An academic survey on theoretical foundations, common assumptions and the current state of the field of consciousness science

A survey of 232 active consciousness scientists reveals ongoing debate about the definition of consciousness and how to study it. Most respondents believe machines could have consciousness, that consciousness is gradual across the animal kingdom, and that unconscious processing is extensive, covering both low- and high-level cognition. The results identify which theories of consciousness are considered most promising, how different theories cluster, which behavioral measures best index consciousness, and which neural measures are most likely signatures of consciousness. These findings offer a snapshot of dominant views among professionals, potentially helping to prioritize research and theoretical approaches.

Study at a glance

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.