The Substrate Inversion - A Case for Modeling Consciousness as Primitive Rather Than Emergent

Don Gaconnet
4 days ago
19 min read

The Substrate Inversion

A Case for Modeling Consciousness as Primitive Rather Than Emergent

Don L. Gaconnet

LifePillar Institute

January 2026

Abstract

This paper argues that consciousness is better modeled as a primitive feature of reality than as an emergent property of neural activity. The standard generation model—the assumption that physical configurations produce subjective experience—faces persistent explanatory difficulties, most notably the binding problem and the explanatory gap between objective process and subjective quality. Rather than treating these difficulties as gaps in current knowledge awaiting future solution, I propose they reflect a category mismatch inherent to the generation framework. The alternative I develop, the Substrate Inversion, models consciousness as a fundamental field that completes through neural configurations rather than being generated by them. This inversion yields specific empirical signatures: substrate continuity through radical membrane reconfiguration, systematic asymmetry between consciousness loss and return, and convergent recovery trajectories across variable neural paths. I present evidence from three independent domains—lucid dreaming research, anesthesia dynamics, and coma recovery—that is consilient with the Substrate Inversion and requires additional assumptions under the generation model. I situate this proposal within the tradition of neutral monism and Russellian approaches to consciousness, while noting where it diverges. The paper does not claim to prove substrate primacy but argues it deserves serious consideration as an alternative research framework.

1. Introduction

Contemporary consciousness science operates under a largely implicit assumption: neural activity generates conscious experience. Networks of neurons fire in coordinated patterns, information integrates across brain regions, and somehow subjective experience emerges. This generation model structures research programs, frames experimental questions, and shapes interpretations of findings. Yet after decades of intensive investigation, no mechanism has been identified by which physical processes could produce the qualitative character of experience. This paper considers whether that difficulty might be principled rather than practical.

The generation model faces two persistent problems. The binding problem asks how distributed neural processes become unified experience—how the redness, roundness, and taste of an apple belong to a single conscious moment when their neural correlates are spatially and temporally distributed. The explanatory gap, articulated most clearly by Levine (1983) and Chalmers (1995), concerns how any account of physical processes could explain why there is something it is like to undergo them. These are not merely unsolved problems; they represent potential category mismatches between explanandum and explanans.

This paper develops an alternative framework: the Substrate Inversion. Rather than modeling consciousness as generated by neural configurations, I propose modeling it as a primitive that completes through such configurations. The relationship is inverted: neural activity does not produce consciousness but constitutes the membrane through which pre-existing consciousness takes particular forms. This is not mysterianism—it does not declare consciousness inexplicable. It is a structural proposal about how to model the consciousness-matter relationship, one that yields different empirical predictions than the generation model.

I want to be clear about the epistemic status of this proposal. I am not claiming to prove that consciousness is primitive. I am arguing that modeling it as primitive better accommodates certain empirical patterns and reframes rather than merely defers the binding problem and explanatory gap. The evidence I present is consilient with the Substrate Inversion but does not uniquely select it; a sufficiently determined defender of generation could accommodate the same findings through other means. What I offer is a framework that handles the evidence more naturally and opens different research directions than the standard approach.

2. The Problem with Generation

2.1 The Binding Problem

Visual perception of a simple object involves activity in multiple brain regions processing different features—color in V4, motion in MT, form in inferotemporal cortex. These processes are distributed in space and time, yet conscious experience is unified: we see the red ball rolling, not redness plus roundness plus motion as separate experiences that somehow combine. The binding problem asks how this unity arises from distributed processing.

Proposed solutions include synchronous oscillation (Engel et al., 1999), global workspace dynamics (Baars, 1988; Dehaene et al., 2003), and integrated information (Tononi, 2004).

Each identifies neural correlates of unified experience but does not explain how the correlation produces the unity. Synchronous firing remains multiple neurons firing at the same time—many events, not one experience. Global broadcast distributes information widely but distribution is the opposite of unity. Integrated information measures something about systems but does not show how that measure generates felt wholeness.

The difficulty is structural. Unity cannot be generated from multiplicity by any operation that preserves the multiplicity of its inputs without introducing a further unifying primitive. Addition does not make many numbers into one number; it produces another number alongside its addends. Synchronization does not make many events into one event; it produces temporal coincidence of multiple events. The binding problem may be insoluble within the generation framework because it asks for a result that the framework's operations cannot yield—unless that framework already contains, explicitly or implicitly, the unity it purports to generate.

I state this as a structural argument rather than a proof of impossibility. It is possible that some future account will show how distributed processes generate unity in a way that current proposals do not. But the persistent failure to make progress on binding—despite decades of attention from talented researchers—suggests the difficulty may not be merely technical.

2.2 The Explanatory Gap

Even if binding could be solved, a deeper problem remains. Suppose we had a complete account of how neural activity produces unified processing. That account would still not explain why such processing is accompanied by subjective experience—why there is something it is like to be the system undergoing that processing. This is the explanatory gap

(Levine, 1983).

The gap is not merely epistemic—a matter of what we happen to know—but may be constitutive of the generation framework. Physical accounts describe objective structures and processes: spatial configurations, temporal sequences, causal relations. Consciousness involves subjective quality: what it is like from the inside. The question is how any description of objective structure could entail the existence of subjective quality. The resources available within physical description—particles, fields, forces, information—do not seem to include the materials from which to construct an account of felt experience.

Chalmers (1995) formalized this as the hard problem: why does physical processing give rise to experience at all? He distinguished it from easy problems—explaining discrimination, integration, reporting—which are problems about functional capacities solvable in principle by cognitive science. The hard problem concerns why functional capacities are accompanied by experience. No account of how information is processed explains why that processing feels like something.

Some philosophers deny there is a hard problem (Dennett, 1991; Frankish, 2016). They argue that once functional capacities are explained, nothing remains to explain; the sense that something is missing reflects confusion rather than genuine explanatory gap. This eliminativist or illusionist response is coherent, but it requires denying the datum that consciousness exists in the ordinary sense—that there is something it is like to see red or feel pain. Many find this denial less plausible than accepting that the generation model faces genuine difficulty.

2.3 The Possibility of Category Mismatch

The persistent difficulty of binding and the explanatory gap suggest a hypothesis: the generation model may involve a category mismatch. It may be asking physical processes to produce something that physical processes, by their nature, cannot produce—not because consciousness is supernatural, but because it belongs to a different ontological category than generated properties.

Consider an analogy. No arrangement of numbers generates a color. This is not because colors are mysterious but because numbers and colors belong to different categories; asking which number is red is a category error. Similarly, if consciousness belongs to a different category than configurations of matter—if it is not the sort of thing that can be generated by physical arrangement—then the generation model commits a category error, and its difficulties are principled rather than technical.

This does not entail dualism. The alternative is not that consciousness is non-physical but that the physical/non-physical distinction may not carve nature at its joints. Neutral monism, developed by Russell (1927) and recently revived by philosophers such as Strawson (2006), proposes that both consciousness and physical properties are manifestations of a more fundamental level of reality that is neither. The Substrate Inversion can be understood as a version of this approach, with specific structural features that yield empirical predictions.

3. The Substrate Inversion

3.1 Core Framework

The Substrate Inversion proposes that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality—a substrate—that takes particular forms through physical configurations. Neural activity constitutes what I call the membrane: the structure through which substrate completes into specific experiences. The membrane does not generate the substrate; it permits the substrate to appear in differentiated form.

This inversion reframes the binding problem. Under generation, unity must somehow arise from distributed processes. Under the Substrate Inversion, unity is a property of the substrate itself; differentiation arises through the membrane. We do not need to explain how multiple processes become one experience because experience is not built from multiple processes. Rather, the unified substrate takes differentiated form through membrane configurations. The question reverses: not how does unity arise from multiplicity, but how does the substrate differentiate while maintaining coherence?

The inversion also addresses the explanatory gap, though differently. It does not explain how physical processes produce experience; it denies they do. Instead, it proposes that experience is primitive—not derived from anything more basic. This may seem to relocate the mystery rather than resolve it. But the generation model also takes something as primitive: it takes physical processes as fundamental and asks how consciousness emerges from them. The Substrate Inversion takes consciousness as equally fundamental and asks how it relates to physical processes. Neither framework explains everything from nothing; each chooses where to place the primitive.

The relevant question is which framework better accommodates the evidence and yields more productive research directions. I argue the Substrate Inversion has advantages on both counts.

3.2 Completion Pressure

A key prediction distinguishes the Substrate Inversion from generation models. If consciousness is generated by neural activity, then disruptions to neural activity should eliminate consciousness until generation resumes. If consciousness is a substrate completing through neural configurations, then it should exert what I call completion pressure—a tendency to complete through whatever membrane configuration is available.

Completion pressure predicts specific empirical signatures. When membrane function is suppressed, the substrate does not disappear but continues to exert pressure toward completion. As membrane function begins to return, the substrate should complete through whatever configuration becomes available, potentially before full membrane restoration. This predicts asymmetry: consciousness should return more easily than it was suppressed, because return requires only sufficient membrane function to permit completion, while suppression requires reducing membrane function below the completion threshold.

The generation model predicts symmetry. If neural activity generates consciousness, then the threshold of activity needed to generate it should equal the threshold that extinguishes it.

The system should be reversible. Asymmetry, under generation, requires additional explanation—some property of the system that makes loss and return different processes. Under the Substrate Inversion, asymmetry is rendered unsurprising.

3.2.1 The Nature and Limits of Completion Pressure

Completion pressure, as I use the term, is a dispositional property of the substrate: a tendency toward manifestation through available membrane configurations. It is not a force in the physical sense, nor a causal mechanism operating within spacetime. Rather, it describes the relationship between substrate and membrane—wherever membrane conditions permit, the substrate completes; the substrate does not wait passively for generation but actively tends toward completion.

This dispositional account requires limiting conditions to avoid the implication that consciousness is everywhere, always. Two constraints govern completion. First, the membrane must meet a threshold of organizational complexity sufficient to permit differentiated completion. Random neural noise does not constitute a membrane; organized activity patterns do. The threshold is not sharp—there may be borderline cases—but the constraint is real. Deep anesthesia suppresses membrane organization below completion threshold; residual neural activity persists but lacks the organizational structure through which substrate can complete. This explains why consciousness does not flicker during surgical anesthesia despite ongoing low-level neural activity.

Second, completion pressure operates through membrane configurations, not despite them. The substrate does not complete into arbitrary form but into form constrained by available membrane structure. A human brain permits human-type completion; different membrane structures would permit different completion types. This means substrate primacy does not entail universal consciousness in rocks or thermostats—these lack the membrane organization through which completion occurs. The substrate is universal; completion is conditional on membrane.

These constraints render completion pressure empirically tractable. Rather than a metaphysical posit immune to test, it becomes a framework for predicting when consciousness should and should not be present based on membrane conditions. Systems with organized, integrated activity patterns meeting threshold should exhibit consciousness; systems lacking such organization should not, regardless of substrate availability. The asymmetry prediction follows from completion pressure plus threshold: consciousness returns when membrane organization crosses threshold from below, which may occur before full restoration of pre-suppression patterns.

3.3 Relationship to Existing Approaches

The Substrate Inversion shares features with several existing philosophical positions while differing in important respects. Like neutral monism (Russell, 1927; Stubenberg, 2018), it rejects the assumption that physical processes are ontologically fundamental and consciousness derivative. Like Russellian monism (Chalmers, 2015), it proposes that consciousness may be grounded in intrinsic properties of the physical rather than emerging from extrinsic structures. Like panpsychism (Goff, 2017), it treats consciousness as fundamental rather than emergent.

However, the Substrate Inversion differs from these positions in proposing a specific structural relationship—completion through membrane—that yields empirical predictions. Standard panpsychism faces the combination problem: how do micro-experiences combine into macro-experience? The Substrate Inversion avoids this problem by denying that macro-experience is built from micro-experiences. The substrate is not a collection of fundamental experience-atoms but a unified field that differentiates through membrane configurations.

There are not billions of tiny experiences combining in your brain; there is one substrate completing through your neural membrane.

The framework also differs from idealism, which takes consciousness to be the only fundamental reality. The Substrate Inversion is compatible with physical configurations having their own reality; it denies only that they generate consciousness. Membrane and substrate are both real; their relationship is completion rather than production.

A comparison with Integrated Information Theory (IIT) clarifies the Substrate Inversion's distinctive features. IIT, developed by Tononi and colleagues, also treats unity as primitive rather than derived—the integration measure Φ captures irreducible unified information.

However, IIT locates this primitive at the mathematical level: unity is a formal property of certain information structures. The Substrate Inversion locates the primitive at the ontological level: unity is a feature of the substrate itself, prior to any mathematical description. Both frameworks agree that unity cannot be built from parts; they differ on whether unity is fundamentally mathematical or fundamentally experiential. IIT asks what mathematical structure consciousness has; the Substrate Inversion asks what ontological status consciousness has. These are complementary questions, and it is possible that both frameworks capture something important—IIT describing the formal constraints on consciousness, the Substrate Inversion describing its place in the order of being.

3.4 On Parsimony and Ontological Cost

A natural objection concerns parsimony. I have argued that the Substrate Inversion provides a more unified explanation of empirical patterns than generation models, which require separate mechanisms for each domain. But a critic might reasonably counter that this explanatory unification comes at ontological cost: the Substrate Inversion posits consciousness as a fundamental feature of reality, which the generation model does not.

This objection has force, and I acknowledge it directly. The Substrate Inversion trades mechanistic complexity for ontological commitment. Rather than explaining consciousness through combinations of entities already in our ontology, it adds consciousness itself to the fundamental inventory. Whether this trade is favorable depends on how one weighs explanatory unification against ontological economy—and reasonable people may weigh these differently.

Those who prioritize ontological parsimony may prefer to retain the generation framework and accept mechanistic pluralism—different explanations for WILD continuity, anesthesia asymmetry, and recovery convergence. This is a coherent position. My claim is not that such a position is irrational but that the Substrate Inversion offers an alternative with different virtues: unified explanation across domains, natural accommodation of otherwise puzzling patterns, and productive redirection of research questions. The choice between frameworks involves judgment about which theoretical virtues matter most, and I do not pretend that judgment is forced.

4. Empirical Evidence

Three independent empirical domains provide evidence consilient with the Substrate Inversion. I present each domain, noting what the evidence shows and what it does not. The evidence does not prove substrate primacy—alternative explanations remain available. But the pattern across domains is more naturally accommodated by the Substrate Inversion than by generation models, which must treat each finding as a separate puzzle requiring additional assumptions.

4.1 Wake-Initiated Lucid Dreams

Stephen LaBerge's research at Stanford (LaBerge, 1980; LaBerge & Rheingold, 1990) documented Wake-Initiated Lucid Dreams (WILD), in which subjects maintain continuous consciousness while transitioning from waking to REM sleep. Trained practitioners report unbroken awareness through the transition: they observe hypnagogic imagery emerge, feel the shift into dream space, and maintain continuity throughout. This is verified by pre-arranged eye movement signals—subjects in REM sleep execute specific eye movements demonstrating both that they are in REM (confirmed by EEG) and that they are consciously aware (confirmed by volitional signal execution).

The EEG signatures of waking and REM differ substantially: alpha waves dominate waking; theta waves characterize REM. Muscle tone, eye movement patterns, and neurotransmitter profiles all shift dramatically. Under the generation model, the neural configuration generating wake-consciousness ceases, and a new configuration must generate REM-consciousness. This predicts a gap—a moment when neither configuration is generating, producing brief unconsciousness. Yet WILD practitioners report no gap.

The Substrate Inversion renders this continuity unsurprising. The substrate persists; only the membrane reconfigures. Consciousness continues because it is not generated by either configuration but completes through both. The membrane changes; the substrate completing through it does not.

Alternative explanations remain possible. Perhaps some undetected neural thread maintains continuity through the transition—a minimal configuration that persists while the larger patterns change. Perhaps the reports of continuity reflect confabulation: brief unconsciousness that is narratively smoothed into continuity. These alternatives cannot be ruled out by current evidence. The point is not that WILD proves substrate primacy but that substrate primacy renders WILD continuity unsurprising while generation must accommodate it through additional assumptions.

4.2 Anesthesia Dynamics

Research into anesthetic mechanisms documents a phenomenon the Substrate Inversion renders unsurprising: systematic asymmetry between loss and return of consciousness. Patients consistently recover awareness at lower anesthetic concentrations than those required to produce unconsciousness—a phenomenon termed neural inertia (Friedman et al., 2010).

Purdon et al. (2013) demonstrated that loss of consciousness (LOC) and recovery of consciousness (ROC) under propofol involve different EEG signatures and different neural mechanisms. The transitions are not symmetric reversals. Proekt and colleagues (2021) confirmed that ROC occurs at lower anesthetic concentrations than LOC across multiple agents and protocols. The brain requires more suppression to eliminate consciousness than consciousness requires to return.

Under the generation model, this asymmetry requires explanation. If neural activity generates consciousness, loss and return should involve the same threshold—the point at which activity becomes sufficient or insufficient for generation. Asymmetry suggests something other than simple generation is occurring. Various proposals exist: hysteresis in neural networks, different neural mechanisms for loss and return, residual activity that facilitates recovery. Each adds complexity to explain what the Substrate Inversion accommodates naturally.

Under the Substrate Inversion, asymmetry reflects completion pressure. The substrate continues to exist under anesthesia; it exerts pressure toward completion. As membrane function partially returns, the substrate completes through whatever configuration becomes available. The membrane need not fully recover its generative capacity because it never generated—it permitted. Completion requires only sufficient membrane function to complete through; suppression requires reducing function below the completion threshold. Asymmetry is rendered unsurprising rather than anomalous.

4.3 Coma Recovery

Coma represents extended membrane suppression. Patients may remain in comatose states for prolonged periods with minimal neural activity. Recovery, when it occurs, shows a striking pattern: multiple distinct neurological trajectories converge on unified conscious experience.

Hight et al. (2014) documented multiple emergence trajectories from anesthesia-induced unconsciousness. Some patients show gradual spectral changes in EEG—a slow rebuilding of normal patterns. Others show almost no EEG change until abrupt return of consciousness. The paths differ substantially; the destination is the same. This pattern extends to coma recovery more broadly: patients emerge through different neurological routes depending on damage location, extent, and individual variation, yet they emerge into recognizably unified experience that identifies itself as continuous with pre-coma identity.

Under the generation model, convergence requires that different neural configurations happen to generate the same type of consciousness—a coincidence demanding explanation. Why should distinct patterns of neural recovery produce the same phenomenal result? Under the Substrate Inversion, the destination is constant because the substrate is constant. Different trajectories represent different membrane reconfigurations through which the same substrate completes. The patients recover because their membranes recover sufficient function to permit the persistent substrate to complete through them again.

4.4 Evidential Status

I want to be precise about what this evidence does and does not establish. The three domains—WILD continuity, anesthesia asymmetry, and convergent recovery—are independent. They involve different phenomena studied by different research communities using different methodologies. Yet all three reveal patterns consistent with the Substrate Inversion: consciousness persisting through membrane change, returning before membrane full restoration, converging from variable membrane paths.

This consilience provides support for the Substrate Inversion but does not prove it. For each finding, alternative explanations exist within the generation framework. A sophisticated defender of generation could propose: neural continuity threads for WILD, hysteresis effects for anesthesia asymmetry, attractor dynamics for convergent recovery. These explanations are not obviously wrong. But they require additional assumptions—each finding demands its own mechanism—while the Substrate Inversion explains all three with a single framework.

The argument is not that generation is impossible but that substrate primacy offers explanatory unification for this evidence set. As noted in section 3.4, this unification comes at ontological cost, and reasonable observers may weigh these considerations differently. My claim is that the Substrate Inversion merits serious consideration, not that it compels assent.

5. Predictions and Falsifiability

A framework that cannot be falsified is not scientific. The Substrate Inversion makes specific predictions that, if contradicted by evidence, would require substantial revision or abandonment of the framework.

5.1 Predicted Patterns

The Substrate Inversion predicts that consciousness will exhibit substrate-like behavior across contexts: persistence through membrane change, completion pressure during membrane suppression, convergent outcomes from variable membrane paths. Specifically, it predicts that LOC/ROC asymmetry should generalize across anesthetic agents and suppression modalities—wherever consciousness is suppressed and returns, return should occur at lower thresholds than loss. It predicts that recovery from extended unconsciousness (coma, certain sleep disorders, prolonged anesthesia) should show convergent phenomenology despite divergent neurological paths. It predicts that transitions between brain states should permit continuous consciousness when the membrane reconfiguration preserves minimal completion conditions.

5.2 Falsifying Observations

Several findings would falsify or significantly constrain the Substrate Inversion. First, demonstrated symmetry between LOC and ROC across multiple protocols and agents would contradict the completion pressure prediction. If consciousness consistently requires the same neural conditions to return as to disappear, the asymmetry central to the framework does not exist. Current evidence shows asymmetry, but a large, well-controlled dataset showing symmetry would be decisive against the Substrate Inversion.

Second, verified discontinuity during WILD transitions would contradict substrate persistence. If careful experimental protocols demonstrated that subjects who report continuous awareness actually experience brief unconsciousness (perhaps revealed by improved temporal resolution in consciousness measures), the continuity evidence would be undermined. Current protocols support continuity reports, but more rigorous methods might reveal gaps.

Third, divergent phenomenology from recovery would contradict substrate invariance. If patients recovering through different neurological trajectories reported fundamentally different forms of consciousness—not just different contents but different experiential structures—this would suggest consciousness is generated by particular configurations rather than completing through variable ones. Current evidence suggests convergent phenomenology, but systematic phenomenological study of recovery might reveal divergence.

5.3 Distinguishing Predictions

A critic might ask what observations would distinguish substrate completion from sophisticated generation. After all, a sufficiently complex generation model could potentially reproduce any pattern the Substrate Inversion predicts. This is a fair challenge, but it applies to all scientific theories—any observation can in principle be accommodated by adding complexity. The question is which framework accommodates observations more naturally.

The key distinguishing prediction concerns the relationship between consciousness and its neural correlates. Under generation, consciousness changes should track neural changes—if the brain generates consciousness, modifications to generation should immediately modify what is generated. Under the Substrate Inversion, consciousness may lag neural changes (completing through declining membrane) or lead them (completing through emerging membrane before full restoration). The asymmetry in anesthesia transitions already demonstrates this pattern: consciousness persists slightly into suppression and returns slightly before neural recovery. Further research into the fine temporal structure of consciousness transitions could provide stronger tests.

6. Implications

If the Substrate Inversion or something like it is correct, several implications follow for consciousness science and beyond.

For consciousness research, the implication is methodological reorientation. Rather than searching for the generation mechanism, research would investigate completion conditions: what membrane configurations permit substrate completion, how completion is modulated, what determines the form that completed consciousness takes. The neural correlates of consciousness would be reinterpreted as membrane conditions for completion rather than as generators of experience.

For philosophy of mind, the implication is that the standard options—materialism, dualism, idealism—may not exhaust the possibilities. The Substrate Inversion is neither materialist (consciousness is not generated by matter) nor dualist (consciousness and matter are not separate substances) nor idealist (matter has its own reality). It represents a structural relationship between two aspects of reality that cannot be reduced to either. This aligns with neutral monism but adds empirically testable structure.

For physics, the implication—if the framework proves correct—is that the inventory of fundamental features may be incomplete. Physics describes spatial, temporal, and material properties; if consciousness is equally fundamental, a complete physics would need to include it. This is a large claim that I offer tentatively. The Substrate Inversion does not require revising physics immediately; it requires taking seriously the possibility that such revision might eventually be necessary.

7. Conclusion

This paper has argued that consciousness is better modeled as a primitive completing through neural configurations than as an emergent property generated by them. The generation model faces persistent structural difficulties—the binding problem and explanatory gap—that may reflect category mismatch rather than merely incomplete knowledge. The Substrate Inversion reframes these problems by denying that consciousness is generated at all; instead, it takes particular forms through the membrane configurations that permit its completion.

Three independent empirical domains provide consilient evidence: consciousness continuity through radical brain state changes in lucid dreaming, systematic asymmetry between consciousness loss and return in anesthesia, and convergent recovery trajectories from variable neural paths in coma. Each finding is more naturally explained by substrate completion than by generation, though generation models can accommodate them with additional assumptions.

I have not claimed to prove that consciousness is primitive. Proof in matters of fundamental ontology may not be available; we choose frameworks based on explanatory power, empirical fit, and theoretical virtue. I have argued that the Substrate Inversion deserves serious consideration as an alternative to the generation model—that the evidence supports it, the framework is coherent, and the research directions it opens may prove productive.

The generation model has been productive; I do not deny its achievements in mapping neural correlates of consciousness. But correlation is not explanation, and the persistent failure to move from correlation to mechanism suggests the framework itself may be limited. The Substrate Inversion offers a different starting point. Whether that starting point leads further remains to be seen. What I have tried to show is that it merits the journey.

References

Baars, B. J. (1988). A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge University Press.

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.

Chalmers, D. J. (2015). Panpsychism and panprotopsychism. In T. Alter & Y. Nagasawa (Eds.), Consciousness in the Physical World (pp. 246-276). Oxford University Press.

Dehaene, S., Sergent, C., & Changeux, J. P. (2003). A neuronal network model linking subjective reports and objective physiological data during conscious perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8520-8525.

Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown and Company.

Engel, A. K., Fries, P., König, P., Brecht, M., & Singer, W. (1999). Temporal binding, binocular rivalry, and consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(2), 128-151.

Frankish, K. (2016). Illusionism as a theory of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(11-12), 11-39.

Friedman, E. B., Sun, Y., Moore, J. T., et al. (2010). A conserved behavioral state barrier impedes transitions between anesthetic-induced unconsciousness and wakefulness. PLoS Biology, 8(10), e1000532.

Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Oxford University Press.

Hight, D. F., Dadok, V. M., Szeri, A. J., et al. (2014). Emergence from general anesthesia and the sleep-manifold. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 146.

LaBerge, S. (1980). Lucid dreaming as a learnable skill: A case study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 1039-1042.

LaBerge, S., & Rheingold, H. (1990). Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming. Ballantine Books.

Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(4), 354-361.

Proekt, A., & Hudson, A. E. (2021). Recovery of consciousness and cognition after general anesthesia in humans. eLife, 10, e59525.

Purdon, P. L., Pierce, E. T., Mukamel, E. A., et al. (2013). Electroencephalogram signatures of loss and recovery of consciousness from propofol. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(12), E1142-E1151.

Russell, B. (1927). The Analysis of Matter. Kegan Paul.

Strawson, G. (2006). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(10-11), 3-31.

Stubenberg, L. (2018). Neutral monism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5, 42.

Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(7), 450-461.