Human consciousness versus the scientific method
Debrayan Bravo Hidalgo, Nancy del Rocío Flores Hinojosa, Liliana del Carmen Morillo Acosta
International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews October 23, 2026 DOI: 10.55248/gengpi.07.1026.34056 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Bibliometric analysis Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Population | 1,143 Scopus documents published between 1990 and 2024 |
| Key points | Publications on consciousness have risen steadily, particularly since 2018, confirming an interdisciplinary field dominated by biomedical sciences alongside humanities and social approaches. The authors argue that science has mapped correlates of consciousness but lacks a comprehensive explanatory theory, and that AI shows no empirical evidence of consciousness in the strict sense. They contend, drawing on Nagel, that the scientific framework should expand beyond reductionism. |
Abstract
This study explores how science has approached the complex phenomenon of human consciousness, emphasizing the challenges of addressing subjectivity through objective and replicable methodologies. A bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Scopus database, identifying 1,143 documents between 1990 and 2024. The results show a steady increase in publications, particularly since 2018, confirming the consolidation of an interdisciplinary field where medicine, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and social sciences converge. The data reveal the predominance of biomedical sciences, complemented by humanities and social approaches that highlight ethical and philosophical debates. Methodological strategies include psychophysics, behavioral designs, neuroimaging, clinical case studies, theoretical models such as Global Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory, as well as phenomenological and neuroethical perspectives. Artificial Intelligence (AI) was also examined in this context: while AI offers powerful tools for data analysis and hypothesis testing, there is no empirical evidence that it possesses consciousness in the strict sense, underscoring the need to differentiate between cognitive functionality and phenomenological experience. Epistemologically, the study engages with Thomas Nagel’s critique of neo-Darwinian materialism, arguing for the need to expand the scientific framework beyond reductionism to account for rationality, subjectivity, and teleological dimensions of reality. The findings confirm that although science has made significant progress in mapping the correlates of consciousness, a comprehensive explanatory theory remains elusive. Future research should integrate interdisciplinary methodologies and broaden epistemological paradigms to better understand consciousness as a fundamental aspect of existence.