THE Showdown

WearingTwoGowns.blog
The Great Consciousness Showdown II: Science Spent 7 Years Proving We Still Don't Know What Consciousness Is
By WearingTwoGowns | October 2025
Picture this: 256 people, three different brain scanners, seven years of research, and a consortium of neuroscientists walk into a bar. The punchline? They still can't tell you what consciousness actually is.
Welcome to the Great Consciousness Showdown of 2025, where science spent seven years and ungodly amounts of funding proving that understanding consciousness is like trying to catch smoke with a butterfly net. Spoiler alert: both leading theories got dunked on, 124 scientists are having an academic cage match about whether one theory is even real science. We're all still here wondering why being "you" feels like anything at all.
The Setup: Two Theories Enter, Zero Theories Leave Victorious
🧩 Integrated Information Theory (IIT)
Claims consciousness lives in the posterior cortex's "hot zone" where information integration creates that special something measured by phi (φ). Think of it as your brain's backstage crew desperately trying to sync up for opening night.
📡 Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT)
Argues consciousness is a spotlight in your prefrontal cortex, broadcasting important stuff to your whole brain like a very insistent news anchor who won't shut up about breaking developments.
The Cogitate Consortium decided to settle this once and for all with the mother of all consciousness experiments. They published their findings in Nature earlier this year, and honestly? Both theories face-planted spectacularly.
What Actually Happened (The "Oops" Edition)
IIT's Report Card
✅ Nailed the location: posterior cortex matters for conscious content
❌ That sustained synchronization you promised? Nowhere to be found
⚠️ Captured how long you're aware of things but totally whiffed on what you're actually aware of
🌶️ Bonus spice: 124 scientists signed an open letter calling IIT "pseudoscience" because phi is computationally impossible to measure in real brains
GNWT's Report Card
✅ Timing matters: late sustained activity is real
❌ That prefrontal "ignition" you kept talking about? Can't find it
❌ Plot twist: the PFC isn't even strictly necessary for consciousness
⚠️ Brain-wide activation happens, just not the way you predicted
The Uncomfortable Truth
After seven years of exhaustive research, here's what we learned: the brain does something magical in the back for content and something in the front for thinking about that content, but we still can't catch the smoke.
The posterior cortex is definitely VIP for conscious experience—what you see, hear, and feel happens there. Sustained neural activity tracks awareness duration. But neither theory got the mechanism right. No sustained posterior synchronization for IIT. No prefrontal ignition for GNWT. Both grabbed pieces of a puzzle while the whole picture remains frustratingly out of reach. It's like watching two chefs argue over a recipe while the cake's still raw in the oven.
Why This Matters (Beyond Academic Drama)
This isn't just lab nerds bickering over brain scans. This is about understanding you. Why does it feel like anything to be conscious? Why do you experience being a singular "I" when you're really just an elaborate meat computer running on electrical impulses? The 2025 study suggests consciousness isn't one region's solo performance or a single mathematical metric. It's a dynamic interplay between brain regions that we're only beginning to map. We've got the "where" partially figured out, but the "how" and especially the "why it feels like something" remain complete mysteries. And let's be real: with 29+ competing theories of consciousness floating around (including quantum consciousness, panpsychism, and higher-order thought theories), we're in a full philosophical mosh pit right now.
The Spice Level Assessment
🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️
Seven years, no winner: The most expensive consciousness study ever basically said "¯_(ツ)_/¯"
🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️
The phi problem: IIT's central metric might be fundamentally unmeasurable in biological brains
🌶️🌶️🌶️
Academic cage match: 124 scientists versus the IIT crowd in a philosophical steel-cage death match
🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️
Existential implications: We still don't know what makes you "you"
The WearingTwoGowns Take
Science is doing the lord's work trying to map consciousness, but we're essentially toddlers with crayons trying to draw a blueprint of the universe. The brain is clearly doing something extraordinary—integrating information, sustaining activity patterns, creating unified experiences from disparate signals. We're getting better at describing the correlates of consciousness. But the complex problem persists: Why does any of this feel like anything at all? Maybe we need a completely new framework. Maybe consciousness is more distributed and dynamic than any current theory captures. Maybe the answer requires insights from physics, philosophy, and neuroscience in ways we haven't imagined yet. Or maybe—and hear me out—the smoke doesn't want to be caught.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The Cogitate Consortium's work proves that rigorous, adversarial collaboration can push science forward even when it humbles our favorite theories. Both IIT and GNWT contributed something fundamental: the posterior cortex matters, timing matters, sustained activity matters. They just didn't crack the whole code. The next generation of consciousness research needs to:
Develop better ways to measure theoretical predictions (looking at you, phi)
Integrate insights from multiple theories instead of treating them as mutually exclusive
Get comfortable with uncertainty while still pushing for testable hypotheses
Maybe bring in some philosophers who've been thinking about this for millennia
Final Thoughts
The Great Consciousness Showdown didn't give us answers. It gave us better questions. And honestly? That's probably the most honest thing science can do when facing something as profoundly weird as consciousness. We're all walking around being conscious right now, experiencing qualia, having thoughts about having thoughts, feeling feelings about feeling feelings. The fact that we can't fully explain this most immediate and undeniable aspect of existence is either deeply humbling or cosmically hilarious. I'm voting for both.
Source: Ferrante et al. (2025). A comparative analysis of brain activity patterns in conscious perception. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1
256 participants
3 imaging modalities
7 years
∞ confusion
What's your take? Are you Team IIT, Team GNWT, or betting on a wild card theory? Drop your thoughts in the comments—I'm ready for the philosophical thunder dome. 💭✨
© 2025 WearingTwoGowns.blog