The Study of Consciousness Is Mired in Complexities and Difficulties: Can They Be Resolved?

The author argues that progress in consciousness research is hindered by imprecise language, conflated terminology, and a lack of operational definitions. A review of historical and current definitions reveals a plethora of overlapping concepts. The paper critiques the search for neural correlates of consciousness, calling for greater semantic clarity. It discusses whether consciousness should be understood as a process rather than a tangible thing located within the nervous system. Suggestions for improving discourse include adhering more strictly to operational definitions and reconsidering the conceptual foundations of the field.

Study at a glance

Abstract

This paper explores several etymological, semantic, sociolinguistic, and methodological issues that have, in my opinion, impeded the progress of consciousness research and discourse; and I offer some suggestions that are hopefully worthy of consideration and further discussion. I review the historical and extant conflation of terms in the literature; a plethora of published definitions and types of consciousness; and I call for greater “semantic lucidity”. I critique the rationale underpinning the search for the neural correlates of consciousness; advocate for greater adherence to the requirements of an operational definition in research; and discuss the notion of consciousness as a ‘process’ versus the premise of consciousness as a tangible ‘thing’ that can somehow be found in a particular locus within the material substrate of the nervous system.