The Science of Subjectivity

Unraveling the Brain's Conscious Experience

The key to consciousness may lie not in our modern brain, but in its ancient foundations.

Have you ever wondered why the vivid red of a sunset feels a certain way, or how the taste of chocolate creates a unique inner experience that words cannot fully capture? This internal, subjective world—what scientists call phenomenal consciousness—represents one of biology's greatest mysteries.

For centuries, philosophers and scientists have grappled with how physical matter in the brain gives rise to rich personal experience. Today, revolutionary neuroscience research is challenging long-held theories about where consciousness comes from, suggesting we may have been looking in the wrong part of the brain all along. This article explores the neurobiological and evolutionary underpinnings of your most intimate reality: your subjective experience of the world.

The "Hard Problem" of Consciousness

Neuroscientists typically define consciousness as the ability to have subjective experience, whether that's tasting an apple or seeing the redness of its skin 1 . The fundamental challenge, often called the "explanatory gap" or "hard problem," lies in understanding how neuronal activity in the brain creates the specific qualities of our experiences 2 5 .

Philosopher Joseph Levine highlighted this gap when he questioned why the firing of certain neurons (C-fibers) should be accompanied by the specific feeling of "pain" rather than some other sensation 2 . Similarly, David Chalmers has asked why seeing red looks the way it does, rather than like the sound of a trumpet 2 .

This gap between objective brain processes and subjective experience has resisted explanation for decades, making consciousness one of science's most enduring puzzles.

Rethinking the Seat of Consciousness

For about 35 years, the leading scientific theories of consciousness have primarily focused on the neocortex—the outer layer of the human brain that's newer in our evolutionary history 1 8 . These theories generally regarded older brain regions as merely supporting players.

The Cortex

Considered fundamental for consciousness

The Subcortex

The ancient brain region largely unchanged over 500 million years, viewed as necessary but insufficient for consciousness alone

The Cerebellum

The "little brain" at the back of the skull, often considered irrelevant for conscious experience 1

However, a comprehensive review of over 100 years of neuroscience research suggests this focus may have been misplaced 1 8 . Evidence from brain stimulation, rare medical cases, and animal studies indicates that the most ancient regions of our brain may be sufficient for basic consciousness, challenging conventional wisdom.

Evidence from Brain Stimulation and Damage

When researchers alter activity in various brain regions through electrical currents or magnetic pulses, surprising results emerge:

Stimulating the Neocortex

Can change your sense of self, cause hallucinations, or affect judgment

Altering the Subcortex

May induce depression, wake a monkey from anesthesia, or render a mouse unconscious

Stimulating the Cerebellum

Even stimulating the cerebellum, long considered irrelevant, can change conscious sensory perception 1 8

Cases of brain damage reveal equally puzzling patterns. While harm to ancient subcortical areas can directly cause unconsciousness or death, people born without a cerebellum or portions of their cortex can still appear conscious and live surprisingly normal lives 1 .

The Case of Children Born Without a Cortex

Perhaps the most striking evidence comes from rare cases of children born without most or all of their neocortex. According to medical textbooks, these individuals should be in a permanent vegetative state. Yet there are reports that these children can feel upset, play, recognize people, and show enjoyment of music—suggesting they are having some form of conscious experience 1 8 .

This evidence strongly implies that the oldest parts of the brain might be sufficient for basic consciousness, or that when born without a cortex, older brain regions adapt to take on some of its roles 1 .

Evolutionary Development of Subjectivity

The recognition that ancient brain regions may support basic consciousness has profound implications for understanding which animals experience the world subjectively. Researchers theorize that consciousness is built upon the complex system features of life, plus even more complex features of elaborate brains 2 .

Which Animals Are Conscious?

By identifying the neural features associated with consciousness, scientists have deduced which animal taxa likely possess some form of subjective experience:

Vertebrates
Arthropods
Cephalopod mollusks

These animals share "special neurobiological features" that enable consciousness, including complex integrated sensory maps and the capacity for global operant learning—learning new, complex survival behaviors based on rewards and punishments 2 .

The presence of these features across diverse species suggests consciousness evolved much earlier than previously thought and might be more widespread in the animal kingdom than we realized 1 2 .

Landmark Experiment: Testing Theories of Consciousness

In 2025, a global consortium of researchers called the Cogitate Consortium conducted a landmark study published in Nature that directly tested two leading theories of consciousness .

The Competing Theories

The experiment tested two dominant but competing theories:

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT)

Proposes that consciousness arises when information is globally broadcast to many brain regions, particularly involving the prefrontal cortex, through a burst of neural activity called "ignition" .

Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

Suggests consciousness depends on the integration of information in a posterior "hot zone" in the brain, characterized by sustained synchronization between visual areas .

Methodology

The consortium adopted an innovative approach called "adversarial collaboration," where proponents of both theories agreed in advance on experimental predictions and methods . This pre-registered design eliminated post-hoc rationalizations and represented a significant shift in how consciousness research is conducted.

The study involved 250 participants across multiple labs and used three neuro-imaging techniques:

Functional MRI (fMRI) Magnetoencephalography (MEG) Intracranial EEG recordings

Researchers tested three key predictions: where conscious content is represented in the brain, how conscious experience is maintained over time, and how different brain regions communicate to generate conscious experience .

Results and Analysis

The findings challenged both theories:

Theory Key Prediction Actual Finding Conclusion
Integrated Information Theory (IIT) Sustained synchronization between visual areas in posterior brain No sustained synchronization found Key prediction failed
Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) "Ignition" - burst of neural activity when experience ends No ignition found when experience ended Serious challenge to theory
Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) Conscious content fully represented in prefrontal cortex Critical aspects of experience absent from prefrontal cortex Serious challenge to theory

This groundbreaking research demonstrates that neither leading theory fully explains consciousness, highlighting the need for more comprehensive models and setting a new standard for rigorous testing in consciousness science .

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Neuroscience research into consciousness and neurodegenerative diseases relies on sophisticated tools and assays. Here are key research reagents and their functions:

Research Reagent/Technology Primary Function Application in Consciousness Research
Cytokine Detection Assays Detect protein expression in neurological samples Study neuroinflammation's role in consciousness 7
Calcium Imaging Monitor neural activity via calcium fluctuations Track real-time neuronal communication 9
iPSC-derived Neural Models Create human neural cells from stem cells Study human neuronal networks in 3D 9
Neuroinflammation Assays Investigate brain's immune response Examine how inflammation affects neural circuits 4
Autophagy Dysfunction Assays Study cellular recycling system Research protein clearance in neural circuits 4
Targeted Protein Degradation Eliminate disease-associated proteins Investigate protein roles in neural function 4

The Future of Consciousness Research

The Cogitate Consortium is now analyzing results from a second large-scale experiment and has released their entire dataset to the scientific community, enabling researchers worldwide to build on their findings . This open approach, combined with the recognition that multiple brain regions contribute to consciousness, promises to accelerate progress.

As researcher Peter Coppola notes, "The newer parts of the brain—as well as the cerebellum—seem to expand and refine your consciousness" 1 . This means basic consciousness may be supported by ancient brain structures, while cortical areas enrich and elaborate these experiences.

The implications extend beyond basic science—understanding which brain regions support consciousness could influence patient care, especially for those with brain injuries, and reshape how we think about animal rights 1 . If consciousness is more widespread in the animal kingdom than previously believed, it raises important ethical questions about how we treat other species.

Brain Region Evolutionary Age Traditional View of Role Emerging Evidence
Subcortex Ancient (500+ million years) Necessary support, like electricity for a TV May be sufficient for basic consciousness
Cerebellum Ancient Irrelevant for consciousness Can alter conscious perception when stimulated
Neocortex Relatively newer Fundamental for consciousness Expands and refines basic consciousness

Conclusion

The science of subjectivity is undergoing a revolutionary transformation. For decades, researchers focused on the cerebral cortex as the seat of consciousness, but emerging evidence suggests our most ancient brain regions may be sufficient for basic conscious experience. At the same time, rigorous testing of leading theories indicates that neither fully explains how neural activity becomes subjective experience.

As Lucia Melloni from the Max Planck Institute noted, "Real science isn't about proving you're right—it's about getting it right. True progress comes from making theories vulnerable to falsification, not protecting them" .

While the explanatory gap between brain activity and subjective experience hasn't yet been fully bridged, the combination of new technologies, rigorous testing methods, and a willingness to challenge established theories brings us closer than ever to understanding the biological basis of our rich inner worlds.

References