Whether consciousness arises entirely within the brain or involves processes beyond it has long been debated in scientific and philosophical circles. Historically, most academics have associated consciousness with neurons firing and communicating information; however, precisely how neural activity gives rise to subjective experience remains an open question.

Neuroscientist and consciousness researcher Christof Koch, a former faculty member at institutions including MIT and Caltech, challenges academics to take a closer look at what philosophers call the “hard problem” of consciousness: how the physical processes of the brain could produce subjective experiences in humans.

Earlier this year, Koch presented his arguments at the “Behind and Beyond the Brain” Symposium organized by the Bial Foundation, where he argued that the nature of consciousness, as well as phenomena like near-death experiences, may require a broader scientific framework.

Koch focused on three areas. First is the physical brain itself; second is the question of how we can truly agree on what is “real.” What does blue actually look like to you? What does pain feel like? These questions are difficult to answer scientifically as universal truths.

Third are unexplained experiences that may not fit neatly within a materialistic scientific framework, such as near-death experiences.

Revisiting an old approach 

Looking at older philosophical models might lead researchers toward new understandings or modern ways of approaching consciousness. Koch points to concepts such as idealism and panpsychism.

Idealism holds that consciousness or mind is fundamental to reality—mind comes first, matter second—while panpsychism holds that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe.

If mainstream science adopted such a shift, it could profoundly change how we understand ourselves. A paradigm shift of sorts may be coming for humanity, potentially through the integration of these ideas and a move away from strictly materialistic approaches to consciousness.

Koch points to these concepts as potential frameworks in which consciousness remains a fundamental aspect of reality. He also supports the controversial Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which proposes that systems possessing sufficiently integrated information may have some form of subjective experience.

Consciousness in Perspective

For additional perspectives, The Debrief reached out to Julia Mossbridge, a neuroscientist and Sr Distinguished Fellow in AI, Mind and Society at Florida Atlantic University, and co-author of Transcendent Mind: Rethinking the Science of Consciousness (2017), the first American Psychological Association textbook on consciousness to not assume consciousness is reducible to brain activity.

“To many neuroscientists, the brain is starting to seem more like a radio receiver and potentially also a transmitter of consciousness,” Mossbridge said in an email to The Debrief. “The idea that’s losing more ground with every new credible report of so-called ‘anomalous cognition’ is the old one—that the brain creates consciousness like the gallbladder creates bile. Maybe it’s more apt to compare the brain to the heart—it doesn’t create blood, it circulates it. But because you can use a machine to circulate the blood, it’s very clear the heart is important, but in modern times, not essential for circulation.”

Mossbridge points to reports of what she calls “veridical conscious observations” that occur when a patient’s brain shows little or no measurable activity to researchers, or what is described as “brain death,” as proof that consciousness may not be produced entirely by the brain.

These experiences led Mossbridge to consider the brain as a “transformer of consciousness rather than a creator of it.” She compares the relationship to a broken radio: “If you have a disruption in your brain, like a broken radio, you might have a disruption of consciousness.”

To test this hypothesis, Mossbridge says researchers could investigate whether people can perceive and later accurately recall “veridical information” while in deep sleep or under general anesthesia. Although she acknowledges that even positive findings might have another explanation, noting that they “could be explained by basic psychic functioning using some unknown physical mechanism.”

“So if that kind of experiment produces a positive result, and is replicated, you either have to argue that psychic ability is real but is something the brain does nonlocally (like maybe through entanglement) or that consciousness can wander from the body and observe things, or both,” Mossbridge concluded.

“The physical but nonlocal explanation is a bit like a heart pumping the blood, the brain guiding consciousness. The consciousness-wandering explanation is a bit like a heart being fully separated from the blood–and another method is used to circulate consciousness.”

“Either way, the standard model fails,” she added.

Taken together, Koch and Mossbridge’s perspectives point to a provocative possibility: that understanding consciousness may ultimately require science to reconsider some of its most fundamental assumptions about the relationship between mind, brain, and reality.

Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and founder of VOCAB Communications. She hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on The Debrief’s YouTube Channel. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton and at chrissynewton.com.

Throughout recorded history, humans have experienced events that challenge their understanding of reality. These include purported out-of-body and near-death experiences, anomalous events or perceptions, and even profound spiritual awakenings.

Depending on an individual’s culture, belief system, or worldview, these experiences may be interpreted as mythical, psychological, pathological, or even deeply spiritual. However, a new study by Ronald Fischer of the Instituto D’Or de Pesquisa e Ensino in São Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues suggests that these types of experiences may be more universal than previously thought.

Published in PLOS ONE, the research team took a deeper look into how people understand or personally interpret “nonordinary experiences,” what those factors might include, and how they could be seen as distress or personal growth. 

The Study 

The researchers examined how thousands of people interpreted unusual experiences. For example, one person might view an out-of-body or near-death experience as evidence of a spiritual awakening, while another might interpret the same event as a neurological phenomenon or the result of normal brain chemistry.

Similarly, hearing voices may be regarded as a symptom of mental illness in some cultures, while others interpret it as a spiritual or supernatural experience. The study argues that both perspectives can be valid, depending on the individual’s cultural and personal framework.

“Experiences like sensing a presence, having a vision, or feeling as though you are observing yourself from outside your own body are far more common in the general population than clinical diagnosis rates would suggest,” Fischer said in a statement. “We observed that most people in our sample of over 5000 participants who report them are not unwell, and most describe them as neutral or positive — both at the time they occur and also when looking back and reflecting on that experience.” 

The research team first reviewed and validated the Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences. They then developed a questionnaire designed to assess both the universal and cultural influences shaping participants’ interpretations of these events. After refining the survey based on feedback from 160 Brazilian participants, the researchers administered the final 47-question questionnaire to 5,117 individuals representing the general population.

“Previous research has often failed to differentiate the experience and how people make sense of such diverse and challenging experiences,” Fischer explained. “Our work stands out in that we squarely focus on where and when these experiences happened and how people tried to make sense of them.”

“By clearly separating the context, the experience and the meaning-making processes, the patterns we observe challenge various assumptions that have guided previous theory, research but also clinical practice,” he added. 

Among the findings, 20% of participants reported that their nonordinary experience had a negative impact, while 25% said it caused suffering or discomfort. However, 51% reported that their experience ultimately produced positive long-term effects.

The researchers also found that 39% of participants experienced these events while alone, and approximately 57% reported being awake and alert at the time. While some participants attributed their experiences to random chance, most reported having at least some degree of perceived control over the experience.

“For many people, such experiences can be meaningful and lead to personal growth and insight,” Fischer says. “Highlighting these possible positive outcomes is important to help people make sense of them and help to normalize them. Importantly, we hope our work can help to remove stigma by focusing on the diverse ways that people experience and make sense of them.”

“However, we would also stress that if people feel that these experiences interfere with their daily activities, then they should talk to a professional or seek help from somebody that they trust,” Fischer adds.

Overall, the survey challenges the assumption that anomalous experiences should primarily be viewed through the lens of mental illness.

“What struck us was the mismatch. These experiences share features with symptoms used to define psychosis and dissociation yet are frequently observed in a general-population sample,” said Pedro Fortes, a Researcher at the Instituto D’Or de Pesquisa e Ensino (IDOR). “Our prevalence study suggests they most often arrive in entirely ordinary moments, when we’re awake, alert, and by ourselves, and are commonly remembered as meaningful rather than frightening.”

Jorge Moll, neurologist and neuroscientist at the Instituto D’Or de Pesquisa e Ensino (IDOR), adds that “How a person interprets an unusual experience matters more than the experience itself in determining whether it becomes a source of distress or of meaning.”

“That has direct consequences for how clinicians and families respond when someone describes something extraordinary,” Moll concluded. 

Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.