An Expert Synthesis: Empirical Validation and Theoretical Adjudication of the Mechanisms of Mind

An Expert Synthesis: Empirical Validation and Theoretical Adjudication of the Mechanisms of Mind

Executive Summary: The State of Scientific Proof in Mind Science

The scientific investigation into the human mind has yielded a complex landscape characterized by pockets of high-consensus, empirically validated mechanisms alongside vast, unresolved theoretical conflicts. There is currently no single, unified "Theory of Mind" that accounts for all mental phenomena, primarily due to the intractable nature of subjective experience (the Hard Problem of Consciousness) and the combinatorial complexity of the underlying neural architecture.

Nevertheless, research has isolated several robustly proven results. The functional architecture of memory and attention—specifically the multi-component Working Memory (WM) model—has been validated through neuropsychological evidence and rigorous experimental paradigms. Conversely, classical psychoanalytic structural models (Id, Ego, Superego) have been empirically debunked, though the clinical efficacy of psychodynamic treatments remains supported. On the frontier of consciousness, the scientific community has established that the breakdown of information integration is a definitive neural correlate of losing conscious state, although the mechanisms proposed by the leading contenders, Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT), remain challenged by recent adversarial testing.

I. The Core of Consensus: Empirically Proven Cognitive Mechanisms

This section isolates the structural and process models that enjoy robust, repeatable empirical validation across cognitive science and neuroscience. These models represent the closest scientists have come to achieving "proven results" regarding the functional architecture of mental processes.

1.1. The Architecture of Memory and Control: Functional Modularity

The traditional model of sequential memory flow (the Modal Model, detailing sensory, short-term, and long-term storage) has been refined by contemporary research, which introduces a critical functional distinction.¹ The concept of Short-Term Memory (STM) describes a passive storage capacity, holding a small amount of information in an active, readily available state for mere seconds (e.g., retaining a newly recited phone number).¹ In contrast, Working Memory (WM) refers to the structures and active processes utilized for temporarily storing and manipulating information necessary for complex goal-oriented tasks, such as problem-solving, planning, and decision-making.²

This distinction is essential because it allows for a measurable, quantifiable framework for cognitive constraints. Empirical studies have superseded the classical 7$\pm$2 item capacity established by Miller's law, demonstrating that the contemporary consensus for STM capacity is closer to **4$\pm$1 items**.¹ Furthermore, the transformation of temporary information into lasting knowledge through consolidation is an empirically established biological process, involving active cognitive processes like rehearsal, the use of mnemonic devices, and crucial neural events occurring during sleep.²

1.2. The Multi-Component Working Memory Model: Neurobiological Validation

The most highly validated structural model in cognitive psychology is the multi-component working memory framework proposed by Baddeley and Hitch.³ This model successfully decomposes primary memory into specialized subsystems, moving beyond the concept of a single, unified short-term construct. The original model included the Central Executive (a supervisory system controlling information flow), the Phonological Loop (specialized for verbal and acoustic content maintenance), and the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (catering to nonverbal, visual, and spatial data).³ A fourth component, the Episodic Buffer, was later added to provide multi-dimensional coding and serve as an interface for integrating information from the subsystems.³

The definitive empirical proof for this modularity rests upon the dual-task paradigm.⁵ The model predicts that if two simultaneous tasks require the same WM component, interference will occur, degrading performance. Conversely, if tasks utilize different domain-specific components (e.g., a visual task and a verbal task), performance remains nearly as efficient as when performing the tasks individually.³

This functional dissociation is mirrored by neurobiological evidence. Brain imaging studies provide evidence for the distinction between visual and spatial aspects of the visuospatial sketchpad; specifically, tasks involving spatial information activate more areas in the right hemisphere, whereas visual object tasks often activate regions in the left hemisphere.³ The ability of brain damage to selectively impair one component without influencing the other component further confirms the functional and structural independence of these modules. The demonstration of this quantified modularity represents the strongest proven structural result in mind science, establishing fixed architectural constraints that any future unified theory must incorporate and explain.

1.3. The Interdependent Role of Attention and Cognitive Control

A critically proven mechanism involves the dynamic relationship between attention and working memory. Research demonstrates broad agreement that WM is not merely storage but is closely linked to and governed by attention.⁶ Attention is not simply a correlation but acts as the established governor of cognitive flow.

Attention is conceptualized and empirically tested in two primary ways. First, as a limited resource responsible for the constrained capacity of working memory, specifically supporting the required storage and processing functions.⁶ This version of the resource model receives significant empirical support. Second, attention functions as a selection mechanism, actively choosing information for processing by filtering irrelevant stimuli and removing no-longer-relevant representations from WM.⁶ WM contributes to cognitive control by holding templates for targets of perceptual selection and maintaining task sets to implement current goals, utilizing neural substrates such as the prefrontal and posterior parietal cortex.⁶ This evidence establishes attention as the causal bridge, mediating perception, memory access, and executive control, often via phenomena like temporal synchrony crucial for binding elements into a coherent percept.⁸

II. Debunked Architectures and Contemporary Clinical Relevance

While certain cognitive mechanisms have been empirically validated, other historical models, particularly those stemming from psychoanalysis, have failed to meet the modern criteria for scientific proof. It is necessary to critically differentiate between the empirical status of theoretical structures and the proven efficacy of resulting clinical applications.

2.1. Classical Psychoanalytic Structural Theory: Lack of Empirical Basis

2.1.1. Empirical Status of Id, Ego, and Superego

Sigmund Freud’s structural model, defining the psyche through the Id (primitive urges), the Ego (reality mediator), and the Superego (moral conscience), provided hypothetical conceptualizations of mental functions rather than physical neurological agents.⁹ The model posits that the Ego is constantly negotiating between the impulsive demands of the unconscious Id and the judgmental constraints of the Superego, relying on defense mechanisms to manage inevitable inner conflict.⁹

However, in the decades since their presentation, modern psychology and neuroscience have provided negligible scientific support for many of Freud’s original claims.¹¹ Crucially, there is no scientific evidence or proof for the neurobiological existence or the specific control mechanisms attributed to the Id, Ego, or Superego.¹¹ Early psychoanalytic work lacked the necessary scientific rigor and objectivity, often failing criteria for falsifiability, which led to significant skepticism within the nascent field of scientific psychology.¹²

2.2. Clinical Utility vs. Theoretical Foundation

The analysis of psychoanalytic theory reveals a crucial decoupling between its theoretical foundation and its clinical outcome. Despite the lack of structural proof for Freudian concepts, Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PDT) has accumulated significant empirical evidence demonstrating its clinical efficacy.¹³

The effect sizes for PDT are comparable to, and often as large as, those reported for other therapies actively promoted as "evidence-based".¹³ Furthermore, a significant finding is that patients undergoing PDT not only achieve therapeutic gains but appear to maintain and often continue to improve after the treatment concludes.¹³ The success of this methodology does not validate the specific, antiquated vocabulary of the Id/Ego model but rather proves that the techniques long central to psychodynamic practice—such as transference interpretations and developing insight—engage effective, genuine neurocognitive change mechanisms.¹⁴ This paradoxical finding dictates that mind science must differentiate clearly between explanatory constructs (which can be flawed) and causal interventions (which can be effective), urging modern research to identify the actual neurobiological processes underlying psychological change.

2.2.2. Neuroscientific Reinterpretation of Jungian Concepts

Similarly, highly abstract concepts like Carl Jung’s archetypes, which were criticized for their subjective and esoteric nature, are now being subjected to neuroscientific scrutiny.¹⁵ Contemporary research is attempting to lend construct validity to these concepts by integrating them within the rigorously mathematical framework of Predictive Processing (PPF).¹⁶ Under this interpretation, archetypes are reframed not as mystical entities, but as "recurrent brain-based patterns" that represent the tendency to form particular predictions.¹⁶ This approach parses the archetype into a testable hypothesis involving an affective core (rooted in subcortical systems), archetypal imagery (emergent in altered states), and archetypal stories (encoded in higher cortical areas).¹⁶ This application of PPF demonstrates its potential as a powerful unifying framework, capable of operationalizing and testing highly abstract psychological concepts by mapping them onto universal neurocognitive structures.¹⁷

Table I: Empirical Status of Core Cognitive and Psychoanalytic Structures

III. The Frontier of Computation: Paradigms in Conflict

The study of the mind has historically relied on computational metaphors, but the limitations of the classical paradigm have driven the field toward biologically constrained, statistical models.

3.1. The Decline of Classical Computationalism (CTM)

The Computational Theory of Mind (CTM), closely related to functionalism, views the mind as an information processing system where cognition is computation.¹⁸ This theory was fundamentally rooted in the abstract model of the Turing machine, which executes pure symbolic computation serially, utilizing an assumption of unlimited discrete memory.¹⁹

However, this foundational metaphor proves structurally inconsistent with the biological brain. Real neurological systems operate primarily in parallel, possess finite and random access memory, and cannot be strictly viewed as deterministic, serial processors.¹⁹ The CTM framework has been widely criticized for its oversimplification, often treating cognitive processing as a linear sequence that fails to account for simultaneous processing.²⁰

A major limitation of the Information Processing Model derived from CTM is its inability to integrate essential human factors, notably emotion and creativity.²¹ Furthermore, the model struggles to account for rapid, non-rehearsal encoding of information, such as memories formed instantaneously during trauma.²⁰ Philosophically, CTM faces the hurdle of defining the objectivity of implementation—determining whether a physical system is genuinely performing a formal computation, or merely satisfying sufficiency criteria (matching input to output) without providing deep explanatory relevance at the algorithmic level.²²

3.2. Emergent Models: Predictive Processing and Connectionism

The contemporary trend is a paradigm shift from the mind as an abstract, rule-based logical inference engine to the mind as a Bayesian inference engine, prioritizing statistics and uncertainty management.

3.2.1. Predictive Processing (PPF): A Grand Unifying Framework

The Predictive Processing Framework (PPF) is gaining significant traction as a candidate for a grand unifying theory of mind and brain function.²³ PPF posits that the brain operates by constantly generating internal predictions about the external world and adjusting these models based on prediction errors received from sensory input. This framework successfully leverages advances in fields like physics, mathematics, and artificial intelligence (specifically deep learning) to provide comprehensive accounts of perception, cognition, and action.²³

A compelling observation supporting PPF is the emerging architectural convergence across vastly different theories of cognition—from behavioral psychology (Kahneman) to artificial intelligence (Minsky) and neuroscience (Friston). These disparate accounts appear to align on shared structural patterns, suggesting that the architecture of intelligence may be constrained by the inherent necessity of solving real-world reasoning challenges under uncertainty, regardless of the theoretical language used.¹⁷ This finding suggests that a unified theory of cognition may not emerge from philosophical abstraction, but from identifying the universal functional structures required for biological survival.

3.2.2. Connectionism and Deep Learning

Connectionism, utilizing artificial neural networks (ANNs), offers a robust, biologically constrained alternative to classical CTM.²⁴ Connectionist models explain intellectual abilities by emphasizing the parallel processing of diffuse patterns of neural activity through interconnected, neuron-like units, rather than manipulating discrete symbols via formal rules.²⁴ The modern manifestation of this approach, Deep Learning, has demonstrated high performance in complex cognitive tasks, including pattern recognition and language processing, further establishing Connectionism as a powerful model that successfully addresses the limitations of linearity and symbolic rigidity inherent in classical computationalism.²⁵

IV. The Nature of Consciousness: Current Scientific Adjudication

The most intense current debate in mind science centers on the nature and neural mechanisms of consciousness, epitomized by the adversarial collaboration between the two most prominent scientific theories.

4.1. The Two Dominant Scientific Theories

4.1.1. Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

IIT is a rigorous, mathematically formalized theory defining consciousness ($\Phi$) as the measure of integrated information within a system.²⁶ Its core assertion is that consciousness emerges when a system’s information is highly interconnected and unified, irrespective of the system's output behavior.²⁷ Neuroanatomically, IIT predicts that conscious experience should be underpinned by sustained neural interactions primarily within posterior cortical regions (such as parietal and high-level sensory areas), arguing that activity in the frontal cortex, generally associated with executive function and action, is not strictly necessary for consciousness itself.²⁸

4.1.2. Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT)

In contrast, GNWT proposes that consciousness is a phenomenon of access and global broadcast.²⁹ It suggests that when information becomes conscious, it triggers a non-linear network ignition, amplifying the representation and making it globally accessible across widely distributed neural networks.³⁰ GNWT therefore predicts that conscious access must actively engage a fronto-parietal network in tandem with high-level sensory cortices to facilitate the global sharing and integration of information.²⁹

4.2. Results of Adversarial Collaboration

A landmark, high-stakes adversarial collaboration was designed to test the distinct and conflicting predictions of IIT and GNWT regarding the timing and localization of the Neural Correlate of Consciousness (NCC).²⁷ The experiment involved attempting to decode the content of conscious experience and observe patterns of neural synchronization during perception.

4.2.1. Empirical Challenges to Both Models

The study yielded mixed results, failing to arbitrarily validate one theory over the other.³² Instead, the findings significantly challenged core claims of both models.²⁸

1. Challenge to GNWT: GNWT was weakened by the absence of consistent frontal ignition events (the predicted sudden broadcast amplification) and the weaker than expected representation of conscious information in the frontal regions.²⁸
2. Challenge to IIT: IIT was challenged by the lack of expected sustained neural synchronization patterns within the posterior cortex, undermining its prediction that integration within these regions alone specifies consciousness.²⁸

4.2.2. Proven Result: Integration Breakdown as NCC

Although the collaboration failed to pinpoint the definitive content-specific NCC mechanism, it established a highly robust, proven result concerning the state of consciousness. The consensus finding indicates that the loss of consciousness (e.g., during deep sleep or anesthesia) consistently coincides with a breakdown of information integration within the synergistic workspace of the human brain.³³ This finding provides a necessary condition for consciousness: highly integrated information is required for the conscious state. This functional success, while not solving the mechanisms of conscious content, pushes the scientific inquiry back towards the fundamental philosophical difficulties regarding subjectivity.

Table II: Adjudication and Refinement of Consciousness Theories

V. The Unsolved Philosophical Gaps and the Search for Unity

The ultimate barriers preventing the emergence of a single, unified, and proven theory of mind are epistemological and philosophical, fundamentally resisting purely empirical resolution.

5.1. The Mind-Body Conundrum

5.1.1. Physicalism and the Explanatory Gap

In modern academia, the prevailing viewpoint is Material Monism (Physicalism), or the identity theory, which holds that mental states are identical to, or purely the result of, physical brain states.³⁴ This dominance is sustained by compelling empirical evidence, specifically the "loss-of-function lesion premise," where physical manipulation or damage to the brain reliably causes cognitive or conscious impairment.³⁴

However, Physicalism is severely tested by the persistence of the Explanatory Gap—the inherent difficulty in explaining how physical processes give rise to qualia, or subjective, qualitative experience (the feeling of pain, the seeing of blue).³⁶ This is the essence of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Because subjective experience seems ineffable and resists definition in purely physical terms, non-physicalist ontologies (Dualism) persist, leveraging the gap to argue that the mind cannot be fully reduced to neural processes.³⁴

5.1.2. The Causal Exclusion Problem: The Fate of Non-Reductive Physicalism

To maintain the mind's phenomenal properties while adhering to physicalism, many philosophers adopt Non-Reductive Physicalism (NRP), holding that mental properties are realized by physical properties but are functionally or conceptually irreducible.³⁸ This position, which underlies much of the CTM/Functionalist approach, immediately encounters the Causal Exclusion Problem.³⁹

The problem arises from four jointly inconsistent premises: if the physical realm is causally complete (every physical effect has a physical cause), and mental properties are irreducible, then the mental properties cannot exert genuine causal influence without violating the causal completeness of physics or causing effects to be "overdetermined".³⁸ If mental states (like intentions or desires) are causally impotent—merely epiphenomenal—the resulting theory of mind fails to explain how conscious decisions translate into physical action. The inability to reconcile the irreducibility of subjective experience with the causal efficacy of the mind remains a central, unresolved roadblock to a unified physicalist theory.

5.2. Obstacles to a Unified Theory of Cognition (UTC)

Beyond the mind-body debate, technical and cognitive limitations continue to impede unification.

5.2.1. The Cognitive Binding Problem

A crucial, unsolved challenge is the Cognitive Binding Problem: how the brain integrates disparate, separately processed sensory features (e.g., color, location, motion) into a singular, unified perceptual experience.⁸ While Attention is confirmed to be crucial for binding—determining which features are selected and remembered—and temporal synchrony (coordinated neural activity timing) is a popular hypothesis for integration, a complete, verified model for binding does not yet exist.⁸

The failure to resolve the Binding Problem is fundamentally a failure to explain the unity of subjective experience. Since Functionalism defines mental states by what they do, and the subjective feeling of being a single, unified entity is the ultimate cognitive function, the unsolved nature of the binding mechanism prevents the structural completion of any functionalist theory of mind.

5.2.2. Epistemic and Complexity Barriers

The search for a unified theory is further hampered by the sheer combinatorial complexity of the human brain, which is the most intricate known structure in the universe.⁴⁰ The highly stateful nature of the psyche means that small differences in past experiences can lead to dramatically divergent thoughts and behaviors, making it nearly impossible to trace individual thoughts back through their complex, unique causal pathways.⁴¹

Moreover, the field contends with persistent epistemic barriers, including philosophical biases and the lack of consensus on fundamental "psychological primitives" necessary to build a comprehensive model.⁴⁰ Progress requires overcoming the constraint that all understanding of the mind must be achieved within the confines of the complex and often biased human mind itself.

Table III: The Philosophical Barriers to a Unified Theory

VI. Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1. Synthesis of Proven Results

In response to the demand for proven results, scientific investigation has provided certain established facts concerning the structural and operational limits of the mind:

1. Confirmed Cognitive Architecture: The operational mechanisms of memory and attention, particularly the modularity of Working Memory (Phonological Loop, Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad) and its quantitative limits (4$\pm$1 items), are highly verified empirical constants.¹
2. Confirmed Therapeutic Efficacy: While the theoretical structures of classical psychoanalysis lack empirical proof, the clinical utility of psychodynamic techniques is supported by evidence of sustained therapeutic gains, validating the effectiveness of certain interventions (e.g., insight generation) independent of their original explanatory framework.¹³
3. Confirmed NCC of State: The most robust proven result regarding consciousness is that the conscious state requires synergistic information integration; the breakdown of integration is a sufficient condition for the loss of consciousness.³³

6.2. Future Directions and Unification Challenges

The future trajectory of mind science is marked by a shift away from classical symbolic computation toward neurobiologically constrained models that excel at handling uncertainty, such as the Predictive Processing Framework (PPF). PPF provides the most promising route for structural unification, demonstrating the potential to reconcile disparate phenomena, from perception to complex narrative concepts like Jungian archetypes.¹⁶

However, true unification remains obstructed by philosophical barriers that resist empirical falsification. Until a solution is found for the Explanatory Gap that defines subjective experience (qualia) and the Causal Exclusion Problem that challenges the efficacy of mental causation within a physicalist framework, the discipline will remain divided. Furthermore, the microscopic problem of Cognitive Binding—how the brain creates subjective unity from fragmented features—must be resolved before a macro-level, unified theory of consciousness or cognition can be declared proven. Scientific progress depends on continuing adversarial collaborations to refine models like IIT and GNWT and utilizing unifying frameworks like PPF to operationalize abstract mental concepts.

Works cited

1. Short-term memory - Wikipedia, accessed October 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_memory
2. Short-Term Memory - The Decision Lab, accessed October 28, 2025, https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/short-term-memory
3. Baddeley's model of working memory - Wikipedia, accessed October 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baddeley%27s_model_of_working_memory
4. Following instructions in a dual-task paradigm: Evidence for a temporary motor store in working memory - PubMed Central, accessed October 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6204648/
5. Working Memory Model - Simply Psychology, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/working-memory.html
6. Working Memory and Attention – A Conceptual Analysis and Review - PubMed Central, accessed October 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6688548/
7. Physiological Mechanisms of Attention and Working Memory | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, accessed October 28, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/neuroscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264086.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264086-e-482?p=emailAygEnYwsfjja6&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264086.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264086-e-482
8. Binding problem - Wikipedia, accessed October 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
9. Id, Ego, and Superego - Simply Psychology, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html
10. Id, ego and superego - Wikipedia, accessed October 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_superego
11. Are Freud and Psychoanalysis Still Relevant? - Alliant International University, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.alliant.edu/blog/are-freud-and-psychoanalysis-still-relevant
12. Question: How much of Freud's work is actually valid? : r/psychology - Reddit, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/rmc5v/question_how_much_of_freuds_work_is_actually_valid/
13. The Efficacy of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy - American Psychological Association, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-65-2-98.pdf
14. Psychodynamic psychotherapy: developing the evidence base | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | Cambridge Core, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/advances-in-psychiatric-treatment/article/psychodynamic-psychotherapy-developing-the-evidence-base/FDFB93596F9E502277720F9F4F55563A
15. Unraveling the Depths of the Psyche: A Review of Carl Jung's Analytical Psychology - IJIP, accessed October 28, 2025, https://ijip.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/18.01.059.20241201.pdf
16. Eigenmodes of the deep unconscious: the neuropsychology of Jungian archetypes and psychedelic experience - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed October 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12535262/
17. Emergent Cognitive Convergence via Implementation: A Structured Loop Reflecting Four Theories of Mind – A Position Paper - arXiv, accessed October 28, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.16184
18. Computational theory of mind - Wikipedia, accessed October 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
19. The Computational Theory of Mind - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed October 28, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/
20. Information Processing Theory - Open Oregon Educational Resources, accessed October 28, 2025, https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/educationallearningtheories3rd/chapter/chapter-12-information-processing-theory-2/
21. Information Processing Theory in Psychology - Verywell Mind, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/information-processing-theory-in-psychology-7503601
22. Computational Theory of Mind | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed October 28, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/computational-theory-of-mind/
23. What we think about when we think about predictive processing - PubMed Central, accessed October 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7509909/
24. Connectionism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed October 28, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/connectionism-cognition/
25. Connectionism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed October 28, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/connectionism/
26. Carving Nature at Its Joints: A Comparison of CEMI Field Theory with Integrated Information Theory and Global Workspace Theory - MDPI, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/12/1635
27. Landmark experiment sheds new light on the origins of consciousness - Allen Institute, accessed October 28, 2025, https://alleninstitute.org/news/landmark-experiment-sheds-new-light-on-the-origins-of-consciousness/
28. Theories of Consciousness Smackdown: IIT vs GNWT | by Jim Rutt | Medium, accessed October 28, 2025, https://medium.com/@memetic007/theories-of-consciousness-smack-down-iit-vs-gnwt-484ee48b4ef0
29. A synergistic workspace for human consciousness revealed by Integrated Information Decomposition - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed October 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11257694/
30. Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH, accessed October 28, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8770991/
31. An adversarial collaboration protocol for testing contrasting predictions of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theory | PLOS One - Research journals, accessed October 28, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268577
32. What a Contest of Consciousness Theories Really Proved - Quanta Magazine, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-a-contest-of-consciousness-theories-really-proved-20230824/
33. A Synergistic Workspace for Human Consciousness Revealed by Integrated Information Decomposition - eLife, accessed October 28, 2025, https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/88173v3/pdf
34. An evidence-based critical review of the mind-brain identity theory - Frontiers, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150605/full
35. Neural Correlates of Consciousness Meet the Theory of Identity - Frontiers, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01269/full
36. Explanatory gap - Wikipedia, accessed October 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap
37. Dualism and Mind | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed October 28, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/dualism-and-mind/
38. A DEFENSE OF NON-REDUCTIVE PHYSICALISM A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In P, accessed October 28, 2025, https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/7520/1/Haug_diss.pdf
39. Mind and the Causal Exclusion Problem | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed October 28, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/mind-and-the-causal-exclusion-problem/
40. Why haven't we found an unified theory for consciousness? - Quora, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-an-unified-theory-for-consciousness
41. Common hurdles to understanding the human mind | by From Narrow To General AI, accessed October 28, 2025, https://ykulbashian.medium.com/common-hurdles-to-understanding-the-human-mind-a1f6e0e93ed3