MA in Philosophy, Dissertation

October 4th 2024

11,999 Words

Abstract

This dissertation is an exploration of the state of discourse surrounding the nature of consciousness in both science and philosophy for the purpose of determining where consciousness studies currently fall within Thomas Kuhn’s framework of the structure of scientific revolutions. After laying out Kuhn’s framework and looking at historical examples of scientific revolutions, this dissertation will then go on to compare the current state of consciousness discourse to those historical examples to ultimately make the case that consciousness studies are currently in the “crisis phase”. Furthermore, this dissertation will then explore what this means for the field and what is potentially to come based on the phases that follow the crisis phase under Kuhn’s framework. Namely, the revolution and post-revolution phases, which bring with them new scientific advancement and the answering of questions which were previously unanswerable under the old paradigm.

Introduction______3

Chapter 1: Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions______4

I. Introduction______4

II. Overview of Kuhn’s Framework______6

III. Pre-Paradigm Phase______7

IV. Normal Science Phase______10

V. Crisis Phase______14

VI. Revolution Phase______18

VII. Post-Revolutionary Phase______21

VIII. Conclusion______24

Chapter 2: The Case for the Crisis Phase______24

 I. Introduction______24

II. Materialism______26

III. Dualism______28

IV. Panpsychism______31          

V. Idealism______33

VI. Prevalence of Theories______36

VII Conclusion______39

Summary and a Look Towards the Future______40

I. Evidence supporting the Crisis Phas______40

II. A Look towards the Future______42

Conclusion______44

Bibliography______46

Introduction

            In this dissertation, I will explore both Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Science in order to answer the following question: Are consciousness studies on the brink of a paradigm shift? To answer this question, I will first examine Kuhn’s theory of how scientific revolutions, and thus paradigm shifts, take place as laid out in his book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I will go into detailed explanation of each phase of the revolution process, using historical examples, and laying out the requirements and expectations for each phase. I will then break down these examples and compare them to the current state of discourse in both science and philosophy regarding consciousness. Through next elaborating on the various competing philosophical theories of consciousness currently being debated and their contradictions, I will also illustrate Kuhn’s Incommensurability Theory in order to make further case for how the current climate is indicative of the crisis phase of scientific revolutions. I will go on to discuss a handful of the main contending theories of consciousness, categorizing them into four main philosophical groups: Materialism, Dualism, Panpsychism, and Idealism, while then looking at where scientists currently fall on the philosophical divide between these categories. This data will be shown to be as further evidence that consciousness studies are indeed within the crisis phase. All of this will culminate in an application of Kuhn’s framework in order to explicate information which could illuminate the future of cognitive science and philosophy of mind. But first, in order to look into this potential future, a brief understanding of Kuhn and his theories will be required.

Chapter 1: Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

I. Introduction

To reach the goal of analyzing the current discourse in philosophy and science surrounding the study of consciousness, I will first detail the phases in Kuhn’s framework, specifically going into detail regarding the historical examples he uses to showcase each phase. I will apply this framework to the discourse surrounding consciousness and break down examples from that discourse in an attempt to locate consciousness studies within this framework to ascertain where the discourse currently resides. I will go on to further make the case that we are in the Crisis Phase through dissecting the plethora of incommensurable theories being postulated by various respected intellectuals in order to identify them as harbingers of a coming scientific revolution which, according to Kuhn’s theory, would then bring about new puzzle solving abilities for problems that were previously unsolvable. This potentially leading to a refinement and expansion of the new paradigm which would then increase both precision and scope of research, as well as spurring new technological advancements. (Kuhn, 1996, pp.111-135) It is important here to note the link between science and philosophy when it comes to these contending theories of consciousness, as the link between them in this dissertation may be confusing otherwise. In chapter eight of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The Response to Crisis, he states that it is “…particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field” (Kuhn, 1996, p. 88). Thus, the dissection of philosophy of mind and its relation too modern theories of consciousness in the realm of cognitive science work together to make the case for the current state falling within the crisis phase. With this link established, I will begin with a brief background on Kuhn’s Theories.

   A. Background on Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

            Thomas S. Kuhn (1922-1996) was a philosopher of science and one of the most influential thinkers of the 20^th century. His book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (1962) lists among the most cited of academic works. (Bird, 2022) He began his career in physics but while studying the history of science, which would eventually become his area of concentration, he noticed the types of anomalies in the progression of science which would eventually lead to his theory of how paradigm shifts occur as well as his incommensurability thesis.

   B. The importance of understanding scientific revolutions in the philosophy of science

            Not only was Kuhn’s workt influential in science and philosophy but in the social sciences, arts, and humanities as well. It is not without its detractors, with some claiming him to be a relativist, which he denies. In his postscript to his book, in the 1969 publication, he discusses some of the “misunderstandings” of his original book, stating “A number of them [critics], however, have reported that I believe the following: …in a debate over theory-choice there can be no recourse to good reasons; instead theory must be chosen for reasons that are ultimately personal or subjective.” (Kuhn, 1996, pp.199) He goes on to explain that he never made the case for anything other than reasons such as accuracy, simplicity, fruitfulness, etc., being the basis for making choices regarding theories. He merely points out how these are judgements, which can be ordered and applied differently, and can vary between people and approaches. He goes on in this section, answering many other potential critics, but for the purposes of this dissertation I will not go into a detailed defense of Kuhn’s theories. I will merely take them as stated and I will leave it to others to debate the credibility of his work beyond this point.

   C. Analyzing Kuhn’s phases of scientific revolution through specific historical examples

One method that will be used throughout this dissertation will be to break down the historical examples Kuhn uses to illustrate his phases of scientific revolution. This will be done both to gain a better understanding of his theory and the specifics of each phase, and also to compare them with modern examples from the study of consciousness in order to help determine where, within his framework, current study falls. I will begin with a brief overview of the framework as a whole and explain what Kuhn means by paradigm shifts within a scientific revolution.

II. Overview of Kuhn’s Framework

1. Definition of scientific revolution

According to Kuhn, scientific revolution takes place when a research field reaches a point where it has encountered too many anomalies for which it has no explanation under current research practices and recognized foundational principles. This results in the questioning of these principles and the basic assumptions underlying the current paradigm, spurring debate regarding how data should be interpreted, what counts as legitimate contributions to the field, and which standards should be applied going forward. Some examples Kuhn gives of past scientific revolutions are the Copernican revolution, the chemical revolution, the Newtonian revolution, the Darwinian revolution, and the Einsteinian revolution.

B. Paradigms and paradigm shifts

Paradigm shifts happen through several distinct phases. Kuhn’s framework for how scientific revolutions take place is contrasted with the conventionally held understanding of science as one of linear, cumulative, progress.  He also emphasizes the importance of historical and social factors which shape scientific development and advancement. His is an understanding of scientific progress as disruptive, punctuated, and contentious shifts throughout history which he recognized through his study of the history of science and formulated into these phases. I will now break down the phases and compare Kuhn’s examples of each with examples from the field of consciousness studies.

  C. The phases of scientific revolutions:

      1. Pre-paradigm phase

      2. Normal science phase

      3. Crisis phase

      4. Revolution phase

      5. Post-revolutionary phase

III. Pre-Paradigm Phase

1. Characteristics:

According to Kuhn, the pre-paradigm phase is the earliest stage, which takes place while a scientific field is first developing. During this phase, there are many diverse approaches in use by scientists, both independently or in small groups, which use different methodologies, terminology, and techniques. These scientists may also be basing their research on very different foundational theories, as there is not yet consensus in the field and are in existence many competing schools of thought. Each different school of thought may offer different theories and answers for various phenomena that have been observed, and they often disagree in their assessments. This lack of consensus leads to fragmented research efforts with various scientists or groups of scientists working on different aspects of the same problems without any common agreement. Because there is not yet any dominant paradigm, there is much disagreement regarding even first principles and basic concepts in the field as well as debate over which approaches and methodologies should be accepted. Thus, they are not able to build on each other’s research. Kuhn believes this phase is important, as it is a first screening for the various potential ideas which must fight for their place as the dominant paradigm. This first screening of the various ideas helps to, in a survival of the fittest type of competition, narrow the field to a theory that is the most successful at solving the field’s current problems while being the most in line with observable phenomena. Once a dominant paradigm emerges, the transition is made to the normal science phase where puzzle solving takes place within this new established framework and scientists make progress on fundamental problems in concert with each other. Some examples of the pre-paradigm phase are as follows.

   B. Examples:

      1. Alchemy (13^th-17^th century)

         During chemistry’s pre-paradigm phase there were many competing ideas for understanding the natural world. One dominant contender was alchemy, which was a mix of mystical beliefs, philosophy, and scientific experimentation. It had no standardized methodologies or underlying theories that were accepted across the field, and alchemists often pursued very different goals. There was a lack of consensus among practitioners, and it wasn’t until late in the 18^th century that figures like Antoine Lavoisier, who Kuhn discusses in his book, began establishing the foundations of modern chemistry. This lack of uniformity of the field can be likened to the study of consciousness in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. During this time there were many competing theorists including Wilhelm Wundt and Sigmund Freud positing various psychological theories. Prior to this period, there have always been many competing philosophical theories of consciousness, but it is important for the purposes of this dissertation to narrow focus so as to apply Kuhn’s framework to the fields of psychology and cognitive science as they emerge from philosophy and work to become their own scientific disciplines since Kuhn’s theory applies to the structure of scientific revolutions, and philosophy does not always require the same rigidity and consensus across the field in order to function in the way Kuhn describes as indicative of the phases of science. Furthermore, William James, often regarded as the father of the science of psychology (or at the very least, one of three), stated that the study of consciousness is the most important and fundamental question for psychology. (Grim, 2017) Regardless, it wasn’t until the late 20^th century that psychology and cognitive science standardized consciousness research with accepted methodologies, including incorporating research in neuroscience, thus becoming widely accepted as a credible science.

      2. Phlogiston Theory (late 18th century)

One more specific example from the time prior to the field of chemistry’s move towards the normal science phase from the pre-paradigm phase is the phlogiston theory. It was one of many competing theories during this time, but its legitimacy was increasingly being challenged as it was lacking in empirical evidence. Phlogiston was a postulated substance which was thought to be released during certain chemical reactions, for example rust and combustion, which was used to account for the changes that took place during these reactions. Phlogiston was thus given as an answer for why an item which when burned, rusted, or otherwise chemically changed would lose something and/or leave something else behind (ash, oxidization, etc.). The answer was that it was being “dephlogisticated”, i.e. the phlogiston was being removed by the process, phlogiston being an invisible, weightless, material released during oxidization. Antoine Lavoisier eventually showed that oxygen was actually the important missing piece to the puzzle, not phlogiston. Kuhn spent significant time in chapter VI, Anomaly and the Emergency of Scientific Discoveries, discussing how the discovery of oxygen was not a simple, linear process, but that, even determining who “discovered” oxygen is messy. While Lavoisier knew that something was wrong with the phlogiston theory, it still required a bit of a mental paradigm shift in order to see and accept a new theory to replace it. This he was eventually able to do. His contemporary, Joseph Priestly, who had successfully isolated oxygen prior to Lavoisier’s discovery, did so without understanding what it was and believed it was merely dephlogisticated air. According to Kuhn, it was Lavoisier’s sense that something was amiss, which allowed him “…to see in experiments like Priestly’s, a gas that Priestly was unable to see there himself. …Conversely, the fact that a major paradigm revision was needed to see what Lavoisier saw must be a principle reason why Priestly was, to the end of his long life, unable to see it.” (Kuhn, 1996, pp 56) This type of shift of mental paradigm leading to new discovery is a harbinger of what is to come during the later phases discussed in the following sections and thus potentially a taste of what may be to come in the near future for the study of consciousness. When comparing this historical example to the field of consciousness studies, the phlogiston theory can be contrasted with Descartes’ substance dualism. Which is generally disavowed by even other dualists today due to it having no empirical evidence to support it. Many modern dualists instead subscribe to what is called property dualism and their attempts to defend their theory often incorporate answers to empirical challenges. The general consensus of the current paradigm of consciousness studies, though, is not any form of dualism, but instead theories which fall under the more empirical-compatible materialism, which was eventually the victor, ushering in the normal science phase for consciousness studies as modern chemistry did following its own pre-paradigm phase.

IV. Normal Science Phase

1. Characteristics:

Following the pre-paradigm phase, once a dominant paradigm has been established and accepted by the majority of the scientific community, the normal science phase ensues. Unlike the prior phase, there is now generally consensus regarding the theories, methodologies, standards, as well as the boundaries which make up legitimate research within the field. During this phase, “research [is] firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice” (Kuhn, 1996, pp. 10) These aspects of the prevailing paradigm spur research by enabling questions beyond those of first principles and allowing cumulative progress to be built upon the accepted foundation. This is the phase of puzzle solving. Kuhn likens normal science itself to this puzzle solving and describes puzzles as “that special category of problems that can serve to test the ingenuity or skill in solution” (Kuhn, 1996, pp. 36) Furthermore, “it is no criterion of goodness in a puzzle that its outcome be intrinsically interesting or important”.  (Kuhn, 1996, pp. 36-37) This point is interesting because, as Kuhn goes on to say, some of the most important problems out there are often not actually puzzles since they do not have a solution. This is one useful part of having a paradigm: it creates a context and structure within which puzzle solving can take place since it sets the rules of the game, so to speak. These puzzles which are well defined by the paradigm and can then be solved through application of the methodologies and principles prescribed by the paradigm. In order to maintain this puzzle solving state, there must be a resistance to any anomalies which cause issues within the paradigm that would call into question the foundations that are required to enable the constraints that allow puzzle solving to take place. Any anomalies which cannot be explained within the current paradigm are often ignored, dismissed, or set aside for further research in the future. Usually, scientists believe these anomalies can be answered within the framework of the current paradigm once more progress is made and thus they often refrain from searching for answers outside the current accepted paradigm. During this phase, through scientific education and professional practices, the dominant paradigm is reenforced in textbooks, classrooms, and lectures, and is socialized throughout the community of scientists through conferences and publishing. This reenforces the paradigm’s authority and helps prevent “serious scientists” from working outside its boundaries. Normal science is thus a period of stability, where consensus is generally maintained and much progress in puzzle solving is made. It continues this way until too many anomalies accumulate which cannot be answered within the current paradigm, leading to the next phase: crisis.

   B. Examples:

      1. Newtonian Mechanics (17th-19th century)

After Isaac Newton published his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687, his views on the laws of motion and universal gravitation eventually became the dominant paradigm in physics. During this long span of time, much puzzle solving took place, utilizing his standards, to answer many scientific questions, spurring progress in our understanding of the movements of planets as well as with regard to the movements of objects on Earth. This parallels within the study of consciousness most recently with the supremacy of the behaviorist school of psychology, which comes out of a materialist theory of consciousness more broadly and was most popular from the early to mid-20^th century on, and is still a dominant paradigm on many college campuses. This field was championed by figures like John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner and it attempted to simplify and lend credibility to the study of psychology by standardizing the field and creating constraints on research. Doing so would enable a more rigorous and empirical science through limiting that which is studied to what is objectively observable, namely, behavior. It is easy to see how this paradigm could be limiting and problematic when it comes to attempting to scientifically research and understand consciousness, which is both internal and subjective. Behaviorism, being the prevailing paradigm for this phase of normal science, has thus caused issues for the scientific research and understanding of consciousness, causing anomalies and inconsistencies to surface, much in the same way as Newtonian mechanics did for the understanding of physics. It wasn’t until the late 19^th, early 20^th century that the anomalies started to pile up with Newtonian mechanics, such as with regards to the orbits of certain planets not matching up with what would be prescribed under the theory for example, forcing people to question this prevailing paradigm. This led to Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the field of quantum mechanics taking over after the ensuing revolution. The parallel between this historical example and the modern example of behaviorism in psychology sets the stage for considering which theory of consciousness, and thus which school of psychology, may emerge victorious through the coming crisis phase.

      2. Classical Electromagnetism (19th century)

In the 1860s, James Clack Maxwell formulated his famous equations regarding electromagnetic waves. His equations unified the study of electricity, magnetism, and light into a single theoretical framework, showing that they were not disparate phenomena, but were in fact aspects of the same fundamental phenomena. This spurred the normal science phase where much puzzle solving was able to take place in the field. Over the next several decades, physicists were able to work within Maxwell’s framework to postulate new theories, make predictions, and conduct experiments. The consensus of the field in upholding Maxwell’s equations enabled significant advancement due to researchers not having to spend time questioning and debating the underlying framework. This normal science phase continued, with much beneficial research as a result, until the early 20^th century when Einstein’s work and discoveries in quantum mechanics began to show the limitations of Maxwell’s theory, spurring a crisis phase and revolution in the field.

One interesting parallel to the current dominant paradigm in the science of consciousness is that, during this normal science phase, much puzzle solving also has taken place with regards to consciousness. Much like with Maxwell’s equations, the study of evolutionary psychology, which falls within the current materialist and behaviorist paradigm of psychology and the study of consciousness, has enabled many scientific discoveries. By working within this paradigm, cognitive scientists have solved many puzzles and made much progress postulating new theories, conducting experiments, and utilizing the underlying consensus on Darwin’s theories as a foundation upon which to make scientific progress towards understanding human behaviors and the nature of consciousness. Though, this paradigm, with its materialist and behaviorist associations, according to some, still lacks the ability to adequately dissect the nature of consciousness itself, which is part of why the anomalies have been piling up toward the end of this normal science phase, spurring the field into the crisis phase in which is currently resides.

V. Crisis Phase

   A. Characteristics:

The crisis phase, for which I have been and will continue to make the case that current consciousness studies are within, is the phase that follows normal science once the anomalies have become too numerous and have begun to push scientists to explore outside the dominant paradigm in an attempt to find new answers. As the anomalies build up, they eventually reach a critical point where confidence in the prevailing paradigm begins to wane. This leads to cracks in the previous consensus that was enjoyed during the normal science phase and causes debates and disagreements among members of the field as they become divided. Different scientists or groups of researchers begin exploring various alternative theories and approaches which were previously thought to be fringe or speculative. The overall feelings throughout the crisis phase are those of turmoil and uncertainty as members are forced to question their own foundations of thinking. They often reach out to other fields, including philosophy, for potential answers. This phase paves the way for the coming scientific revolution which will replace the prior paradigm with one that better answers the anomalous findings which had fueled the questioning of the dominant paradigm.

   B. Examples:

      1. Crisis in Newtonian physics (late 19th century)

During the late 19^th century, the anomalies and inconsistencies were piling up for Newtonian physics. Certain experimental results were calling the framework into question and creating a problem for continuing research in the field. As explained by Kuhn, when the dominant paradigm encounters anomalies it can’t resolve, it creates doubts among those in the scientific community who then must search for new answers. One of these anomalies during this specific crisis period was with regards to aether. This was a proposed medium through which light waves were assumed to propagate.  Aether was postulated due to the general understanding at the time that it is a requirement for a wave to move through some medium. For example, the way in which water waves move across the surface of a pond. The water is the medium for the waves, which do not exist independently of that medium. This, like sounds waves through air, led to the assumption that light waves must also move through some medium in space. This medium was called aether. Thus, many attempts were made to find and isolate this substance. One such experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, was conducted to measure the Earth’s movement through the aether which was assumed to exist in space, but surprisingly the experiment results were inconsistent with the existence of such a medium. This was but one among many inconsistencies under that paradigm which had spurred crisis in the field, causing skepticism and the search for new explanations. Many theories were proposed during this time to help reconcile the issues between theory and observation. Some were modifications of Newton’s theories which attempted to augment, but ultimately maintain, the current paradigm. While some were radically new and different conceptualizations of physics. Ultimately, Einstein’s general relativity won out and became the next, new paradigm adopted.

            Comparatively, currently within the science of consciousness studies, a point has been reached where the current paradigm fails to answer fundamental questions regarding consciousness and free will. New discoveries in neuroscience, which contradict our previous conception of free will, as well as new discoveries in quantum mechanics which cause us to question our fundamental understanding of the world around us, both send ripple effects into the study of consciousness which cause serious issues for the prominent, materialist, paradigm. Some theories, like those of Daniel Dennett, attempt to redeem the materialist framework by augmenting some aspects in order to answer the criticisms and questions brought on by new discoveries or limitations to research caused by the limitations of the paradigm itself, as some in the late 19^th century attempted to do with Newtonian physics. Some, alternately, look for wildly new explanations which would overturn the current paradigm and lead to a new understanding of the science of consciousness studies. Scientists sometimes do this by reaching into philosophy for ideas, and sometimes inadvertently fall into categories long known in philosophy purely by accident as well. Many such theories of consciousness and their philosophical roots will be elaborated on in the following chapter, but for now, this diversity of field due to the buildup of anomalies is merely mentioned as one more sign of the coming paradigm shift in consciousness studies. One may wonder, which of these theories might emerge as the general relativity of consciousness, or perhaps it will even be something not as of yet conceived.

      2. Crisis in classical mechanics (early 20th century)

One modern discovery of quantum mechanics, alluded in the previous section as having far reaching implications even into the study of consciousness while also leading to a crisis in classical mechanics, is that of wave-particle duality. Following the field of physics’ discarding the idea of aether, it was further discovered that light waves are not purely waves, but the photons which are the particles of light act both as waves and particles under different conditions. One famous experiment that illustrates this is known as the double slit experiment. During this experiment, light passes through a wall with two slits cut in it, when it reaches a screen behind the slits, it creates an interference pattern characteristic of light being a wave. However, interestingly, if the photons are observed going through the slits it then results in a pattern characteristic of a particle.

(Worth & Seetesh. 2022).

There are many other variations of this experiment, leading to stranger and stranger results, which have caused a crisis in quantum mechanics leading to new theories such as quantum field theory as well as many new interpretations of the previously understood aspects of quantum mechanics. It has also had a heavy hand in fueling the crisis in the field of consciousness science. This is because experiments seem to show that it is the conscious observer who changes the outcome of the experiment. This has been explored by many philosophers of mind, and a section on quantum mechanics is often included in modern philosophy of mind literature for this reason. This result seems to cause serious issues for the current materialist paradigm, as the idea that the fundamental particles which make up all matter, including the brain, do not have definite states until they are observed, potentially challenges the classical notion of a fully deterministic universe. Not only that, it lends credibility for some other, previously regarded as fringe or even pseudo-scientific, theories of consciousness. These various theories and how they interact with each other and with findings like that of the double slit experiment will be further explored in chapter 2.  Following this experimental result, and many other anomalies and contradictions have fueled this phase of crisis in the science of consciousness, what, then, may be to come in the next phase of revolution?

VI. Revolution Phase

1. Characteristics:

Should my thesis be correct, that the current state of consciousness studies lies in the crisis phase, then the revolution phase follows soon after. The revolution phase is the transformative period when the new paradigm usurps the prior dominant one leading to a more coherent understanding of the disparate findings in the field. This can cause radical change in the fundamental concepts, methodology, and standards that underlie the field, thus offering a new perspective and enabling fresh ideas to propagate in new directions. This change in paradigm does not happen easily, however, as some members who remain invested in the old paradigm fight to keep it. This leads to many debates and conflicts, and even once the new paradigm is adopted there will remain those who refused to change with it and the field will effectively leave them behind. Once the new paradigm has taken hold, there is a reinterpretation of old data through the new lens which can lead to a reordering of prior findings and information. Over time, a new consensus is reached on many of these new interpretations as well, as the new paradigm is cemented in textbooks and teachings, leading to a new period of normal science.

   B. Examples:

      1. Darwinian Revolution (1859)

Upon publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859, a revolution was in the works not only in the field of biology, but with ripple effects to many other fields as well. Darwin wasn’t the only person to have hit on the idea, the field was ripe and ready for an answer to many of the recent findings which begged for an explanation. Darwin’s ideas clashed with traditional beliefs and also competed with other potential new theories of the time. His theory fundamentally challenged the views of many in the scientific community and caused division. Over time, as more evidence and support for evolution accumulated, more scientists accepted the new paradigm resulting in a revolution and paradigm shift. This completely reshaped the field of biology and made those who refused to accept it obsolete in the field.  

In the near future, a similar revolution may take place within the field of consciousness research. There are currently several competing theories which may continue to gain further evidence as natural selection did in the years following Darwin’s publication. These theories which are rooted in new discoveries in quantum mechanics and are both empirical and testable will one day soon be proven right or wrong. These include the Global Workspace Theory and the Integrated Information Theory, among others. These and many more will be discussed in chapter 2, but for now suffice to say that as more evidence is gathered one may prove to be the most able to answer the fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness and emerge on top. Additionally, new experimental techniques and theoretical insights continue to emerge in the fields of cognitive science and neuroscience, but also in other various scientific fields whose discoveries affect how we think about the world and consciousness. As a contender for dominant paradigm emerges from the pack during this revolution phase and begins to take over, there may be a radical shift in our understanding of consciousness. This shift will most likely be contentious, challenging many researchers’ deeply held beliefs as well as many personal or religious dogmas. Some researchers may refuse to accept the new paradigm and then find themselves increasingly isolated, as did those who resisted Darwin’s theory. The scientific community will then move on without them, cementing the new paradigm and charging forward to the post-revolution phase.

      2. Quantum Revolution (1920s)

The crisis phase in classical mechanics, discussed in the last section, led to the quantum revolution of the early 1900s, where quantum mechanics became the dominant paradigm. During this revolution many new discoveries were made and a plethora of new and interesting ideas were postulated. Prior to this, the universe was seen as deterministic and predictable. With the quantum revolution came new discoveries from thinkers such as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrödinger. Under this new paradigm, particles could exist in superpositions and the nature of reality was probabilistic as opposed to deterministic. This new framework answered many of the prior anomalies from classical mechanics, but it left some thinkers, including Albert Einstein, wary. This paradigm is now the foundation of modern physics and new discoveries continue to unfold during the post-revolutionary phase in which we currently reside.

            Much in this same way, many of the posed theories of consciousness challenge fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality. A good example of this is the Interface Theory of Perception which challenges the very nature of the physical world by postulating that spacetime itself doesn’t exist. Ideas like these, much like those of the quantum revolution, would be hard for many in the scientific establishment to accept, even as the evidence potentially mounts. Eventually, with or without the hold-outs, the revolution will resolve, a new establishment will reign supreme, and this will spur all the new and interesting discoveries that come along with it until eventually the post-revolution phase is reached.

VII. Post-Revolutionary Phase

1. Characteristics:

The post-revolutionary phase marks a return to normal science. Much of what happened following the pe-paradigm phase happens once again. The new paradigm is cemented and becomes the standard framework. Normal science’s puzzle solving activities resume, and with it the refining of theories and the applying of the new paradigm to a range of problems. Textbooks are rewritten and the socialization of scientists changes to reflect the new paradigm. Research focuses on testing the limits of the new system and there is once again stability and progress. Cumulative knowledge is able to accrue as the field is once again working together in concert.

   B. Examples:

      1. Post-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis (1930s-40s)

            During the post-revolutionary phase following the Darwinian revolution, natural selection was integrated with Mendelian genetics to form a more unified understanding of the mechanisms behind natural selection. Interestingly, Darwin was searching for just such a mechanism before his death, and actually had an unopened copy of a journal in his home which had just the information he was looking for from the work of Gregory Mendel on pea pods, which would have helped to explain this mechanism behind natural selection but he never opened this journal prior to his death and was thus unaware. (Gimbel, 2015) Regardless, the necessary connections were made by others in the field and later, following the work of these others, natural selection and the study of genetics were unified. This led to a more comprehensive theory and a return to normal science, where scientists were able to work towards common goals and uncover interesting findings within the new paradigm. Thus, enabling wide ranging effects in other fields such as ecology, paleontology, and even psychology.

Similarly, whichever new paradigm succeeds in obtaining dominance over the field of consciousness studies could experience a synthesis with other theories already known but unrealized as connected. For example, a dualistic paradigm like the Consciousness Collapse Theory may be discovered to be unified with some other findings in quantum mechanics that is yet unrealized, creating a more whole and through understanding of reality and making sense of previously confusing or disparate findings.

      2. Standard Model of Particle Physics (20th century)

During the post-revolutionary phase with regards to the quantum revolution, a consolidation has emerged between quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and special relativity. Scientists diligently work through their puzzle solving, building towards a fully unified theory. So far, they have managed to unify three of the fundamental forces: electromagnetism, and both the weak and strong nuclear forces. This unified theory model has thus far had success in providing predictions and explaining observable phenomena. More experiments are done, including those done with particle accelerators like CERN, in search of illuminating answers to questions about the nature of dark matter and dark energy. This process of puzzle solving and working towards a “theory of everything” will continue unless or until enough anomalies build up under this current system to spur the process of paradigm shift to start all over again.

Just as this standard model attempts to continue to unify physics, so might the new accepted paradigm in consciousness studies work to unify all the research in the field under the new umbrella of whichever theory is the new dominant paradigm. As that theory will have gained widespread acceptance, research would then be free to focus on expanding, refining, and applying the framework to various aspects of human behavior beyond consciousness including behavior, cognition, learning, experience, emotions, etc. Scientists could also take what they learn from the new paradigm and explore other topics such as animal consciousness or conscious AI. This would move the field in new and innovative directions, opening up whole new worlds of discovery in our understanding of the human experience.

VIII. Conclusion

1. Summary of Kuhn’s phases of scientific revolution

In conclusion of this chapter, I have shown how Kuhn’s work offers a powerful framework both for dissecting the history of science as well as for looking at the current state of discourse surrounding consciousness and the future of research in the field of consciousness studies. From the pre-paradigm confusion to the post-revolutionary synthesis, the aspects of each phase have been explained and then illustrated with examples in order to then compare them with modern examples from consciousness studies, all while making a case for the current state of consciousness science being located within the crisis phase. This cyclical pattern sheds light on how scientific discoveries come about and underscores the dynamic nature of scientific progress, potentially giving hope for the future with regards to better understanding consciousness. In the next section, some of the various contenders for the new paradigm of consciousness will be considered, their contradictions and incommensurability lending further evidence for the claim of the coming paradigm shift by planting the discourse firmly in the crisis phase.

Chapter 2: The Case for the Crisis Phase

 I. Introduction

   A. Philosophy of Mind

As mentioned previously, scientists often turn to philosophy in order to search for answers when the anomalies in the prevailing paradigm have become so problematic as to necessitate a reevaluation of the underlying paradigm in order to make further progress in the field, and philosophy of mind is rife with potential theories to fill this void. As further evidence that the current state of consciousness studies is on the brink of a paradigm shift, a brief overview of the field is helpful to understand the plethora of competing theories which conflict both with one another as well as with regards to how they interpret new scientific discoveries relating to consciousness. This further lends credibility to the current state of the discourse on consciousness being that of the crisis phase, since, as stated in the previous chapter, the crisis phase consists of different scientists or groups of researchers exploring various alternative theories and approaches which were previously thought to be fringe or speculative with the overall feelings being that of turmoil and uncertainty leading to the questioning of the foundations of thinking in the field. While many scientists (and philosophers) still cling to a mostly materialist theory utilizing empirical, Darwinian, often behaviorist, methods of study, this is not the only contender, and the appeal of some of these other potential theories of consciousness is growing (the prevalence of these various theories among thinkers will be elaborated on in a later section). For the purposes of this dissertation, I will break down four main schools of thought with regards to philosophy of mind, within which many current prominent competing theories of consciousness find themselves. My categorization of these theories within the four schools in philosophy is based both on a lecture by David Chalmers at the Mind and Agency in the Foundation of Quantum Physics conference in 2022 and/or on the theorists’ own assertions.

Before jumping into the various theories, I will reiterate Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis as it will be relevant to the following discussion. Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis suggests that during the crisis phase, those theories vying for the position of the new dominant paradigm might be fundamentally different in their concepts and frameworks. As these theories are considered, the incommensurability thesis implies that it may be difficult if not impossible to directly compare or measure them against each other using a shared standard. Each theory could represent a distinct way of understanding the world, making it challenging to assess them on the same terms. This difference in conceptual frameworks means that evaluating the merits of each theory might require the adoption of new criteria or perspectives rather than relying on traditional measures of comparison. For the purposes of this dissertation, I will merely be pointing out these incomensurabilities as further evidence for the crisis phase, and not attempting to compare them or evaluate their merits. I will begin with the dominant paradigm, that of materialism.

“One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist”        

  -David Chalmers, The Mind Body Problem. 2019

II. Materialism

1. Overview of Theories
2. Multiple Drafts Model (Daniel Dennett)

One of the most well-known modern thinkers in the field of consciousness studies was Daniel Dennett, who sadly just passed away earlier this year. His theory was assertively materialist and he devoted a lot of time both in his books and his speaking engagements arguing against what he deemed to be unseen remnants of Cartesian thinking which still surfaced in many modern thinkers who found issue with reductionist theories. His multiple drafts model of consciousness argued that consciousness was not one coherent stream, but in fact the sum total of many simultaneous, parallel processes across the brain and body. This is where it got the name multiple drafts, as these drafts of consciousness were processed at different times and in different parts of the brain, and none of them were “the” consciousness, but in fact they were all undergoing editing, revising, and recombining at all times to create what to us, is conscious experience. This view is incommensurable with dualism and Dennett was strongly critical of the idea that mind and body are separate substances and argued that consciousness is a wholly physical process. His theory is also incompatible with panpsychism as the multiple drafts model sees consciousness as an emergent property of complex brain processes and not as something that exists universally in all matter. Finally, it is incommensurable with idealism as Dennett’s model has consciousness a byproduct of the physical brain and not as the foundation of reality.

• Supervenience Physicalism (Jaegwon Kim)

Kim’s theory introduces the idea of supervenience, whereby mental properties supervene on physical properties. This means that mental states depend entirely on physical states, specifically the brain, but they are not reducible to them. Meaning, while mental events are based in the physical, they are not reducible to purely physical states and not all changes in the physical are significant.  

This sounds similar but is distinct from Dennett’s theory and is in fact incompatible with it as Dennett was critical of the idea of supervenience. He didn’t think this idea went far enough in explaining how or why this dependency (between the mental and physical) exists and he worried it was a way of not actually engaging with the hard questions. Dennett, conversely, preferred to focus on the actual mechanisms underlying consciousness and its link to the physical processes of the brain. So, not only are these materialist theories incompatible with theories from the other three categories, but they are incompatible with each other as well, lending further evidence for consciousness studies currently being in the crisis phase according to Kuhn’s theories.

• Problems

Materialist theories have to contend with many problems, but one of the most well publicized, one put forward by David Chalmers, is known as the hard problem of consciousness. This is the question of how to explain the existence of qualia, or subjective experiences. Granting that consciousness arises from the material brain, why must there then be something that it is like to be a person? Why do humans have the rich inner experiences with regards to consciousness and how can this be explained by purely physical processes? While Kim has, in more recent years, rejected strict physicalism due to it not providing an adequate answer to the mind body problem, Dennett remained steadfast in his resolve that consciousness is an illusion and there is no hard problem. This hard problem is one of the main points of contention with regards to materialist theories of consciousness and one of the main drivers potentially spurring thinkers to move on to adopting a dualistic theory instead.

III. Dualism

1. Overview of Theories
2. Naturalistic Dualism (David Chalmers)

Naturalistic dualism suggests that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, in the same way that physical processes are, while being distinct from them. Under this theory, the qualia which make up the inner lives of humans are not reducible to physical processes but are instead a separate property which coexists with, and is closely tied to, the physical world. This theory is obviously incommensurable with materialist theories which believe qualia to be either an illusion or merely reducible to physical processes. Furthermore, it is inconsistant with panpsychism since it limits consciousness to humans and does not hold it to be a natural process which permeates all of reality. Finally, it is incommensurable with idealism insofar as it does maintain the reality of the physical world, it merely postulates an additional irreducible property that interacts with the physical, as opposed to doing away with the physical world completely as idealist theories are prone to doing.

• Consciousness Collapse Theory (Keith Ward)

Here is where the debate about consciousness begins to take on incommensurable interpretations of quantum physics. As discussed in chapter 1, one aspect of the crisis in classical mechanics was regarding the double slit experiment, the results of which change whether or not the experiment is being observed. This experiment continues to raise many questions about the fundamental nature of reality, and different theories of consciousness also interpret its findings in often contradictory ways. Consciousness collapse theory, a form of dualism, postulates that consciousness plays a crucial role in collapsing quantum wavefunctions. Basically, the act of conscious observation itself is what collapses the waveform, thus causing the definite states of reality we experience in the world. This means that consciousness is not just a passive byproduct of the brain or the physical world more broadly, but instead plays an integral part in shaping the physical world.

This theory is incommensurable with materialist theories of consciousness in that it interprets the findings of quantum mechanics in such a way as to allow a role for consciousness as a separate and fundamental aspect of reality, wholly distinct from, but necessary for, the physical world. It is thus contradictory to materialism specifically in how it does not see consciousness as a passive, dependent process arising from the physical. Additionally, it is incompatible with panpsychism even though both hold consciousness to be a fundamental component of reality, since it does not see consciousness as present even in the smallest particles, but only in the minds of higher beings like humans which cause the collapse of quantum states, not in the least because under a panpsychist framework , if all of the universe were conscious, all waveforms would always be being observed at all times by this universal consciousness and thus would then never be in a superposition. They would always have been collapsed as they would always be observed. Finally. Consciousness collapse theory is incommensurable with idealism since it does not hold that reality is fundamentally mental and it does still have a place for physical reality as well as mental.

   C. Problems

Much like with materialist theories, dualist theories suffer from a large glaring issue which can make them hard for many thinkers to subscribe to. This is known as the interaction problem. The gist of this problem is that, under dualist theories, the mental and physical worlds are wholly different things which interact but are not part of the same system. The question is then, if they are so disparate, how can they possibly interact with one another? How does consciousness cause the waveform to collapse? How does one will their legs to move using only mental processes and then cause the physical legs to move if these are two distinct systems made up of different fundamental things, especially considering the physical world shows all evidence of being a completely closed system? Descartes himself struggled with this same issue for his substance dualism and determined that the mind and body were able to interact through the pineal gland in the brain. This has subsequently been shown not to be the case, and this question, for dualists, remains unsolved, potentially causing many thinkers to reject dualism and perhaps move on to a panpsychist theory which does not fall victim to this particular problem.

IV. Panpsychism

Panpsychism is the philosophical view that consciousness, or some form of mental experience, is a fundamental aspect of reality and thus exists in even the smallest particles such as atoms. Panpsychism has been rising in popularity with younger philosophers in recent years and there is some evidence to suggest that consciousness as a fundamental building block of reality could solve many problems encountered in quantum mechanics as well as in the philosophy of mind.

1. Overview of Theories
2. Emergentist Panpsychism (Gregg Rosenberg/Godehard Bruntrup)

Under the emergentist theory of panpsychism, consciousness is inherent in all matter, albeit being very primitive in form in most cases. When matter is organized in particularly complex and intricate ways more complex consciousness, like that of humans, emerges. This theory is incompatible with materialism since materialism holds that consciousness is entirely a product of physical processes, while emergentist panpsychism states that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of matter itself, even holding that simple particles have a form of proto-consciousness. Furthermore, this theory is incommensurable with dualism since it does not postulate the physical and mental as two separate systems, instead blurring the line between the two. Finally, emergentist panpsychism is incompatible with idealism since idealism claims consciousness to be the fundamental substance of reality from which the material world is just an illusion or a manifestation created by that consciousness. Conversely, emergentist panpsychism maintains the reality of the material world and does see consciousness as emerging from the physical, rather than the other way around.

• Non-Layered Fusionism (William Seager)

In direct contrast with emergentist panpsychism, Seager’s theory does not maintain that consciousness arises in stages from simpler forms of existence. Instead, it suggests consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality which is “fused” together with and integrated in the physical from the start. It is thus always present, regardless of the complexity of the system. Non-layered fusionism goes on to directly contradict materialism in that it denies the idea that consciousness arises from the physical processes of the brain, instead seeing it as always present in the physical. Furthermore, it is incongruous with dualism since it denies the separation between mind and body. And finally, it is incommensurable with idealism since, although it agrees that consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, it sees the mental and physical worlds as coexisting without one being above the other.

   C. Problems            

            As mentioned previously, panpsychist theories can create problems with some interpretations of quantum theory, specifically with regards to waveform collapse. Namely, if everything is conscious then why do only certain forms of observational consciousness seem to collapse the waveform and why aren’t they just always collapsed? Some panpsychist theories attempt to answer this question, but this isn’t the only problem for panpsychism. Another major problem for panpsychism is known as the combination problem. This problem is basically the issue with trying to explain how consciousness, which panpsychists hold to be a fundamental aspect of reality present in everything, can combine to become “higher” forms of consciousness like that of humans. How are more complex, unified conscious experiences created from this universal consciousness? What creates the distinct individual consciousnesses of various beings? Of course, many theories postulate answers to this problem, but many thinkers are not convinced, and this combination problem may be one reason to look for theories of consciousness elsewhere. Perhaps in the realm of idealism.

V. Idealism

1. Overview of Theories
2. Conscious Realism (Donald Hoffman)

Conscious Realism is a form of idealism which finds its rationale and justification in science and specifically in Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Hoffman begins from the premise that natural selection does not select for veridical perception and based on this, builds the argument that our understanding of reality is thus mediated by an evolutionarily based interface which our minds create to enhance fitness. From there, he makes the case that the real underlying reality is consciousness itself and the physical world only exists in the interface created by conscious agents. This is obviously incompatible with materialism and dualism since it wholly rejects any physical world. It is also at odds with panpsychism for this same reason, since Hoffman’s view is even more radical, stating not that consciousness is a part of all physical matter, but instead that all physical matter is a manifestation of consciousness.

• QBism- Quantum Bayesianism (Christopher Fuchs)

Another theory which could be considered by some to be panpsychist, is called QBism. Under this theory, which again relies heavily on its particular interpretation of quantum mechanics, human knowledge of the world is shaped by experiences and beliefs rather than by an objective reality independent of humans. The personal knowledge and expectations from the observer, thus, are represented in the quantum states which result. This inverts the materialist theory which holds that quantum mechanics describe a reality which exists independently of observers, such theories having been called into question by variations of the double slit experiment. And it is also in contrast to dualist theories since QBism posits that the quantum world is intrinsically tied to the observer and their beliefs/experiences, basically fusing the observer and quantum into one event which do not exist independently of one another. Finally, it is incommensurable with panpsychist theories as it does not reflect consciousness as inherent in all things, instead consciousness and more specifically experience, beliefs, and expectations, are central to interpreting quantum mechanics. QBism is thus not precisely panpsychist either, but can be found to be in some ways contradictory with all categories. This is also the case for many other theories out there which do not fall neatly into any specific box. Regardless, QBism, like most idealist theories, still falls into what is known as the external world problem.

   C. Problems

            One main problem for idealist theories of consciousness is the external world problem. To put it simply, idealist theories raise the question of how one can be certain that the external world exists at all outside one’s own consciousness. Since idealism posits a reality which is fundamentally mental, this leads to issues surrounding how and why people’s perceptions align consistently with what appears to be an objective world. There is also a well-known poem alluding to this very question:

There was a young man who said “God

Must find it exceedingly odd

To think that the tree

Should continue to be

When there’s no one about in the quad.” 

(Copenhaver. 2018)

Hoffman attempts to answer the external world problem through his use of natural selection as the basis of our interface, saying that the reason we all have nearly identical experiences is because our interface creation has been shaped by the same forces of natural selection to obtain “fitness payoffs”.  Additionally, in response to this external world problem, both Hoffman and Fuchs respond that they don’t deny that the real world might exist, just that it is not physical and we are not in direct contact with it and/or that physics doesn’t tell us anything about it. This is similar to Kant’s transcendental idealism and is also a very functionalist approach. 19^th century Irish philosopher George Berkeley, who was an idealist as well, answered the external world problem quite differently than Hoffman and Fuchs, by evoking God. His response is represented by this answer to the above poem:

Dear Sir,

              Your astonishment’s odd.

I am always about in the Quad.

And that’s why the tree

Will continue to be

Since observed by

                              Yours faithfully,

                                                          God

(Copenhaver, 2018)

This is obviously not an all-exhaustive list of potential theories of consciousness, nor does it go into the depth required to fully explain the nuances of each theory in order to make a case for any specific one of them. The goal here is merely to show the breadth of the current debate and most specifically to show the many contradictions between and among them, as well as with how they interpret scientific findings differently based on their worldview. The goal here not being to fully explain all the potential theories, but to further the case for the current state of consciousness studies being located within the crisis phase according to Kuhn’s framework.

VI. Prevalence of Theories

Another symptom of the crisis phase, according to Kuhn, is the prevalence of competing theories among mainstream scientists. During this phase, as stated above, scientists turn to philosophy in order to search for answers to the anomalies which have popped up in the prevailing paradigm. For many years now the prevailing paradigm when it comes to cognitive science and the overall study of consciousness has been materialism. It has been this way since the last paradigm shift in the field following the Darwinian revolution, but with the new discoveries in neuroscience and quantum mechanics discussed in the last section materialism is facing some problems and some scientists are beginning to look to the various philosophical theories above to find answers. One study from 2022 entitled “An academic survey on theoretical foundations, common assumptions and the current state of consciousness science” asked 166 consciousness researchers from the Association of the Scientific Study of Consciousness 22 questions which aimed at getting a sense of their theoretical and methodological perspectives relating to consciousness. (Francken et al., 2022) This study helps to illustrate how spread out and often times contradictory the views within the field are becoming. One interesting result from the study looks at a couple of prominent philosophical thought experiments from the philosophy of mind. Namely philosophical zombies, and Mary’s room.

For those unacquainted with these experiments, I will summarize them briefly before proceeding. The philosophical zombie thought experiment, put forward by Chalmers in his work The Conscious Mind, explores the idea of a being which is physically identical to humans in every way but which lacks subjective experience. It acts human but has no inner experience. This thought experiment’s purpose is to argue that materialist theories cannot fully explain consciousness since it is in fact conceivable (through this thought experiment) that a materially identical being could exist without experiencing qualia. (Chalmers, 1996, pp. 94-99)

The Mary’s room thought experiment, proposed by Frank Jackson, postulates a superintelligent scientist named Mary who knows everything there is to know about the material world. Mary has always lived in a room where everything is black and white and there is no color, although since she knows everything about the physical world, she also knows everything there is to know about color, she has just never seen it herself. The question then is, if Mary were to exit the room and see color for the first time would she learn something new about the world? Is there something in the experience of color that could not be known by understanding everything there is to know about the physical world? This thought experiment’s purpose is to suggest that not all knowledge is physical and that qualia exist outside the purely physical understanding of the world. (Jackson, 1982, pp. 127)

According to the survey, the majority (66.1%) do not find the philosophical zombies from Chalmer’s thought experiment a compelling refutation of materialism, but 89.6% do believe Mary learns something new when she comes out of her black and white room and sees all the colors of the real world which previously she only knew in theory. (Francken et al., 2022) These contradictory positions support acceptance of epiphenomenal qualia from Jackson’s experiment and thus perhaps his advocacy of a form of property dualism while also going against Chalmers’ experiment which points to the same. While this may be due to the credibility and scope of each specific thought experiment, it may also be one more piece of evidence of the anomalous cracks in the foundation of materialism, further signaling the crisis phase.

Another interesting result from the survey is that a small majority do believe in the so-called explanatory gap, which suggests they do believe in the credibility the hard problem poses to materialist theories of consciousness. They believe this while still being a majority materialists themselves, with 71.5% of respondents believing it is possible to have a fully biological explanation of consciousness. Another contradiction, another piece of evidence for crisis. Additionally, Dennett’s’ materialist Multiple Drafts Model did not fare well, with only 16.8% of respondents calling it “promising”, While Integrated Information Theory (IIT) received 44.9% “promising” responses. (Francken et al., 2022)

(Francken et al., 2022)

With many prominent scientists adopting theories like neuroscientist Giulio Tononi’s (IIT), which does not fit neatly into any of the above philosophical categories but which does align with aspects of panpsychism with its neutral monism while also being staunchly not materialist, we can see that the scientific community is searching for answers outside what is typically considered acceptable under the prevailing paradigm. Furthermore, as Hoffman explains in his book, many new scientific discoveries have thrown spacetime into question and many physicists even agree with the assessment that: “Physics tell us that spacetime is ‘doomed’…If spacetime is not fundamental reality, then neither are its contents, such as particles, neurons, and brains. They are useful data structures, nothing more.” (Hoffman, 2024) This leads to some scientists flirting with ideas like QBism or Hoffman’s own Conscious Realism, both forms of Idealism.

All of this to say, while the majority of the field may still purport to be materialist, the number of those questioning as well as the anomalies and contradictions within their beliefs continues to grow.

VII Conclusion

This chapter has examined the current state of consciousness studies, demonstrating that the field is entrenched in the crisis phase according to Kuhn’s paradigm theory. The discussion highlighted that the dominance of materialism is increasingly challenged by its inability to address fundamental issues, such as explaining the subjective nature of experience and answering the hard problem of consciousness. This struggle is compounded by problems within dualist theories, which face difficulties in reconciling the interaction between distinct mental and physical systems. Panpsychism encounters issues like explaining how consciousness combines in complex systems, while idealist theories grapple with the external world problem, questioning the existence of a reality independent of consciousness.

This chapter then went on to look at recent surveys of consciousness researchers to illustrate the shift in thought away from strict materialism. For example, a significant number of respondents acknowledged the problem of subjective experience as an unresolved issue in materialist theories, even while maintaining materialist views. This illustrates a growing recognition of the limitations of materialism and an openness to alternative theories. The rise of these alternative perspectives underscores the crisis phase, as the scientific community increasingly explores options beyond the materialist framework. The search for new explanations and the internal contradictions within existing theories reflect a period of profound reevaluation and uncertainty in consciousness studies, setting the stage for a potential paradigm shift.

Summary and a Look Towards the Future

Throughout this paper, various forms of evidence have been put forward in order to make the case that consciousness studies are in the crisis phase of Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions, thus placing those studies on the brink of a paradigm shift. In this section, I will compile and summarize those arguments in order to support that thesis. Following the summary, I will briefly shift attention forward to anticipate what the truth of this thesis statement could potentially mean for the future of the field, followed by a brief conclusion.

I. Evidence supporting the Crisis Phase

A. Anomalies and Contradictions

            Materialism, being the dominant paradigm in consciousness studies since roughly the conclusion of the Darwinian revolution, has been increasingly challenged by anomalies and contradictions. From the materialist perspective, consciousness is a byproduct of physical processes of the brain and thus, according to many, it lacks a sufficient answer for the existence of qualia and why individuals have subjective, qualitative experiences. For instance, while materialist theories like Dennett’s Multiple Drafts Model and Kim’s Supervenience Physicalism attempt to account for consciousness, they have not resolved the fundamental problems of explaining subjective experience and the nature of qualia sufficiently enough for many scientists and philosophers in the field. The acceptance of epiphenomenal qualia by a majority of researchers, despite their prevalent materialist stance, indicates a growing recognition of the limitations within the materialist paradigm. This acknowledgment of qualia as a distinct aspect of experience, which materialism struggles to explain, points towards a fundamental issue within the current theoretical framework. Furthermore, the observation that materialist theories like Dennett’s have not received strong endorsement compared to alternative theories such as IIT reflects a shift in scientific consensus. The field is increasingly exploring theories that address the anomalies materialism cannot, indicating a transition towards new paradigms. This and many other studies which point out the various contradictions and changing opinions further point towards the current state as crisis.

This state of affairs is exactly as described in Kuhn’s work when explaining the crisis phase, as was illustrated by comparing the current state of discourse in consciousness studies to historical examples of previous scientific revolutions. In chapter 1, the path of consciousness studies was traced and compared to the various examples of the different phases of scientific revolutions, highlighting the similarities in the different stages and making a strong case for current consciousness studies being firmly placed within the crisis phase.

B. Divergence and Emerging Theories

            The increasing recognition of various shortcomings in the dominant paradigm has led to a proliferation of competing alternative theories which are incommensurable with materialism. The survey by Francken et al. (2022) reveals a significant portion of consciousness researchers acknowledging the explanatory gap and expressing skepticism towards traditional materialist models. For example IIT, which suggests consciousness arises from the integration of information within complex systems, as well as other non-materialist theories gaining traction, challenge the dominant viewpoint by proposing that consciousness might be a fundamental aspect of reality rather than merely an emergent property of physical processes.

Moreover, the rise of idealist theories such as Donald Hoffman’s Conscious Realism, which posits consciousness as the foundation of reality and states that the physical world is merely a construct of conscious perception, further highlights the crisis within the materialist framework. Similarly, QBism suggests that quantum states are shaped by the observer’s experience and beliefs, challenging materialist assumptions about objective reality and the independence of the physical world from consciousness. While materialist theories still hold a majority, openness to competing theories is growing across the field. All of this lends further evidence to the current field of consciousness studies being located within the crisis phase.

C. Conclusion

The accumulation of anomalies in the field, the contradictions within materialism, and the prevalence of diverse and innovative theories collectively demonstrate that consciousness studies are in the crisis phase. This phase is characterized by the recognition of significant problems with the prevailing paradigm and the active search for new frameworks to better understand consciousness. The ongoing exploration of non-materialist theories and the increasing acceptance of previously fringe ideas underscore the transformative period the field is undergoing. As researchers continue to grapple with the limitations of materialism and explore alternative explanations the stage is set for a potential paradigm shift in the study of consciousness.

II. A Look towards the Future

In the wake of the crisis phase in consciousness studies, the field is poised to enter the revolutionary phase, where new paradigms begin to gain traction as viable alternatives to the long-standing materialist framework. This shift is already evident as researchers increasingly turn to theories such as dualism, panpsychism, and idealism to address the limitations of materialism, particularly in explaining the nature of subjective experience and the hard problem of consciousness. During this revolutionary phase, intensive exploration and debate will center on these emerging theories. Their ability to provide satisfactory explanations for phenomena that materialism struggled with will be critically tested. Theoretical and empirical advancements will shape the evolution of these new paradigms as they vie to offer more comprehensive accounts of consciousness.

The progression through Kuhn’s phases of scientific revolution is influenced by ongoing research, philosophical discourse, and empirical findings. As consciousness studies advance, the revolutionary phase will continue to be marked by the active testing and refinement of new theories. The eventual establishment of a new dominant paradigm will signify a transformative shift in understanding consciousness, potentially leading to innovative approaches and methodologies that redefine the field. This evolution will reflect a broader scientific and philosophical commitment to resolving the enduring mysteries of consciousness and integrating new perspectives into a cohesive framework.

As the field transitions into the post-revolution phase, a new dominant paradigm in consciousness studies will emerge, consolidating the insights gained from the revolutionary phase. This phase will involve the integration of successful new theories into mainstream scientific understanding, as the field coalesces around a framework that effectively addresses the anomalies and gaps that materialism could not resolve. For example, if a panpsychist or idealist theory is found to more coherently explain the nature of consciousness and its relation to the physical world, it may become the new guiding paradigm, fundamentally changing how we think about reality and our place in it. The post-revolution phase will be characterized by increased stability and coherence, with the new paradigm shaping research directions, methodologies, and interpretations in consciousness studies going forward.

Conclusion

This dissertation has explored the evolving landscape of consciousness studies, revealing a field poised on the brink of a transformative paradigm shift. Chapter 1 set the stage by giving some background on Thomas Kuhn and his work regarding how scientific revolutions take place by detailing the specifics of the various phases, and most importantly, comparing the current state of consciousness studies to historical examples in order to pinpoint current discourse within the crisis phase thus poised for a paradigm shift.

Chapter 2 provided a brief examination of the four major philosophical schools regarding consciousness: materialism, dualism, panpsychism, and idealism as well as some of the various theories which fall underneath them. Each was scrutinized for its theoretical contributions and inherent problems. Materialism faces challenges such as the hard problem of qualia, dualism struggles with the interaction problem, panpsychism grapples with the combination problem, and idealism contends with the external world problem. These issues highlight the limitations and conflicts within current theories, their incommensurability underscoring the necessity of a paradigm shift. This chapter also went on to further support the argument for a coming paradigm shift by analyzing contemporary beliefs and emerging theories in the field. The growing acceptance of ideas that deviate from traditional materialism, alongside the increasing number of scientists exploring unconventional theories, illustrates the field’s readiness for revolutionary change. This shift in perspective, combined with new discoveries in neuroscience and quantum mechanics, suggests that the field is on the cusp said change.

In conclusion, I have made the case for the current state of consciousness studies being on the brink of a paradigm shift, and looked forward to the future to consider what may be on the horizon based on this assessment. As consciousness studies progresses toward a new paradigm, the potential for groundbreaking discoveries is immense. The future promises to bring exciting and mind-expanding findings that will not only deepen our understanding of consciousness but also potentially transform our conception of reality itself. I, for one, am excited to see what is coming.

Bibliography

Albantakis L, Barbosa L, Findlay G, Grasso M, Haun AM, Marshall W, et al. (2023) Integrated information theory (IIT) 4.0: Formulating the properties of phenomenal existence in physical terms. PLoS Comput Biol 19(10): e1011465. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011465Bird, Alexander, (2022) “Thomas Kuhn”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/thomas-kuhn/.

Bruentrup, Godehard. (2016). Emergent Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199359943.003.0003.

Chalmers, D. (2022) Dualism and Idealism in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics lecture, Mind and Agency in the Foundations of Quantum Physics May31- Jun 3, 2022 Accessed from YouTube on February 17^th 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5TnJmfNiqY

Chalmers, D. (1996) The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press

Chalmers, D. (2019). Idealism and the mind-body problem 1. The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism, 353–373. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717708-28

Copenhaver, B. (2018, November 26). The idealisms of Bishop Berkeley and Abate Rosmini. Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/37856180/The_Idealisms_of_Bishop_Berkeley_and_Abate_Rosmini

Dennett, D. C. (2007). Consciousness explained. Back Bay Books, Little, Brown.

Downing, L. (2021). George Berkeley. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/berkeley/

Eyer, S. (2009). Translation from Plato’s Republic 514b–518d (Allegory of the Cave). Ahiman: A Review of Masonic Culture and Tradition, 1, Pp. 73-78.

Franken, J. C., Beerendonk, L., Molenaar, D., Fahrenfort, J. J., Kiverstein, J. D., Seth, A. K., & van Gaal, S. (2022). An academic survey on theoretical foundations, common assumptions and the current state of consciousness science. Neuroscience of consciousness, 2022(1), niac011. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niac011

Fuchs, C. (2010). QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1003.5209

Gimbel, Steven. (2015). Professor, Gettysburg College. Great Courses Lecture Series. Redefining Reality: The Intellectual Implications of Modern Science. Lecture 15 Genes and Identity

Goff, P., Seager, W., & Allen-Hermanson, S. (2022). Panpsychism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/panpsychism/

Grim, Patrick. (2017). Professor, State University of New York, Stony Brook. Great Courses Lecture Series. Mind-Body Philosophy. Lecture 12: Rival Psychologies of the Mind

Guyer, P., & Horstmann, R-P. (2023). Idealism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/idealism/

Hoffman, D. (2008). Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem. Department of Cognitive Science, University of California at Irvine, USA.

Hoffman, D. (2018). The Interface Theory of Perception. In The Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Chapter 16.

Hoffman, D. (2020). The Case against reality: Why evolution hid the truth from our eyes. Penguin Random House UK.

Hoffman, D. D. (2024). Spacetime Is Doomed: Time Is an Artifact. Timing & Time Perception 12, 2, 189-191, Available From: Brill https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-bja10096 [Accessed 11 August 2024]

Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960077

Kim, J. (1984). Epiphenomenal and supervenient causation. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 9(1), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1984.tb00063.x

Koch, C., & Crick, F. (2001). The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach. Roberts & Company Publishers.

Kuhn, T. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press

Mills, A. (n.d.).Philosophy 210/310 Early Modern Philosophy. Berkeley limericks. http://faculty.otterbein.edu/AMills/EarlyModern/brklim.htm

Rohlf, M. (2023). Immanuel Kant. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/kant/

Seager, W. (2010). Panpsychism, Aggregation and Combinatorial Infusion. Mind & Matter, 8, 167–184.

Shermer, M. (2015). Perception Deception. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/perception-deception/

Van Gulick, R. (Winter 2022 Edition), “Consciousness”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/consciousness/&gt;.

Ward, K. (13 March 2008). The Triumph of Idealism – Transcript and video. London: Gresham College. Other lectures with transcripts, recorded 2004–2015, are also available on the Gresham College YouTube channel.

Worth Jr, P. & Pande, S. (2022). Idealogical Reference Architecture (IRA) an epistemological interpretation of quantum mechanics.