Explanation, scope, and perspective: sources of schismogenesis in consciousness science.
Francesco Ellia, Naotsugu Tsuchiya
Trends in Cognitive Sciences April 7, 2026 DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2026.03.005 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Functions Structures Theories of consciousness Universality |
| Key points | Proposes that three meta-theoretical dimensions—explanatory medium, scope, and perspective—can reframe theoretical conflicts in consciousness science into tractable disagreements. |
Abstract
Contemporary consciousness science faces an impasse: competing theoretical frameworks-structuralist versus functionalist, universal versus local, intrinsic versus extrinsic-appear to be inducing philosophical deadlocks and conceptual standstills. While these debates have generated valuable insights, they have proceeded in parallel, without a systematic framework for understanding their relationships and implications. We contend that these parallel disputes reflect deeper, unresolved tensions in the conceptualization of consciousness. These debates can be addressed by recognizing three fundamental dimensions that encompass models of consciousness at a meta-theoretical level: explanatory medium, scope, and perspective. We show the interplay among different dimensions and how they mutually condition evidence, language, and concepts, reframing theoretical conflicts into tractable disagreements.