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.