₆₃, the chain of causality points toward consciousness emerging first from the quantum level of analysis.

Secondly, interesting experimental evidence has been found by Li et al regarding differences in anesthetic potency that can only be attributed to the variable of quantum spin between xenon isotopes (xenon is an anesthetic molecule)₉₄. The authors in the paper ruled out any other attributes (such as polarizability) to conclude that only the property of quantum spin could account for this difference in anesthetic potency - which was that integer spin xenon isotopes were more potent than their ‘spin half’ counterparts₉₄. This stood out to me as an incredibly important finding, because if anesthesia shuts off consciousness, and its difference in potency is affected by the intrinsically quantum variable of spin, then it would seem to imply a quantum interaction is taking place to cause this disruption. The necessity for this quantum-on-quantum interaction could only be true if all other classically based mechanisms of interaction could effectively be ruled out. Commenting on this study, the theoretical physicist and quantum biologist Philip Kurian even suggested that “if you can solve this problem, you’ve really reached the quantum scale of understanding mind”.₉₅

In the paper by Li et al, as well as in a follow up commentary paper by Hameroff on this finding, it was suggested that this difference was due to ‘spin half’ particles - or what are categorized as fermions in particle physics - being more likely to maintain entanglement between particles due to their intrinsic stability_94,96. Conversely, when a particle has integer spin, such as spin zero, they are considered in particle physics to be bosons. It’s argued that if quantum entanglement solves the ‘Binding Problem’ and contributes to consciousness, then these fermionic isotopes are more readily able to maintain entanglement with the existing ‘entangled consciousness system’, which results in an increase of consciousness rather than an anesthetic antagonization of it. I was admittedly unsatisfied with this explanation as it wasn’t obvious as to why fermionic xenon should act as an anesthetic at all then - wouldn’t it follow that adding more simply leads to increased entanglement, and therefore a continued increase of consciousness rather than elimination of it? These fermionic xenon isotopes however, are simply less potent and require a higher dosage to produce the deleterious effects on consciousness.

Based on a few fundamental principles in quantum physics that weren’t included within the analyses of the above mentioned papers, I will propose an alternative explanation which seems to make more sense as to why fermionic isotopes are less potent than their integer spin counterparts, and this explanation also happens to rule out classically based mechanisms as being the cause for this disruption.

It is known by physicists that ‘Bose-Einstein condensates’ form with bosons rather than fermions due to the fundamental differences in their spin properties, where each type consequently obeys different statistical rules governing their quantum wave functions: Fermi-Dirac statistics for fermions and Bose-Einstein statistics for bosons₉₇. While there are technical and mathematical reasons for this distinction, in essence, the key difference is that fermions are constrained by the ‘Pauli Exclusion principle’ which prevents identical fermions from occupying the same state within the same system₉₇. This restriction forces fermions (such as electrons and other spin ½ particles) to occupy different positions and fill other electron orbitals - a fundamental reason why matter behaves as a solid. In contrast, bosons are not subject to this restriction of Pauli’s Exclusion principle, allowing them to collectively ‘condense’ and occupy the same quantum state and energy level, which can lead to macroscopic quantum coherence. In a similar spirit, Fröhlich coherence also describes how van der Waals London Dispersion forces can enable collective quantum coherence in biological molecules to act like ‘Bose-Einstein’ condensates.

Hameroff proposes how anesthesia molecules are non-polar but polarizable, which through London Dispersion forces allows them to initially oscillate with the microtubule’s tubulin proteins, until inherent differences of atomic polarizability between them causes instability and eventual disruption of both the quantum coherence and consciousness_98,99. I propose that the xenon isotopes with integer spins - acting as bosonic particles - are more readily able to become coherent with the existing quantum state of the dipole oscillations intrinsic to the microtubule, this is due to their innate ability to occupy the same quantum state. Bosons are thus more primed for this quantum interaction of coherence to occur compared with their fermionic counterparts, which would be less likely or take longer to join in the quantum coherence due to the Pauli Exclusion principle causing repulsions. This might also explain another finding, as to why halogenated anesthetics interact through quantum mechanisms with entangled photons but not classical photons, as the quantum coherence is less likely to occur when the photon is already ‘classically collapsed’₁₀₀. This theoretically makes sense to explain spin dependent differences in anesthetic potency, but is there any supporting evidence for this hypothesis?

One study found that when fruit flies are given a variety of different anesthetics, they measured an “increase in spin” (as detected by ‘magnetic moments’) within the fruit flies₁₀₁. It is well known to physicists that a system’s spin and ‘magnetic moments’ are interrelated properties - as described by the Dirac equation - meaning that a classical magnetic field can be produced by the quantum spin of its charged particles_97,102. Fermions create ‘magnetic moments’, as opposed to bosons which don’t possess this same magnetic quality_97,102. This increase in detected magnetic moments could be indicative that within the fruit flies, there was a significant increase in the presence of fermionic particles within their ‘total system’ after receiving a dosage of anesthesia. This makes sense if you consider that coherence can still arise in systems involving fermionic components - as seen with “Cooper Pairs” of electrons in superconductivity which makes them behave together as bosons₁₀₃; the same occurs with the pi-orbital electron clouds among tubulin in Orch OR to create coherent condensates₆₉.

Given this, Hameroff’s mechanism of anesthetic action would ‘decohere’ the electrons into behaving individually again as fermions, thus resulting in a net increase of the total number of fermions - and consequently, magnetic moments - within the fruit fly. As a speculative aside, this would make sense that the ontology of consciousness is more associated with bosons rather than fermions, given that phenomenological consciousness seems to ‘coagulate’ various qualia into a unitary experience, just like how the energy within bosons condense into a unitary state, rather than repel against each other.

To rule out any classical mechanisms of interaction, if the spin-dependent disruption of consciousness were due to the classical effects of magnetism disrupting whatever causes consciousness, then one would predict that fermions would have a higher anesthetic potency due to their intrinsic magnetic force; this isn’t the case. This rules out any classical mechanisms of interaction as being responsible for differences in spin dependent anesthetic potency. Rather, the interaction instead likely occurs due to London Dispersion forces - which intrinsically involves quantum mechanics₁₀₄.

To come full circle to my dream about a water-based consciousness that was discussed earlier in this essay, evidence of these same London dispersion forces as being the causal mechanism of anesthetic interaction was further shown in findings with ordered/EZ water’s behaviour when anesthesia molecules are placed within it₂₂. The experiment showed that upon initial dosage, the width of the EZ zone temporarily increases, but then drastically decreases afterwards when the dosage is increased. This matches the well-known phenomenon in anesthesiology of “paradoxical excitement”, where people who have taken anesthesia become temporarily euphoric after the initial administration of the anesthetic dose, before subsequently becoming unconscious₁₀₅. This same ‘rise and fall’ effect also matches perfectly with Hameroff’s proposed mechanism of anesthetic interaction, of the molecules initially becoming coherent with the tubulin due to London dispersion forces before differences in polarizability destabilizes and disperses them. Furthermore, ordered/EZ water is also bound to the microtubule’s inner lumen and is critically important to the ‘ballistic conductive’ properties that microtubules exhibit, its removal causes it to severely lose its conductivity₆₉. As a hypothesis then, perhaps all it would take to induce unconsciousness would be for anesthesia to remove this ordered/EZ water layer within the lumen of the microtubules in critical parts of the brain, such as the left mPBN.

To summarize the findings with an argument: if anesthesia disrupts consciousness, and its potency depends on the quantum property of spin whose mechanism of interaction can only be accounted for by a quantum-on-quantum interaction (bosonic coherence and London dispersion forces), then consciousness must necessarily involve a quantum component as an essential part of its underlying process and ontology.

However, there are a handful of different quantum phenomena that could potentially account for causing consciousness (such as entanglement, superposition, coherence, wave-function collapse, ect…). Orch OR and Penrose posit that consciousness occurs alongside the collapse of the wave-function₆₀, while others such as Faggin propose it is the state of superposition itself that is responsible for consciousness₂₄. The third and final line of evidence presented here in this case for a quantum-based consciousness will help in providing supporting evidence regarding which possibility it could ultimately be.

Thispending piece of evidence comes from a pre-print study that was recently published and presented by Santosh Helekar (and colleagues), who’ve remarkably discovered a way to detect wave function collapse in proximity to the brain (for humans, mice and other invertebrates/plants)_106,107. Helekar used an analogue of the famous ‘double slit experiment’, which in the field of quantum physics is a standard experiment that measures what is commonly understood as ‘wave-function collapse’. This experiment is at the heart of the so-called “Measurement Problem” and the mystery of the ‘wave-particle duality’ in quantum physics₉₇. Their optical interferometry setup within a small device was used to measure rates of detected laser wave interference patterns to look for experimental support of Penrose’s theory of Objective Reduction (OR) of the wave-function playing a role in the generation of consciousness. If interference patterns were not detected with this device, then the wave-function of the laser’s emitted photons were deemed to have been collapsed into behaving as a particle, thus no longer being in a quantum ‘superpositioned’ state with regards to its position in space and time_106,107. They then introduced a number of controls to systematically rule out other prosaic explanatory effects as being responsible for causing the decohering collapse (eg. EMR, body heat, humidity, sound, ect…), and after successfully doing so, proceeded to carry out a series of different experiments to identify any correlations between the rate of wave-function collapse and the conscious state.

As predicted, their series of experiments showed correlations between the collapse rates and the presence of consciousness, with a stronger effect near the head compared to when the device was moved downwards toward the feet. They observed a significant rate reduction while under anesthesia in both mice and humans, making it another contender for a NCC - and an intrinsically quantum-based one at that! However, collapses were still detected at a rate higher than the baseline average, indicating that whatever is causing the collapses is still present to a degree while under anesthesia, just at a lower rate than when subjects are conscious. This indicates that wave-function collapses may potentially be necessary but not sufficient to the generation of conscious experience; or there must be another factor involved that’s vital to causing phenomenological consciousness to arise. It’s therefore a challenge to the Orch OR model to explain the source of these continued collapses and why those don’t lead to our phenomenological conscious experience. As an example explanation, given that all the cells in our brain and body also host microtubules, perhaps this is picking up the signature of the “unconscious” bodily processes that remain functional even under anesthesia across the body? Perhaps there are separate ‘fields of orchestrated entanglement’ within the brain, one being critical to our phenomenological consciousness, and others being related to so-called ‘unconscious’ processes?

Among this study and presentation from Helekar, various other experiments were also carried out. One of their interesting findings was found when putting this device next to invertebrates and plants - they detected an ‘inverted’ response of a lowered rate of collapses when compared with the baseline_106,107. Helekar being confused at these results, makes a bemusing speculation of this inverse relationship perhaps showing an “inverse of consciousness (whatever that means)”₁₀₆. However, I’ll offer another interpretation of these results, pointing out that this data is measuring the rate of collapses in a given time period compared to a baseline. When sticking to the quantum physics (without yet bringing in consciousness), this data is showing an increase in ‘wave-function superposition’ of the photons, which is quite literally the inverse of ‘wave-function collapse’. Furthermore, this data didn’t indicate that no collapses at all were occurring, simply a reduction from the baseline rate.

If these results are indeed correct in finding a ‘field-like permeation’ of the quantum effect that accounts for consciousness ‘radiating’ outside the brain of the organism, and if Orch OR is also right that collapse only happens when the total gravitational self-energy of the quantum system reaches a certain threshold (determined at t = ℏ / E_G - see Orch OR theory for further explanation on this₆₀), which practically is a function of the number of tubulin that are entangled in the quantum system, then perhaps the invertebrates and plants simply have less entangled tubulins (or total E_G) in their ‘system of consciousness’, resulting in longer collapse times. This type of linear relationship is part of the predictions of Orch OR theory₉₈. The device’s photons may then be affected by this relatively lower energy quantum entangled system, sustaining them in a state of superposition at a lower ‘decoherence’ rate than the normal baseline. Therefore, this evidence is all more supportive of Orch OR’s proposition of consciousness being associated with wave-function collapse rather than the state of superposition itself.

As for testing Idealism/Panpsychism - during the Q&A session of the presentation of these results, it was asked if inanimate objects such as rocks were tested; he affirmed that they were indeed tested and there was no effect or response₁₀₆.

These results need replication and further scrutiny; the challenge for those who find the results too bewildering to possibly be true is to find alternative prosaic mechanisms that can account for this correlation, or flaws in the methodology. If this is a genuine finding, then the challenge for everyone is to find out and explain what causes this consciousness-correlated fluctuation in collapse rates to occur non-locally to the human head; quantum physicists and philosophers alike would need to be involved in this. To end with an amusing speculation at a mechanism, in one of the 11 dreams I had during the writing of my paper, I was told and imagistically shown that gravitons are emitted by moving neutrons, as they ‘reduce’ and move from their superpositioned state into their collapsed location. Of course, this isn’t to be taken at all as a proof among this section of experimental verification, but perhaps a hypothesis for an open-minded physicist to consider its viability for causing these ‘non-local to the brain’ collapses.

All of the above-described and analyzed experimental results provide strong evidence that consciousness must be a quantum-based phenomenon, and there’s currently more evidence supportive of Penrose’s proposition of Orch OR - that is, consciousness being associated with the collapse of the wave-function, rather than the superpositioned or coherent quantum state itself.

Conclusion

Proof and verification are strong words. Ultimately, it’s for the reader to decide whether the above evidence is enough to suppose that the left mPBN, the ‘triplet of triplet resonance chain’, and a quantum pre-requisite, are indeed contenders for NCC’s. While these studies require further replication and review for these NCC’s to ultimately become clear, my worry is they will be considered as “too fringe” to garner enough interest and funding for further study. Given the growing body of evidence supporting the possibility of a quantum-based consciousness, the field isn’t in the position to be dismissive of, and limited by, such unfounded prejudices. With 2025 being called the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology, marking “100 years since the initial development of quantum mechanics”₁₀₈, now might be as good of a time as ever to shed these prejudices and invest further resources into studying this possibility, with some potential experimental leads identified above.

With regards to this experimental razor, if all its axioms, experimental findings and interpretations are true, then it arguably has the filtration effect of the mPBN falsifying cerebrum-based theories of consciousness, as well as the quantum pre-requisite posing challenges to Idealism and Panpsychism based theories who would predict consciousness is inherent in all classical matter. If all true, the effect would then be a ‘pruning down’ of some branches of the ‘Landscape’ and a verification of others. However, filtering all the existing theories through this experimental razor would necessarily involve a much more dedicated effort to accomplish, as to give due justice to the existing theories - but beckons as a possible venture which remains open for future steps forward.

Maybe it’s my youthful naivete, but I don’t feel as dejected as Kuhn seemed to be at the end of writing his Landscape paper. Rather, I believe there’ve been great strides made by the pioneers of the generation before me, both in modelling and conducting ingenious experiments that’ve brought us ever closer to understanding the ontology of consciousness. The story of Bandyopadhyay's new NCC’s aiding in the saving a couple of patients lives is a hopeful and inspiring sign of maturity for the field. Rather than being in a child-like state of reliance on the findings of other fields, perhaps consciousness studies can one day reach an adult-like maturity of providing insights to other fields, after going through its pre-pubescent phase of pruning.

Promising avenues are open for experimental and theoretical exploration, which leaves me feeling hopeful for the future of Consciousness Studies; a field with ‘fruits ripe for the picking’, for those of us who are struck by the passion to ‘labour within that Landscape’.

Endnotes

(fig. 1): Reference: Kuhn, R.L. (2024)₂ A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications.A categorized overview of 209 different contributions to the subject of consciousness studies.

(fig. 2): An overview of the multi-disciplinary structure of the Field of Consciousness Studies, unified by its central questions. An adaptation informed by George Engel’s Bio-psycho-social medical model₂₉.

(fig. 3): Reference: Merker, (2007)₃₉ Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: A challenge for neuroscience and medicine. The emotional joy expressed by this 3-year-old with hydranencephaly while holding her baby brother.

(fig. 4): Reference: Fractal, Scale Free Electromagnetic Resonance of a Single Brain Extracted Microtubule Nanowire, a Single Tubulin Protein and a Single Neuron. Saxena, & Bandyopadhyay, et al. (2020)₈₀
This imaging was obtained by passing an electric current along 3 different levels: a - the neuron, b - the microtubule, c - its tubulin. It shows a ‘scale invariant’ resonant frequency hierarchy where the frequencies are nested among each other like ‘octaves’; starting with the fastest Tera Hz level, rising up eventually to the neuronal level at Hz, which is what EEG detects. The images were from an ‘in vitro’ sample of microtubules from cultured rat hippocampal neurons.