An academic survey on theoretical foundations, common assumptions and the current state of the field of consciousness science
Jolien C. Francken, L. Beerendonk, D. Molenaar, Johannes Jacobus Fahrenfort, Julian Kiverstein, A. Seth, Simon van Gaal
June 14, 2021 preprint DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/8mbsk (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Survey |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 232 |
| Population | Active consciousness scientists (philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, computer science; junior/senior faculty, graduate/undergraduate students) |
| Citations | 23 |
| Key findings | A majority of respondents believe machines could have consciousness, that consciousness is gradual in the animal kingdom, and that unconscious processing includes both low- and high-level cognitive functions. |
Abstract
We report the results of an academic survey into the theoretical and methodological foundations, common assumptions and the current state of the field of consciousness science. The survey consisted of 22 questions, was distributed online and at two different occasions of the annual meeting of the Association of the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC, 2018 and 2019), targeting active scientists in the field only. We examined responses from 232 consciousness scientists with different backgrounds (e.g., philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, computer science) and at various stages of their careers (e.g., junior/senior faculty, graduate/undergraduate students). The results reveal that there remains considerable discussion and debate between researchers about the definition of consciousness and the way it should be studied. To highlight a few observations, a majority of respondents believe that machines could have consciousness, that consciousness is a gradual phenomenon in the animal kingdom and that unconscious processing is extensive, encompassing both low-level as well as high-level cognitive functions. Further, we show which theories of consciousness are currently considered most promising and how supposedly different theories cluster together, which dependent measures are considered the best for indexing the presence or absence of consciousness, and which neural measures are thought to be the most likely signatures of consciousness. These findings provide us with a snapshot of current dominant views of professional researchers in the field and therefore may help to prioritize research and theoretical approaches to foster progress.
Citations in the library
Cited by 8
- An adversarial collaboration protocol for testing contrasting predictions of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theory PLoS One February 10, 2023
- What is a Pseudoscience of Consciousness? Lessons from Recent Adversarial Collaborations September 17, 2023
- Markers of consciousness in infants: Towards a 'cluster-based' approach. Acta Paediatrica February 1, 2025
- The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness as Pseudoscience PsyArXiv September 16, 2023
- Consciousness, Machines, and Ethics Proceedings September 22, 2022
and 3 more in the library
Cites 42
- On a confusion about a function of consciousness Behavioral and Brain Sciences June 1, 1995
- An information integration theory of consciousness BMC Neuroscience November 2, 2004
- Consciousness as Integrated Information: a Provisional Manifesto Biological Bulletin December 1, 2008
- A Theoretically Based Index of Consciousness Independent of Sensory Processing and Behavior Science Translational Medicine August 14, 2013
- Theories of consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience July 1, 2022
and 37 more in the library