Consciousness fascinates me. As it does to everyone, because fascination and everything else we experience, without exception, requires consciousness. Without consciousness, nothing exists for us.
So when the February 2026 issue of Scientific American arrived in the mail, and I saw that the cover story was “The Hardest Problem in Science: Will brain science deliver answers about consciousness or hit another wall?,” I got excited.
Soon I began to read that article, even though I had other science magazines in my reading pile. Here’s a PDF document of the article, which is in two pieces.
What is consciousness? Science faces its hardest problem yet | Scientific American
Your guide to 29 wildly different theories of consciousness | Scientific American
The fact that there are 29 wildly different theories of consciousness points to a central conclusion: we’re a long way from knowing how consciousness arises in the brain, or even how to define consciousness.
Today there are dozens of competing theories of how the brain generates consciousness. They have different starting points, different goals and even different definitions of consciousness. The most popular is global neuronal workspace theory (GNWT), which envisions consciousness as a kind of stage. When something enters your conscious awareness—an itch, say, or the buzz of your refrigerator—it’s thrust onto the stage and spotlighted in a process called ignition. Things on the stage, or in the “global workspace,” get broadcast to the rest of the brain, where they’re able to guide action, direct attention, and more.
Consciousness research is quite different from research in other areas of science. It seems to me that a key reason is that consciousness isn’t only something to be studied, but the means by which we know anything.
Consciousness is all you really know. It’s the voice you hear in your head, your emotions, your awareness of the world and your body all rolled into one unified experience. “Everything comes down to it, everything,” says cognitive neuroscientist Athena Demertzi of the University of Liège in Belgium. “It’s the translation of the world that we have.” Philosophers and scientists alike struggle to define consciousness without appealing back to what it feels like to experience—what philosophers call “definition by pointing.”
But they’re pointing to a real phenomenon. It’s your consciousness that goes wonky when you take hallucinogens, even as your body and environment stay the same. When you go under general anesthesia, it appears to go out like a light. When you dream, some strange form of consciousness persists, even if it’s disconnected from the outside world.
Thus while it is possible to objectify how the brain gives rise to consciousness, there’s an inescapable subjectivity about consciousness that seemingly can’t be eliminated.
But underneath it all lurk countless unknowns. “There’s still disagreement about how to define [consciousness], whether it exists or not, whether a science of consciousness is really possible or not, whether we’ll be able to say anything about consciousness in unusual situations like [artificial intelligence],” Seth says. It stands in contrast, perhaps unfairly, to other scientific journeys of discovery, such as the mapping of our genetic code in the Human Genome Project or of the cosmos with the help of the James Webb Space Telescope, he adds.
“It’s a wonderful moment but also kind of sobering,” Bayne says. Building bigger and bigger particle colliders is a pretty good tactic for revealing the stuff of the subatomic world. But for revealing the stuff of consciousness, there’s no sure bet. “If Bill Gates gave me $100 billion tomorrow and said, ‘Okay, find out about consciousness,’” he says, “I wouldn’t know what to do with that money.”
Sometimes I wonder whether the solution to understanding consciousness could be not trying to understand it. Meaning, we humans are missing something astoundingly simple about the nature of consciousness because we’re focused on trying to pin it down like a specimen under a microscope, or the definition of a word in the dictionary.
After all, what is the nature of anything, when you think about it? What’s the nature of gravity? What’s the nature of energy? What’s the nature of matter? At some point it’s necessary to just say, this is what we know about this thing. Einstein showed that gravity arises from the curvature of space-time. Is that a good enough explanation? Probably.
But what is space-time? It is what it is isn’t a totally ridiculous thing to say about it. Explanations and definitions need an end-point. Otherwise we’re like a child who never stops asking why? My daughter did this occasionally. Why do cats have whiskers? Because this helps cats find their way in the dark. Why do they need to find their way in the dark? Because cats like to hunt mice in cellars and other places with little light. Why do cats hunt? Because they need food. Why do they need food? And so it would go until my patience wore thin.
I probably am completely wrong about this. Still, it seems possible that consciousness isn’t a thing unto itself, but is just what brain cells do under certain conditions, in somewhat the same way as electromagnetism is what atomic particles do under certain conditions. Understand those conditions and electromagnestism is understood. Understand how conditions in the brain produce consciousness and consciousness is understood.
That would make consciousness a process, instead of a thing. The Scientific American article ends with:
In consciousness science, everything comes back to the measurement problem. You can try to find markers of different states of consciousness—for instance, by scanning a person’s brain while they are awake versus in slow-wave sleep, which is typically dreamless and therefore unconscious. This experimental setup assumes the subject is in fact not dreaming. But that assumption could be wrong: sometimes people do report dreams when woken from slow-wave sleep. Were they wrong? Do you trust them? How can you confirm that your assumptions about consciousness are correct when your only ground truth is someone else’s word—which is not really a ground truth at all?
When we are faced with this seemingly intractable problem, it’s tempting to reach for an escape valve: Maybe none of it is real. Maybe consciousness is so illusory because it is an illusion, a beautiful cathedral that exists only in our heads. This skeptical position was often put forward by the late philosopher Daniel Dennett, and it’s a legitimate question. But it doesn’t allow us to opt out of treating brain injuries, understanding drugs such as anesthetics and psychedelics, and grappling with our treatment of animals and the intelligent machines we’re birthing. Consciousness is real to us, and therefore it is real in every way that counts.
All of science rests on inferences about things we cannot see. We can’t see a black hole, Koch points out, but we can spend decades building up theories and creating instruments that let us infer their existence. Consciousness may be a more challenging case, but researchers don’t plan to stop trying. With the right tools, “the sense of mystery about how material processes could give rise to conscious experiences would start to go away,” Seth says.
“I don’t know what will happen afterward—if it will still be impressive or not,” University of Liège’s Demertzi says. “But, you know, sometimes nature is so beautiful that even when it’s analyzed, you’re in awe.”
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What’s great about the scientific approach is the maturity to not need a definitive black and white answer. And that is because any answer requires a well defined question, which only open exploration and study can build. You must look first and always look. Conjecture is just a temporary function to help pick your next step. What are you seeing, what is there? Look again. Look again!
Anyone unwilling to retract and retrace their steps isn’t well suited to science. And black and white answers? Leave that old and useless rule at the doorway before stepping into discovery.
I’ve no faith in the sciences of man.
Strange how … my memorie works …anyway.
On consulting Google’s AI I got this answer.
You are likely referring to the work of British psychologist and philosopher Celia Green. Her most influential book on this topic is The Human Evasion, published in 1969.
In this work, she describes a concept similar to what you remembered:
[1] The Closed Reality:
Green argues that human society functions as a “collective evasion” of the true, infinite, and often terrifying nature of the universe.
To cope, people create a closed, “human-centric” reality made up of social rules, mundane relationships, and status.
[2] The Taboo of Breaking Out:
According to Green, the community is fiercely protective of this artificial bubble.
Anyone who attempts to “break out” by focusing on objective reality or the “total uncertainty” of existence is often labeled as abnormal, insane, or socially “difficult”.
[3] Mainstream Hostility:
She suggests that science, religion, and philosophy have all been corrupted into tools that support human comfort rather than the pursuit of raw truth.
Green’s other famous works, such as Lucid Dreaming and Out-of-the-Body Experiences, also explore “breaking out” of standard human perception into different layers of consciousness.
The motive for searching and posting is, the realisation that, this defence mechanism is manyfold and includes all possible worldviews.
In fact …the “here and now” vision even if if it is the outcome of an “inner experience” as described in Zen literature or as private experience by Writers like Mr. Saltzman, is an expression of what Celia Green points at.
Experiencing this ..”what is here and now, is the sole reality to experiece, and its perception as total satisfactory for me”
Yes of course it can and it does …. experiencing reality as it appears in the here an know through the lens of the senses, is experiencing reality …BUT …. that is not the reality as it is apart from these means of perception.
Nothing wrong with the experience of Mr. Saltman A.O. even theirs is rare… but there is no need to USE the same to declare that there is nothing more or different to be had.
Enough ..time for coffee.
let this sink in ..read it again and again:
[3] Mainstream Hostility:
She suggests that science, religion, and philosophy have all been corrupted into tools that support human comfort rather than the pursuit of raw truth.
So not just the poor inocent common man in the streets bound to dayly struggle to survive but also those educated in:
– SCIENCE
– RELIGION
– PHILOSOPHY
It is all about maintaining the .. STATUS QUO .. it might not seem so but it is…turn page bu page and you will find it
Her work “Human evasion”is translated in dutch and re-translate in english as ” escape into fellow human beings”
I think “escape in to the “here and now” experience brought about by whatever way of thinking, concept or practice … is an example of how humans evade the fact that there is or could be more that what they know, believe, experience
Finally
What starts, sets out as “FREEDOM” for one ends as an “TRAP” for others craving that SAID freedom…..traps, they are willing to kill and be killed for.
Have a look in this blog.
There exists nothing but “unique variations of the same” … trying to copy, repeat, control, describe etc etc etc of the uniqueness binds one in a prison, without doors and windows as celia green describes.
Experiences of the sameness, do simple exist, they always did, do and woill do …overwelming experiences …BUT… they are ALL …withou exception ..UNIQUE.
Beyond the speculation of what consciousness ultimately is, there’s a core question: Why do we care?
We care what consciousness is because it means life either means something, or it means absolutely nothing.
If consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of the brain, then life has no meaning or value whatsoever. This is why the Churchill’s argument is inconsistent. They tell us that consciousness is material, but they conduct their lives as if human life has a deep value.
You can’t declare something a scientific truth and at the same time practice a philosophy that contradicts it. Doing so means either your science or your philosophy (or both) is in error.
It may be that instead of looking to only to science or philosophy for answers, we also consider our intuition. The remarkable thing about intuition is that it can’t be overruled for long.
We can get new ideas from science and philosophy, but intuition often has much to teach us about practical reality.
For instance, all of us here are critics of religion. Despite their pretenses to ecumenism, even the Sant Mat devotees are inescapably religious critics, as they belong to sects run by gurus on record for declaring that everyone is wrong but them.
This isn’t a slam on Sant Mat, as everyone is a critic in some form or other. Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha sure were. But there’s a common intuition that while criticism in itself is ineluctable — not only in religion, but in every area of life — all forms of criticism have natural boundaries that demand respect.
In the sphere of religion, it’s beyond remarkable that with all the religious disagreement and tension in the US, except for a few tragic instances, we don’t have people invading worship services. We all somehow know that as much as we despise this church or that guru, there would be something deeply messed up about interrupting their Sunday services and causing a ruckus.
That’s because we intuit that there’s something sacred in any form of religious belief.
“The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things.”
Rainer Maria Rilke
“life is like riding a bicycle. The way to maintain your balance is by always moving forward.”
Albert Einstein
This growth of intimate understanding, divine love, divine knowledge , what we call raising consciousness, starts with growing awareness, and becomes growing understanding.
If you have no teacher yet, but a desire to know, then when you start meditation, as Alan Watts suggests, just start listening to sounds, all sounds, the creatures, the wind, machinery, voices and the hum of all life. Don’t worry about where it comes from, here or there, inside or outside. That is an arbitrary distinction. Don’t try to label it, though your mind will do that on its own. Don’t force it, don’t get distracted by it, these are all just happenings. Just listen.
Start there. Spend time they’re. Learn to value your own awareness by just being aware. Just attend. Just listen. Don’t worry about the future, or your progress, just be aware of what is by listening.
Start there. Alan Watts was right about this.
With eyes closed and sitting quietly, be defeated by the reality of what you hear, over and over again. Give it center stage, just as it is. Let these happenings be, don’t push them away, don’t embrace them, let them be, let them pass. That’s the way to start if you have a desire to know. Spend several hours there.
I guess, as a naturalist, I favour the theory that being conscious is, like everything else in nature, a product of evolution. With the refinement and evolution of the brain and senses over millions of years, more and more information became available to enhance an organism’s chances of feeding, mating, and avoiding becoming food.
But yes, this still doesn’t tell us how the brain’s processes result in conscious experience. That is something we may never know, but to attribute a natural phenomenon to something other-worldly seems to be the last stand of we humans who desperately need some sort of security padding to life.
And I wonder why the world as it is is not enough. By ‘the world’ I am referring to the natural world, to the hills and valleys, trees and plants, mammals and insects – all playing their unwitting part in contributing to the overall wholeness of this planet.
I can’t help but generally see us humans as being a spanner in the works of nature, and this burning question of consciousness, far from being just a scientific study, has become important to the point of carrying with it, many of the hopes and wishes of that ‘something special’ to make our lives more than should be expected from us intelligent primates.
It seems to me that this clamouring for something above and beyond what/who we are only adds to our frantic scramble to emerge victorious, not only from life but from death – instead of resting in the knowledge that this moment, this, whatever is appearing now, is all there is, and it’s fresh and new every instant.
@ Ron personal:
Reading an monograph on Astralagus Membranaceus I cam ecroos something that made me think of you .. Here it is:
Finally, this plant is traditionally used in China as a “support” during chemotherapy, as it strengthens resistance to the immunosuppressive effects of chemotherapy drugs by stimulating macrophages to produce interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor.
The plant is therefore ideally suited to limiting the toxicity of chemotherapy and enables cancer patients to strengthen their immune system, recover more quickly, and potentially live longer.
Thanks um. Much appreciated – I’ll look into this.
Hi Ron
As a neutralist observation comes naturally. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution emerged from observation.
So why stop there? Why is someone else’s observation and theory adequate?
If we are naturalists, then we should remain open to all that reality had to offer, without putting things into boxes, certainly not other people nor their experience.
What you five for yourself is certainly enough, if we are item to what is really happening. For that a very disciplined approach is necessary. And a willingness to be a lifelong student of nature in all its forms internal and external.
Oops meant “what you find for yourself is certainly enough if we are open to what is really happening”
Hi Spence. Just a quick reply. I suppose all scientific theories emerge from observation. Darwin (and Alfred R. Wallace) laid the foundations of the theory of evolution, and it has been expanded upon and further verified by subsequent findings and advances in genetics.
I’m happy with other people’s observations, and yes, we should ‘remain open to all that reality has to offer’, but if one’s experiences are purely subjective, then it should just remain a belief. Even our NDE’s, OBEs and all the other paranormal experiences of mankind are quite possibly purely natural and products of our biological complexities – no one really knows.
For me, being a naturalist (a term I prefer over physicalist or materialist) means that all we really know is the natural world, which includes thoughts, emotions, and feelings as they appear to us in the moment. All else is mind-created, the product of mind, of thought and, as is obvious, our thinking is the product of our particular education, our religions, beliefs, training, etc., and any other cultural influences our societies instilled us with.
The various assertions that we are more than natural organisms may be true for all I know, but as far as I’m concerned, I see no evidence of such apart from people’s assertions.