Explanation, scope, and perspective: sources of schismogenesis in consciousness science.

Contemporary consciousness science is stuck in an impasse because competing theoretical frameworks—such as structuralist versus functionalist, universal versus local, and intrinsic versus extrinsic approaches—are creating philosophical deadlocks and conceptual standstills. These parallel debates have generated insights but lack a systematic framework to understand their relationships. The authors argue that these disputes reflect deeper unresolved tensions in how consciousness is conceptualized. They propose that the debates can be addressed by recognizing three fundamental meta-theoretical dimensions: explanatory medium, scope, and perspective. The interplay among these dimensions shapes evidence, language, and concepts, reframing theoretical conflicts into tractable disagreements.

Study at a glance

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.