Key Takeaway:
The mystery of consciousness has been a subject of debate for centuries, with numerous theories vying for the title. In 2024, the Cogitate Consortium conducted an “adversarial collaboration” between Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) and Integrated Information Theory (IIT). The study aimed to test the theories under neutral conditions, revealing that confirmation bias was embedded in the architecture of the science. The Cogitate experiment challenged the way science often operates, as most prior studies were conducted by proponents of a given theory. The study emphasized the need for a mature, pluralistic model of scientific inquiry, where competing visions are tested in tension.
For centuries, the mystery of consciousness has stood like a locked door at the end of a long, echoing hallway—inviting, baffling, and firmly shut. What is it that gives rise to our private sense of being? Why does brain matter translate into a sunrise seen, a song remembered, or a pang of regret? Neuroscientists, philosophers, and theorists have tossed thousands of keys at the door, each hoping their theory might be the one that turns the lock. The result? A dizzying multitude of explanations, each championed fiercely, each resistant to challenge.
In 2024, Nature published the results of an unusual and ambitious experiment—a scientific duel of sorts—between two heavyweight theories of consciousness: Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) and Integrated Information Theory (IIT). Orchestrated by the Cogitate Consortium, the project was not just about proving which theory stood taller. It was a rare attempt to pit them directly against one another in what psychologists call an “adversarial collaboration”—a study where rival camps agree on predictions and methods, then put their ideas to the test under neutral conditions.
This effort didn’t emerge in a vacuum. In 2022, neuroscientist Anil Seth and collaborators documented 22 biologically grounded theories of consciousness. By 2024, Robert Kuhn had catalogued more than 200. The field, clearly, was bloated. Amid this theoretical glut, Cogitate chose to focus on two of the most influential contenders. GNWT posits that consciousness arises when information is globally broadcast across the brain—especially involving the prefrontal cortex—through a flash-like “neural ignition.” IIT, on the other hand, suggests that consciousness is a product of integrated, synchronised activity in the brain’s posterior regions, such as the parietal and occipital lobes.
Together, the two theories offered testable predictions. GNWT suggested that you should be able to decode what a person is conscious of by observing activity in the prefrontal cortex—and that neural ignition should be present at the onset and offset of conscious experience. IIT, in contrast, predicted that consciousness should manifest as sustained, synchronised activity in the posterior cortex.
So, which one was right?
Neither, exactly. The data, collected from labs across the globe using theory-neutral protocols, offered partial support to both—and undermined both. The expected synchronisation in the posterior cortex didn’t materialise as IIT had hoped. Meanwhile, GNWT’s neural ignition was conspicuously absent in key moments, and the decoding of conscious content from prefrontal activity proved incomplete. The theories took hits. But science, paradoxically, emerged stronger.
Why? Because this study challenged something even deeper than the theories themselves: the way science often operates. Most prior studies in consciousness research were conducted by proponents of a given theory, often tailoring methodologies—perhaps unintentionally—to favour their preferred model. In 2022, a revealing paper exposed how easily a study’s design could predict which theory it would “support,” before any data were collected. Confirmation bias, it seemed, was embedded in the architecture of the science.
The Cogitate experiment sought to correct that. For the first time, opposing theorists had to agree on what their models predicted, and then step back as impartial labs carried out the testing. This wasn’t easy. Both GNWT and IIT are highly abstract, and turning them into concrete hypotheses required painstaking negotiation. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman, one of the intellectual forces behind adversarial collaboration, warned the researchers early on: even if the results clearly favoured one theory, don’t expect anyone to change their mind. Scientists, like humans in general, are stubborn. Theories are not just intellectual tools—they’re identities, careers, worldviews.
And yet, this stubbornness can be oddly useful. Science, at its best, is self-correcting not because individuals surrender their theories easily, but because the system forces those theories to clash. Rational irrationality, if you will. By letting committed theorists sharpen their positions while neutral parties do the cutting, a strange kind of progress becomes possible.
The larger lesson is this: the science of consciousness may not be solved by a single grand theory. It may never be as tidy as a unified field equation. Instead, what’s needed is a mature, pluralistic model of scientific inquiry—where competing visions are tested not in isolation, but in tension. Consciousness is a uniquely elusive target. It resists simplification. It defies measurement. It may even require a conceptual revolution akin to the Copernican shift.
But if it is to yield at all, it will be because the scientific community learns to challenge itself—openly, rigorously, and together. The Cogitate study didn’t crown a winner, but it did something more important: it changed the rules of the game.
