Skip to content

The science of consciousness: in search of a paradigm?

Mikhail A. Sushchin

Philosophy Journal May 1, 2024 DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2024-17-2-153-167 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Keywords Consciousness Cognitive science Epistemology
Key points Argues that theoretical monism is inappropriate for cognitive science and consciousness studies, and that computational theories of consciousness should be judged by empirical adequacy rather than falsifiability.

Abstract

This article considers some important methodological questions related to the develop­ment of modern science of consciousness: the question of a search for a grand unified theory, determining an optimal explanatory strategy, virtues of computational theories of consciousness. The author draws on the fact of close interaction between the modern consciousness studies and cognitive sciences. Linking the idea of a grand unified theory to the image of paradigm elaborated by Kuhn, the author argues against theoretical monism in both the cognitive sciences and the science of consciousness. It is further ar­gued that choice of an optimal explanatory strategy in both the cognitive sciences and consciousness studies should be determined by the character of the subject matter itself. While in the case of the cognitive sciences the evidence speaks in favor of explanatory pluralism, the science of consciousness may indeed require a unified explanatory strategy. It is asserted that in the absence of breakthroughs in predicting novel empirical phenom­ena or unintended explanations of known facts, etc., the criterion of empirical adequacy should play the key role in theory assessment. Thus, currently, computational and other theories of consciousness should be primarily judged by their empirical adequacy and not by their potential falsifiability. The latter should be understood as a methodological regu­lative principle, but not as a panacea for improving theories or a demarcation criterion.