I’ve been thinking for a long, LONG ass time about the nature of consciousness, and I’ve repeatedly had the same thought arise: we’re all searching for a “thing” we’ve labeled consciousness, when in fact we should be looking for a system that generates the experience we’ve labeled.
Human has experience.
Human attaches label.
Human hunts for thing they’ve labeled.
Thing doesn’t exist.
Human is confused…
Kind of like a mirage, something very real is happening, but it is not what it appears to be, and assuming it’s real (as it appears) will lead you astray.
In other words, where consciousness is concerned, we’re on a snipe hunt.
Enter The Observer and the Observed, my new paper exploring a theory of consciousness that potentially solves the so-called “hard” problem and the binding problem in one fell swoop.
At its core, the theory posits that consciousness arises from a self-referential “observer” dynamic within interconnected neural systems, where one part of the system observes and interprets the activity of other parts.
This could involve two hemispheres connected by a corpus callosum (a configuration we see in almost every animal we’d label highly intelligent and possibly conscious), or multiple brain regions within the same hemisphere, or a combo of both.
The key is simply 2+ hemispheres/regions where one observes and interprets another, either in one direction or in a loop.
Consciousness, rather than being a binary on/off thing, is much more likely to be an experiential spectrum, with humans likely at the far end thanks in part to language.
This observer/observed framework draws inspiration from established theories such as Global Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory, but goes much further. By reframing consciousness as a process rather than a state, the theory provides a new lens through which to examine the hard problem.
One of the compelling aspects is its potential applicability across diverse biological systems. From the dual hemispheres of the human brain to the distributed nervous systems of cephalopods, my paper explores how this observer/observed dynamic might manifest in different neural architectures. This comparative approach not only enriches our understanding of consciousness but also offers insights into its possible evolutionary development.
I don’t shy away from addressing contentious topics in consciousness studies, including the nature of qualia, the possibility of machine consciousness, and even the neuroscientific basis of meditative and enlightened states. I’ve blended neuroscientific data with philosophical concepts to deliver a multidisciplinary perspective that is often lacking in consciousness research.
However, as with any theory attempting to solve one of science's most persistent mysteries, it is bound to face scrutiny and criticism. I readily acknowledge potential limitations and propose a number of empirical tests to validate its claims.
Theories are great, but in data we trust ;)
Whether or not this theory ultimately proves to be the key to unlocking the mystery of consciousness, it offers insights and an unusual approach to investigating this fundamental aspect of our existence. As we all continue to probe the depths of human experience and cognition, frameworks like this push us to reconsider our assumptions and open new avenues for exploration.
You can download the full paper below, and if you decide to read it (please do), I’d really love to hear your thoughts!
Share this post