We Don't Know, But The BRAIN Does

Consciousness is one of the most basic and puzzling aspects of human life. We all have the sensation of consciousness, of thinking, feeling, and experiencing the world. But even after centuries of philosophical debate and decades of scientific study, no one really knows what awareness is. In addition to how the brain works, the question is why it creates the internal experience that we are all so accustomed to. Since a new study has only added to the mystery and validated what many neuroscientists and philosophers have been reluctantly admitting for years—that science still cannot explain consciousness—we could be farther from a solution than we first thought.

The Problem of Difficult Consciousness

The difficulty of understanding consciousness is sometimes referred to as a "hard problem," a phrase used by philosopher David Chalmers in the 1990s. Even while science has made great progress in understanding the structure and functions of the brain, including memory, attention, and perception, the hard task is more complicated. It raises the question: What causes all that brain activity to result in a subjective experience? Why don't we behave like dumb robots that have no internal consciousness and only process input and output?

A brain scan can be performed to see what happens during pain, dreaming, or cognition. You can observe which regions light up using an fMRI. But no scan can capture the experience of being that person. What philosophers call the "QUALIA", or raw experience, is the subjective part of consciousness that science cannot quantify.

The New Study That Verifies the Mysteries

A team of scholars from all around the world just released a research in a renowned neuroscience journal to look at this precise issue. The researchers used advanced brain imaging and artificial intelligence models to map consciousness in patients who were either in a vegetative state, asleep, or under anesthesia. Their goal was to identify a "neural signature" of consciousness, a pattern of brain activity that would reliably identify whether or not an individual was aware.

The result? They were unable to explain how this activity results in conscious experience, despite finding some similarities—certain brain areas appeared to be engaged during times of consciousness. The brain's impulses could be observed, measured, and even predicted, but the link between those signals and the sense of life and self-awareness remained unattainable.

In a candid evaluation, the researchers admitted that while the study enhanced our ability to recognize consciousness in others (such coma patients), it failed to answer the question of how awareness arises. They discovered a connection between the brain activity they saw and consciousness, but a correlation does not mean an explanation. As one of the lead researchers put it, "We are mapping the shadow of consciousness, not its content,"

Why Is Determining Consciousness So Challenging?

Consciousness is challenging to study scientifically in part because it is subjective. Science depends on objectivity, which includes measurements, data, and repeatability. On the other hand, awareness is something that only the person experiencing it can completely access. Only action or brain activity can be directly witnessed, not thoughts.

Moreover, consciousness doesn't seem to be limited to a particular part of the brain. Instead, it appears to be the outcome of complex connections spanning many geographic locations. It is not like a light switch that can be turned on or off by turning on a single neuron. It is more like a symphony, when the entire piece is defined by no single note and several instruments play in sync.

Divergent Theories, No Clear Answers

There are several theories that try to explain consciousness, but none of them are generally agreed upon. The well recognized Integrated Information Theory (IIT) states that consciousness is determined by the level of information integration in a system. In other words, the more integrated and connected a brain's information processing is, the more conscious it becomes. This theory is criticized for being very vague and difficult to test.

Another theory, known as the Global Workspace Theory (GWT), holds that consciousness develops when information is widely distributed over the network of the brain, much to a spotlight illuminating a stage. But again, this explains more about the workings of attention and cognition than it does the "why" of subjective experience.

Even some scientists are beginning to wonder if the current techniques will be sufficient to tackle the problem. Perhaps awareness cannot be fully understood by the language of neurons and synapses. Perhaps a whole new framework—one that doesn't currently exist—is required.

Consequences for Society and Science

The fact that we are unsure of the cause of consciousness is not only a theoretical problem. There are real-world uses for it. How can a doctor assess a patient in a coma or with severe dementia in terms of their inner experience? How can we determine whether an animal or artificial intelligence system is truly ethically conscious, and what rights would such consciousness entail?

Furthermore, others argue that if brain activity alone isn't sufficient to explain consciousness, we may need to reconsider the fundamental nature of reality. Could the mind be a fundamental element of the cosmos, similar to space and time? Even while this idea—known as PANPSYCHISM is still highly controversial, it symbolizes a growing willingness to use unconventional thinking when traditional approaches are at a standstill.

The Unsolved Mysteries

So, what are we left with here? The new study clearly shows that our understanding of the nature of consciousness is still incomplete. Despite all of our technological advancements, including brain scans and machine learning algorithms, the mystery remains unsolved. We can describe consciousness, measure its correlates, and even influence it with drugs or meditation, but we cannot explain why awareness arises in the first place.

And maybe that's okay. After all, some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs began with admitting our ignorance. Perhaps recognizing the depth of the mystery is the first serious step toward solving it.

Meanwhile, we are still conscious beings trying to understand our own consciousness—a beautiful, confusing paradox that defies human understanding.