Thinking of these features as conditions encourages new questions about brain mechanisms and function. It steers investigators toward asking how the same neural systems might support experience and reportability, and how they interact with attention and behavior. For scientists building models or designing experiments, this move suggests concrete ways to connect subjective reports with measurable brain dynamics.
This is important for human potential because clarity about consciousness shapes medicine, education, and inclusive design. Better concepts lead to better tests, which lead to better interventions for people with atypical awareness or communication. Follow the full article to see how this conceptual reframe could reshape experiments and policies that affect millions.
Progress in the scientific study of consciousness has been impeded by several fundamental controversies. One pertains to a major divide between theories: sensory versus cognitive. Here, we argue that the key to resolving this controversy is to reevaluate the conceptual distinction proposed by Block in 1995 between phenomenal consciousness (P) and access consciousness (A). We propose that P and A should not be understood as two different types of consciousness, but as two necessary conditions for consciousness. We illustrate how this conceptual shift enables us to make substantial progress in answering several unresolved questions, such as the neural mechanisms and functions of consciousness, and the relationship between consciousness and attention. Our proposal motivates a selective unification across these different classes of theories.
