For decades, neuroscience has proceeded from the basic assumption that consciousness arises from the complex interactions of neurons in the brain. However, in recent years, similar ideas have begun to be actively discussed not only in the philosophy of consciousness but also among a portion of neuroscientists. Some researchers, including neurobiologist Christof Koch and cognitive neuroscientist Nikko Regentte, are considering the possibility that consciousness is not a product of brain activity, but a fundamental property of reality—akin to space, time, or matter. In this worldview, the brain acts not as the creator of consciousness, but as a kind of filter and organizer of its manifestation in individual experience.
Such a view does not merely affect individual explanatory models; it questions the very foundations of our understanding of human nature. If consciousness exists independently of matter or is a fundamental aspect of it, then the search for neural correlates of consciousness may turn out to be a description of the mechanisms of its manifestation, rather than a final explanation of its origin.
One of the most well-known modern concepts is the Integrated Information Theory (IIT), developed by neurobiologist Giulio Tononi and actively advanced by Christof Koch. According to this theory, consciousness corresponds to the degree of integration of a system's causal structure. The higher the integration of information within a system, the richer its subjective experience. In this model, consciousness is viewed not as a byproduct of brain computation, but as a fundamental property of a specific organization of causal interactions.
Central to such discussions is the concept of intentionality—the directedness of consciousness towards the world. This concept traces back to the philosophy of Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl, and later developed in the works of philosopher Syllo. According to this approach, consciousness is never passive: it is always directed towards something and actively participates in forming the meaning of experienced reality. Consciousness does not merely reflect reality, but constantly builds relationships between a person and the world through perception, attention, and action. This is precisely what distinguishes this approach from materialistic models, such as the global workspace theory, where consciousness is viewed primarily as a result of the widespread dissemination of information among various brain systems.
However, such ideas currently remain at the level of scientific and philosophical hypotheses. There is no direct experimental evidence yet that consciousness is indeed a fundamental property of reality. Critics rightly point out that the transition from observable correlations between brain activity and subjective experience to conclusions about the nature of reality itself requires significantly more rigorous empirical grounds.
A good illustration of this hypothesis is the image of a radio receiver. A radio does not create music—it merely tunes into existing electromagnetic waves, isolates the desired signal from many others, and reproduces it in an audible form. Similarly, the brain may not generate consciousness, but rather localize and organize its manifestation in human experience. This metaphor helps to imagine a possible alternative to the conventional materialistic model, although in itself, of course, it is not proof.
If such a hypothesis ever receives convincing experimental confirmation, its consequences could be quite significant. We would have to re-examine the nature of artificial intelligence: if consciousness is not reducible to computation, then even the most sophisticated computational system might remain unconscious. New ethical considerations would arise regarding animals and, possibly, plants. The approach to studying altered states of consciousness—in cases of coma, general anesthesia, deep meditation, and other states where the link between brain activity and subjective experience remains a subject of active research—would change.
For now, such ideas remain the subject of scientific and philosophical debate. They do not invalidate the data accumulated by neuroscience, but rather offer a different interpretation of their significance. Regardless of whether the hypothesis of the fundamentality of consciousness is ever confirmed, the very fact of its serious discussion indicates that modern science is increasingly moving beyond its previous conceptions of the nature of the mind and continues to seek answers to one of the most profound questions: what is consciousness, and what place does it occupy in the structure of the Universe.
