What Happens If Science Finally Explains Consciousness? A New Study Explores the Consequences

Consciousness has long been one of science’s most stubborn mysteries. We can map the brain in exquisite detail, decode neural circuits, and even build machines that rival human abilities in language and pattern recognition. Yet, the most basic question remains unanswered: how does physical brain activity become subjective experience?

A new study published in Frontiers in Science takes a sweeping look at that problem to ask where consciousness science currently stands, where it may be headed, and what would happen if researchers actually succeed.

Written by preeminent neuroscientists, Dr. Axel Cleeremans, Dr. Liad Mudrik, and Dr. Anil K. Seth, the paper serves as both a progress report and a roadmap for one of the most ambitious scientific efforts of the 21st century.

Authors argue that consciousness research is at a turning point. After decades spent identifying neural correlates—patterns of brain activity associated with conscious experience—the field is slowly shifting toward something more demanding: testable theories that can explain not just where consciousness happens, but how and why it arises.

“Understanding the biophysical basis of consciousness remains a substantial challenge for 21st-century science,” researchers write. “This endeavor is becoming even more pressing in light of accelerating progress in artificial intelligence and other technologies.”

That sense of urgency runs throughout the paper. As AI systems become more sophisticated and brain-like organoids are grown in laboratories, questions that once belonged to philosophy are starting to carry real ethical, legal, and technological weight. Determining what is conscious—and how to tell—may soon have consequences far beyond academic debate.

From correlates to explanations

For much of the last three decades, consciousness research has focused on identifying neural correlates of consciousness, or NCCs. Using tools like fMRI, EEG, and brain stimulation, scientists have linked conscious experience to activity in specific brain networks, particularly within the thalamocortical system.

Some regions, such as the cerebellum, appear largely uninvolved, while others—especially parts of the cortex—track closely with what we see, feel, or intend.

This work has produced real progress. Researchers now know, for example, that certain global brain states distinguish wakefulness from coma or deep sleep, and that different cortical areas correspond to different contents of experience. Yet the authors argue that correlates alone are no longer sufficient.

“Today, there is also a sense that the field has reached an uneasy stasis,” researchers warn. “ For example, a recent review taking a highly inclusive approach identified over 200 distinct approaches to explaining consciousness, exhibiting a breathtaking diversity in metaphysical assumptions and explanatory strategies.”

​“In such a landscape, there is a danger that researchers talk past each other rather than to each other.”

Many of the current theories of consciousness emphasize different aspects of the problem. For example, one prominent framework, Global Workspace Theory, focuses on how information becomes consciously available when it is broadcast across widespread brain networks, allowing multiple specialized systems to access and use it.

Higher-order theories propose that a mental state becomes conscious only when it is represented by another mental state. Integrated Information Theory takes a radically different approach, starting from the structure of experience itself and asking what physical systems could support it. Meanwhile, predictive processing frameworks cast consciousness as emerging from the brain’s constant effort to predict and control sensory input.

The problem, according to researchers, is that most experiments are designed to support a single theory rather than to test competing predictions head-to-head. As a result, evidence has continued to accumulate, but a broad consensus has remained elusive.

Adversarial science and new tools to tackle consciousness 

One of the most promising developments highlighted by researchers is the rise of adversarial collaborations—large, multi-lab projects in which proponents of rival theories work together to design experiments that could potentially falsify their own ideas. Rather than trying to confirm a preferred model, these collaborations aim to force clarity by confronting theories with the strongest possible tests.

Researchers see this as a necessary cultural shift. Consciousness, they argue, is too complex and too consequential to be solved by isolated labs working in parallel. Progress will likely depend on coordinated efforts, shared standards, and experiments explicitly designed to discriminate between competing explanations.

New methods may also play a crucial role. The paper highlights emerging approaches, such as computational neurophenomenology, naturalistic experiments using virtual and augmented reality, and wearable brain-imaging technologies, that enable researchers to study consciousness in real-world settings rather than in simplified laboratory tasks.

Equally important, researchers call for a renewed focus on phenomenology—the subjective character of experience itself. Too often, they argue, consciousness research has emphasized what consciousness does rather than what it is like.

Yet, understanding qualities such as the difference between seeing red and seeing blue, or between pain and pleasure, may be essential for building theories that truly explain experience rather than merely track behavior.

Why understanding consciousness would change everything

The most provocative part of the paper looks beyond the near future to ask a bolder question: what if consciousness science actually succeeds?

The consequences, researchers suggest, would ripple across science, medicine, ethics, law, and society. Clinically, better measures of consciousness could transform care for patients with severe brain injuries, advanced dementia, or disorders of consciousness, helping doctors determine not just whether patients are awake, but whether they are experiencing anything at all.

In mental health, a deeper understanding of conscious experience could open new paths for treating conditions like depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia—areas where current therapies often rely on behavioral markers rather than direct insight into subjective suffering.

Ethically, the implications could be even more profound. A reliable test for consciousness might inform debates about animal welfare, fetal development, end-of-life care, and the moral status of lab-grown brain tissue.

“A key development would be a test for consciousness, allowing a determination or informed judgment about which systems/organisms—such as infants, patients, fetuses, animals, organoids, xenobots, and AI—are conscious,” researchers note.

Artificial intelligence looms large in the consciousness discussion. While today’s AI systems can convincingly mimic human language and problem-solving, researchers emphasize that there is no evidence that they possess subjective experience.

Still, success in consciousness science could eventually clarify whether consciousness depends on biology, computation, embodiment, or some combination of all three.

An unfinished revolution

Despite its ambitious scope, the paper is careful not to promise easy answers. Consciousness, researchers acknowledge, may resist complete explanation for decades—or longer. However, they argue that the field has matured enough to move beyond simply cataloging brain signals toward building theories that can be tested, challenged, and refined.

If that transition succeeds, consciousness science could do more than solve an ancient puzzle. It could reshape how humans understand themselves, their technologies, and their responsibilities to other minds—natural or artificial.

In that sense, the question is no longer just whether consciousness can be explained, but whether society is prepared for what that explanation might reveal.

Ultimately,  researchers suggest that the stakes of consciousness science extend far beyond neuroscience or philosophy, reaching into how humanity understands its place in reality itself. They argue that explaining consciousness would not simply close a long-standing scientific gap but could also reframe existence, as past discoveries have reshaped our view of life, time, and the cosmos.

Looking ahead, the researchers even cautiously invite comparison with another of science’s most profound open questions: whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.

A confirmed encounter with nonhuman intelligence, they note, would force humanity to confront the diversity—and possible rarity—of conscious experience.

“Such a discovery could highlight the diversity of conscious minds, the uniqueness of our own, and change how we see ourselves within the vastness of the universe,” researchers conclude. “The difference between a universe teeming with mere life and one suffused with awareness is simply astronomical.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: [email protected] or through encrypted email: [email protected]