The Schismogenesis of Consciousness Science
Francesco Ellia, Naotsugu Tsuchiya
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) March 2, 2026 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18833420 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that theoretical conflicts in consciousness research reflect deeper methodological commitments rather than empirical disagreements, and proposes a meta-theoretical framework with three dimensions to resolve these debates. |
Abstract
Recent advances in consciousness neuroscience have exposed a critical impasse: competing theoretical frameworks, structuralist vs. functionalist (Fleming & Shea 2024, 2024b; Song 2024, Ellia & Tsuchiya 2024; Kleiner 2024), universal vs. local (Albantakis et al. 2023; Kanai & Fujisawa 2024; Fleming 2024); intrinsic vs. extrinsic (Cohen and Dennett 2011; Doerig et al. 2019; Tsuchiya et al 2020; Negro 2020; Ellia et al. 2021), appear to be inducing philosophical deadlocks and conceptual standstills. While these debates have generated valuable insights, they have proceeded in parallel, without a systematic understanding of their relationships and implications. In this contribution, we argue that these parallel disputes reflect deeper, unresolved tensions in conceptualizing consciousness. Thus, we argue that these debates can be resolved by introducing a meta-theoretical framework composed of three fundamental dimensions that encompass all models of consciousness: (1) intrinsic (firstperson) vs. extrinsic (third-person) perspectives, (2) universal (substrate- independent) vs. local (human-specific) scope, and (3) structure (formal organization) vs. function (cognitive roles) These dimensions interact in revealing ways. Understanding these interactions helps reveal potential blind spots in current frameworks. Our analysis reveals a fundamental clustering into extrinsic-local-functional and intrinsic-universal-structural approaches to consciousness, suggesting that theoretical conflicts reflect deeper methodological commitments rather than empirical disagreements, offering new pathways for investigation and transforming apparent deadlocks into tractable disagreements about dimensional priorities. Thus, our framework’s impact extends beyond theory, bridging the gap between foundational debates and translational applications.