Explanatory profiles of models of consciousness - towards a systematic classification

Abstract

Models of consciousness aim to inspire new experimental protocols and aid interpretation of empirical evidence to reveal the structure of conscious experience. Nevertheless, no current model is univocally accepted on either theoretical or empirical grounds. Moreover, a straightforward comparison is difficult for conceptual reasons. In particular, we argue that different models explicitly or implicitly subscribe to different notions of what constitutes a satisfactory explanation, use different tools in their explanatory endeavours and even aim to explain very different phenomena. We thus present a framework to compare existing models in the field with respect to what we call their 'explanatory profiles'. We focus on the following minimal dimensions: mode of explanation, mechanisms of explanation and target of explanation. We also discuss the empirical consequences of the discussed discrepancies among models. This approach may eventually lead to identifying driving assumptions, theoretical commitments, experimental predictions and a better design of future testing experiments. Finally, our conclusion points to more integrative theoretical research, where axiomatic models may play a critical role in solving current theoretical and experimental contradictions.

Keywords: NCCs; explanation; global workspace; integrated information; models of consciousness; phenomenology; quality; quantity; unification.

Figure 1.

Philosophy and models of consciousness. Relationships and influences between philosophy and early and contemporary models of consciousness.

Figure 2.

Models Classification. The selected models inhabit different explanatory spaces according to our three analytical dimensions. After scanning the literature, summarizing and discussing main tendencies in light of three-axis classification in Table 1, each author independently scored models between 1 and 3: 1 corresponds to a slightly commitment to the direction of the axis and 3 a strong commitment. 0 value was used any time that the model does not qualify for the + or − direction. This quantification is provisional; it only intents to illustrate our framework and it is not based on statistical data (see details in section Supplementary data: Scoring Method).