Return to Consciousness

Theories of Consciousness (tcc)

Constraints, Commitments, and Complementarity

Contents ▼

Project: Return to Consciousness
Author: Bruno Tonetto
Authorship Note: Co-authored with AI as a disciplined thinking instrument—not a replacement for judgment. Prioritizes epistemic integrity and truth-seeking as a moral responsibility.
Finalized: May 2026
23 pages · ~45 min read · PDF

Abstract

The apparent conflict between consciousness science and consciousness-first metaphysics is largely an artifact of ontological packaging rather than of the empirical findings themselves. Contemporary theories of consciousness — IIT, Global Workspace, predictive processing, Higher-Order Theories, Recurrent Processing, Attention Schema Theory, Orch OR, and others — each package a structural discovery about consciousness inside an ontological commitment the discovery does not entail. When the two are separated, five recurring structural features emerge across the theory landscape: integration, global accessibility, self-reference, anticipatory modeling, and non-trivial unity. These features describe a single structural territory any complete framework must accommodate, and they are ontologically portable: their predictive content travels across frameworks. Theories fall into three categories — those identifying structural constraints (features any complete framework must accommodate, in the methodological sense used throughout this essay), those denying the explanandum (illusionism and strong deflationary positions), and those relocating the primitive (panpsychism, Russellian monism, cosmopsychism). The diagnostic also makes visible that the production inference — the move from the brain correlates with consciousness to the brain produces consciousness — is a metaphysical commitment rather than an empirical finding. This essay’s contribution is the theory-level diagnostic: the structural findings of consciousness science do not entail physicalism, the production inference is commitment rather than finding, and the recurring structural features must be accommodated by any complete framework.

Keywords: theories of consciousness · constraint-based reasoning · integrated information theory · global workspace theory · predictive processing · illusionism · panpsychism · ontological portability · production assumption · philosophy of mind

What This Essay Does and Does Not Establish

This essay establishes:

This essay does NOT establish:

The argument’s center of gravity is the diagnostic: identifying where structural finding ends and ontological interpretation begins. The reader who accepts this diagnostic but rejects the project’s broader idealist framework loses nothing this essay claims to establish.

I. The Question Behind the Theories

The science of consciousness has matured remarkably in the past three decades. What was once dismissed as philosophically intractable — or worse, scientifically disreputable — now sustains major research programs, dedicated journals, international conferences, and adversarial collaborations designed to adjudicate between competing frameworks. The landscape is rich: Integrated Information Theory, Global Neuronal Workspace Theory, Higher-Order Theories, Recurrent Processing Theory, predictive processing accounts, Attention Schema Theory, Orchestrated Objective Reduction, and several others each offer distinct accounts of what consciousness is and how it arises. The canonical recent mainstream survey is Seth and Bayne’s “Theories of Consciousness” in Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2022), which reviews higher-order, global workspace, integrated information, and reentry/predictive processing theories — restricting attention by design to theories framed in neurobiological terms, and bracketing both quantum-mechanical accounts and frameworks that take consciousness as fundamental.

These theories are typically presented as competitors. IIT and GNW were pitted against each other in the Templeton Foundation’s adversarial collaboration (2023). Illusionism positions itself against any theory that takes phenomenal consciousness at face value. Panpsychism challenges the shared assumption of most neuroscientific theories that consciousness emerges at some level of complexity.

But what exactly are these theories competing about?

This essay argues that the competition is less deep than it appears. Most theories of consciousness are doing something more specific — and more valuable — than settling ontology. They are identifying structural constraints: features of consciousness that any complete framework must accommodate. Integration, global access, self-monitoring, recurrence, hierarchical prediction — these are structural findings about how consciousness is organized. They constrain theory. They do not, by themselves, determine what consciousness fundamentally is.

The apparent competition arises because most theories package their structural discoveries inside an ontological commitment — usually physicalism — that is not entailed by the discoveries themselves. When IIT says “consciousness is integrated information,” the finding is that integration characterizes conscious systems. The additional claim — that information integration in physical substrates generates consciousness — is an ontological commitment that goes beyond what the structural finding establishes. When GNW says “consciousness is global broadcasting,” the finding is that conscious content is globally accessible. The additional claim — that broadcasting in neural networks produces experience — is metaphysics, not mechanism. This recurring move — from the brain correlates with consciousness to the brain produces consciousness — is what this essay calls the production inference, and identifying its presence across multiple theories is one of the diagnostic’s central contributions.

This is not a criticism of these theories. It is a diagnostic clarification. As The Generativity Question argues, scientific theories are ontologically portable — their predictive and explanatory content does not depend on the ontological interpretation placed upon them. This essay applies that insight systematically to the major theories of consciousness.

The methodology is that of Integration by Constraints: separate what must be explained (constraints) from how it is interpreted (commitments). The result is a map of what consciousness science has found, freed from its default packaging — and a clarification of where the genuine ontological disagreement actually lies. Analytic idealism — the position, developed most systematically by Bernardo Kastrup, that reality is fundamentally mental and that individual minds are dissociated segments of a transpersonal consciousness — is the framework this project works within, argued for in Return to Consciousness. This essay assumes that framework when illustrating how the structural findings can be interpretively repackaged (Section IX), but does not advocate for it. The first-principles comparison of frameworks is conducted in First-Principles Assessment; the present essay’s contribution is the theory-level diagnostic — establishing that the structural findings of consciousness science do not entail physicalism, that the production inference is commitment rather than finding, and that the same recurring features must be accommodated by any complete framework.

II. The Analytical Framework

Constraints vs. Commitments in Consciousness Science

Integration by Constraints distinguishes two levels of theoretical claim:

Constraints are features of the phenomenon that any complete framework must accommodate. They are discovered, not chosen. A constraint says: “Whatever consciousness is, it exhibits this feature.” Some constraints sit comfortably within multiple frameworks — integration, for instance, is equally at home in physicalism and idealism. Others create differential pressure: they are accommodated more naturally by one framework than another, or resist accommodation by one entirely. Both kinds are genuine constraints — features of the territory, not artifacts of interpretation. What makes something a constraint is that it is a discovery about the structure of consciousness, not a claim about what consciousness ultimately is.

Commitments are claims about the ultimate nature of the phenomenon. They are adopted, not discovered. They position the theorist within a specific ontological framework. A commitment says: “Consciousness is fundamentally this kind of thing.” The claim that “consciousness involves integration” is a constraint; the claim that “integration in physical substrates produces consciousness” is a commitment — it adds an ontological direction that the structural finding does not establish.

Most theories of consciousness contain both. The task is to separate them — not to diminish the theories, but to identify where structural discovery ends and ontological interpretation begins.

The Portability Test

The Generativity Question establishes that scientific theories are ontologically portable: their predictive content transfers intact across different metaphysical frameworks. The predictions of quantum mechanics are the same whether reality is fundamentally physical, mental, or neutral. The same applies to theories of consciousness: the structural findings — about integration, broadcasting, prediction, recurrence — describe features of consciousness that hold regardless of what consciousness ultimately is.

The test for each theory is: Is this a discovery about the structure of consciousness, or a claim about what consciousness fundamentally is? Structural discoveries are constraints. Their predictive content travels across frameworks. Ontological claims are commitments. They interpret the territory rather than map it — and they are what the theories disagree about most deeply, while often presenting that disagreement as a finding rather than as a choice.

A clarification deserves emphasis. The portability claim is not that any theory as a whole travels intact across ontologies. Some theories make constitutive identity claims — IIT identifies Φ with consciousness, not merely correlates the two — and the identity claim is precisely what does not travel. The portability is at the level of findings: the empirical content describing integration, broadcasting, recurrence, prediction. The identity claims layered onto those findings are the commitments the diagnostic separates.

Three Categories

Applying this analysis across the landscape of consciousness theories reveals three categories:

  1. Theories that identify structural constraints. Their core findings describe features of consciousness that are ontologically portable. Most major neuroscientific theories fall here.

  2. Theories that challenge the explanandum. They deny that phenomenal consciousness — the “what it is like” quality — exists as traditionally conceived. These are genuinely incompatible with any framework that takes experience as real and irreducible, including consciousness-first ontologies.

  3. Theories that relocate the primitive. They modify what counts as fundamental in ways that converge with or approximate consciousness-first frameworks. These are not simple competitors but neighbors.

The following sections examine each category in detail.

III. Theories That Identify Structural Constraints

Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

Core claim: Consciousness is identical with integrated information (Φ). A system is conscious to the degree that it is both differentiated (capable of many possible states) and integrated (cannot be decomposed into independent subsystems without information loss). The theory provides a mathematical formalism for quantifying consciousness.

The structural finding: Integration is a recurring feature of consciousness across multiple lines of evidence: phenomenologically, experience presents as unified rather than aggregated; clinically, collapse of integration tracks loss of consciousness under anesthesia; and split-brain dissociations show that disrupting integration disrupts unified experience. IIT formalizes this observation and proposes Φ as a quantitative measure. The constraint is not specific to IIT: any complete framework of consciousness must accommodate the integrative character of experience — explaining why each instance is irreducibly integrated rather than a mere aggregate, and why this integration proves resilient even under severe structural disruption.

The ontological packaging: IIT identifies Φ with consciousness itself — not as a correlate or measure but as an identity. This is a strong ontological commitment: consciousness is integrated information, wherever it occurs. The commitment carries further implications: any system with nonzero Φ is conscious (panpsychism follows), and certain grid structures could in principle be more conscious than brains. The mathematical formalism is a genuine contribution; the identification of that formalism with consciousness is the step that goes beyond the finding.

What IIT contributes as constraint: Consciousness involves integration. Any complete framework must accommodate the irreducible integration of each instance of experience, and the fact that disruptions of integration alter the character of experience. This constraint is robust across methods, recurrent across contexts, resistant to eliminative explanation, and costly to exclude — meeting all four IBC criteria.

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNW)

Core claim: Consciousness arises when information is broadcast globally across a “workspace” of interconnected cortical areas — primarily prefrontal and parietal networks. Unconscious processing is local and modular; conscious processing is what achieves global availability for report, reasoning, and flexible behavioral control.

The structural finding: Conscious content is globally accessible. There is a qualitative difference between information that remains locally processed and information that becomes available system-wide. This transition — from local to global — correlates with the transition from unconscious to conscious processing. The finding is supported by extensive experimental evidence: attentional blink paradigms, masking studies, and the neural signatures of reportable versus unreportable stimuli.

The ontological packaging: GNW is typically presented within a physicalist framework: global broadcasting in neural networks produces consciousness. Some formulations go further, suggesting that the hard problem dissolves once access consciousness is explained — that there is nothing more to consciousness than global availability for report and control. The production claim goes beyond the finding; the claim that access exhausts consciousness is a stronger philosophical commitment adopted by some proponents (notably Dehaene) but not entailed by the empirical program. Cautious versions of GNW limit the claim to access consciousness, leaving phenomenal character as a separate question.

What GNW contributes as constraint: Consciousness involves global availability. Content that is merely processed locally — without entering the global workspace — is not consciously experienced (or at minimum, not reportably so). Any adequate account must accommodate this broadcast structure and the threshold at which content transitions from local processing to global availability.

Recurrent Processing Theory (RPT)

Core claim: Consciousness correlates with recurrent (feedback) processing in sensory cortex, not with frontal broadcasting. Feedforward sweeps through the cortical hierarchy are unconscious; recurrent loops — where higher areas feed back to lower areas — generate phenomenal experience, potentially even without global access or reportability.

The structural finding: Recurrence — feedback processing where outputs loop back to become inputs — is a feature of conscious processing. This finding cuts against GNW’s emphasis on frontal broadcasting and suggests that consciousness may be more closely tied to posterior cortical dynamics than to prefrontal-parietal workspace activity. Evidence from change blindness, inattentional blindness, and the preserved phenomenology of certain lesion patients supports this.

The ontological packaging: RPT is typically neutral on deep ontology — Lamme himself focuses on the neural architecture rather than metaphysical questions. But insofar as recurrence is presented as the mechanism that produces phenomenal consciousness (rather than as its neural correlate), a physicalist commitment is implicit. The finding is about neural architecture; the production inference is the step that goes beyond it.

What RPT contributes as constraint: Consciousness correlates with recurrent (feedback) dynamics. The transition from unconscious to conscious processing tracks the transition from feedforward to recurrent activity. Any adequate account must accommodate this architectural feature and the threshold at which it becomes relevant. (The further claim that recurrence amounts to “self-reference” or reflexive awareness in the philosophical sense is an interpretive step beyond the empirical finding — see Section IX for the interpretive register.)

Predictive Processing and Active Inference

Core claim: Predictive processing is a computational framework for perception, action, and cognition: the brain is treated as a hierarchical generative model that continuously generates predictions about sensory input and updates itself via prediction errors. Some applications extend the framework to consciousness — most notably Seth’s “beast machine” framing, in which perceptual experience is a “controlled hallucination” and selfhood arises from interoceptive predictions about the body. The framework is broader than any specific theory of consciousness; what is reviewed here is its application to consciousness questions, not the framework itself.

The structural finding: Conscious experience is structured by prediction. Perception is not passive registration but active inference — the brain constructs models and updates them when predictions fail. This framework unifies perception, action, attention, and selfhood under a single computational principle. The evidence is extensive: predictive coding accounts explain perceptual illusions, attentional modulation, placebo effects, and the phenomenology of psychedelic states (where prediction error increases and top-down models destabilize).

The ontological packaging: Predictive processing is often presented as a physicalist account: the brain’s predictive computations produce conscious experience. Anil Seth’s “beast machine” framework is more nuanced — Seth engages the hard problem directly and acknowledges it remains open — but the default framing is still that prediction produces experience rather than describes its structure. The active inference framework (Friston) generalizes prediction to all self-organizing systems under a free energy principle. In both cases, the mathematical formalisms describe structure; the claim that this structure produces experience is the step that goes beyond the finding.

What predictive processing contributes as constraint: Consciousness is anticipatory and model-based. Experience is not passive reception but active construction. Any adequate account must accommodate the fact that consciousness generates predictions, registers surprise, and updates its models — and that disruption of this predictive architecture (as in psychedelic states, psychosis, or sensory deprivation) alters the character of experience in characteristic ways.

Higher-Order Theories (HOT)

Core claim: A mental state is conscious when it is the object of a higher-order representation — a thought about the thought, or a perception of the perception. Without this higher-order monitoring, the first-order state is processed but not experienced.

The structural finding: Consciousness involves self-monitoring. There is something distinctive about mental states that are represented at a higher order — they have a quality of being “for me,” of being experienced rather than merely processed. The theory draws support from cases where higher-order and first-order states dissociate: blindsight patients process visual information without experiencing it, suggesting that first-order processing without higher-order representation yields unconscious cognition.

The ontological packaging: HOT theories are typically presented within a physicalist framework: higher-order neural representations produce phenomenal consciousness. Some versions (notably Lau and Rosenthal’s perceptual reality monitoring model) are more mechanistic, proposing specific neural circuits for higher-order monitoring. The further implication that creatures without higher-order capacity are not conscious at all is a strong commitment that goes beyond the structural finding — it derives an exclusion from a mechanism, not from the evidence of self-monitoring itself.

What HOT contributes as constraint: Human consciousness involves a self-monitoring dimension — awareness of awareness. Any adequate account must accommodate the close tie between meta-cognition and phenomenal consciousness, and the fact that its disruption (as in blindsight or certain dissociative states) alters experiential character.

Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR)

Core claim: Consciousness arises from quantum computations in microtubules within neurons. When quantum superpositions reach a critical threshold (related to quantum gravity), they undergo “objective reduction” — a non-computable process that is the physical basis of conscious moments.

The structural finding: Consciousness may involve non-computable processes — processes that cannot be captured by algorithmic computation. Penrose’s mathematical arguments (from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems) suggest that human mathematical understanding transcends what any Turing machine can achieve, implying that consciousness involves something beyond classical computation.

The ontological packaging: Orch OR locates consciousness in a specific physical substrate (quantum processes in microtubules) and a specific physical mechanism (objective reduction). This is a strong physicalist commitment — perhaps the most specific of any major theory. The microtubule hypothesis itself is a scientific claim testable on its own terms, independent of ontological commitments. The identification of objective reduction as the origin of conscious moments is the step that goes beyond what the evidence establishes.

What Orch OR contributes as constraint: If its arguments are sound, consciousness may involve non-computable processes. Any adequate account must at least address the relationship between consciousness and computation — whether consciousness can in principle be fully captured by algorithmic processes. This remains contested but constitutes a serious constraint candidate.

Electromagnetic Field Theories (CEMI)

Core claim: Consciousness is the brain’s electromagnetic field. Johnjoe McFadden’s Conscious Electromagnetic Information (CEMI) field theory proposes that the EM field integrates information across neural populations and is the physical substrate of unified conscious experience.

The structural finding: Consciousness may be associated with field-level rather than neuron-level dynamics. The EM field is genuinely integrative — it binds information across spatially distributed neural populations in a way that individual synaptic connections do not. This could address the binding problem: how distributed neural processing gives rise to unified experience.

The ontological packaging: CEMI identifies consciousness with a physical field — the EM field is the substrate, not merely a correlate. The identification of consciousness with the field is the ontological commitment; the association between field-level dynamics and experiential integration is the finding.

What CEMI contributes as constraint: Conscious experience may be integrated at a field level rather than at the level of individual neural elements. Any adequate account must address why consciousness exhibits irreducible integration and whether that integration corresponds to integrative physical processes at the field level.

IV. The Complementarity Pattern

The theories examined in Section III differ substantially in their proposed mechanisms, preferred neural substrates, and empirical predictions. IIT emphasizes posterior cortex and integrated information; GNW emphasizes prefrontal-parietal broadcasting; RPT emphasizes sensory recurrence; predictive processing emphasizes hierarchical generative models; HOT emphasizes meta-representational circuits; Orch OR emphasizes quantum microtubule dynamics; CEMI emphasizes electromagnetic fields.

Yet when their structural findings are extracted from their ontological packaging, much of the apparent competition shifts in character. The theories are not contradicting each other at the constraint level — they are mapping different facets of the same territory. Conscious experience, as these theories collectively describe it, involves:

  1. Integration. Each instance of experience is irreducibly integrated. Disruptions of integration alter or dissolve consciousness. (IIT, CEMI)

  2. Global accessibility. Conscious content is available system-wide for flexible use — in reasoning, reporting, and behavioral control. (GNW)

  3. Self-reference. Consciousness involves recurrence — processing that loops back on itself, whether at the architectural level (RPT) or at the meta-representational level (HOT).

  4. Anticipatory modeling. Experience is not passive registration but active construction — prediction, inference, and updating. (Predictive processing)

  5. Non-trivial unity. The binding of disparate elements into a single experiential field requires explanation — it is not an automatic consequence of having many processes running simultaneously. (IIT, CEMI, GNW)

These five features are not the discoveries of any single theory. They are complementary — each theory contributes one or two facets, and some features (integration, self-reference) appear across multiple frameworks independently. Together they constitute the structural territory that any complete framework of consciousness must accommodate.

The Pattern Is Significant

Theories that appear to compete turn out, at the constraint level, to be complementary. IIT and GNW disagree about which neural pattern is constitutive of consciousness (posterior integration vs. frontal broadcasting) but agree that consciousness involves integration. RPT and HOT disagree about which kind of self-referential structure is constitutive (sensory recurrence vs. meta-representational circuits) but agree that some form of self-reference is involved. The competition is at the level of which structural feature is constitutive — a commitment-level question that produces differing empirical predictions about which neural patterns suffice for consciousness. At the constraint level, the theories are mapping different facets of the same territory; the mechanisms themselves coexist in the brain’s actual operation, and no theory denies that.

This finding has independent support from within mainstream consciousness science, though stopping short of the full claim. Seth and Bayne (2022) observe that ToCs “often have different explanatory targets” and conclude that, when so, theories “might not be the ‘adversaries’ that at first glance appear to be.” This dissolves apparent competition: the theories aren’t necessarily fighting over the same ground. The present analysis goes further in a constructive direction: the five recurring features identified above are not merely separate explanatory targets that fail to compete but facets of a single structural territory the theories collectively describe.

What the Pattern Establishes — and What It Does Not

The complementarity pattern establishes that the structural territory exists and that any complete framework must accommodate it. It does not establish which framework accommodates it best. That comparative question — examined in detail in First-Principles Assessment — is conducted on different terrain (epistemic direction, brute-fact placement, hard problem handling, parsimony, self-referential coherence). This essay’s contribution stops at the structural diagnosis.

What can be said at the diagnostic level is that no theory examined here entails physicalism. The structural features the theories identify are ontologically portable — their predictive content does not depend on the ontological direction interpretation places upon them. Whether to read these features within a production-direction packaging (consciousness arises from non-experiential substrates) or within a constraint-direction packaging (the brain is the extrinsic appearance of how consciousness structures itself) is a separate decision, made on grounds the theories themselves do not adjudicate.

Terminological note. From here forward, the word constraint carries two distinct project-standard senses that should be kept apart. The methodological sense — used throughout Sections I–IV and aligned with Integration by Constraints — names a feature any complete framework must accommodate (e.g., “integration is a structural constraint on theories of consciousness”). The filter-theoretic sense — introduced here and used through Sections VIII–IX — names a particular ontological reading in which the brain constrains, shapes, or filters consciousness rather than producing it (e.g., “constraint-direction packaging,” “the constraint reading”). The phrases structural constraints and constraint-direction / constraint reading mark the two senses respectively; subsequent uses of unmarked “constraint” should be read in context.

V. Theories That Challenge the Explanandum

Not all theories of consciousness aim to explain consciousness. Some aim to dissolve it — to show that the thing we thought needed explaining does not exist as conceived, or that our intuitions about it are systematically mistaken. These theories occupy a fundamentally different position from those examined in Section III. They are not identifying structural constraints on consciousness; they are denying that the apparent constraints are genuine.

Illusionism

Core claim: Phenomenal consciousness — the “what it is like” quality, qualia, the intrinsic character of experience — is an illusion. There are no qualia in the traditional philosophical sense. What exists is a set of functional and representational properties that the brain models as having intrinsic qualitative character. The sense that experience has an irreducible subjective quality is itself a product of how the brain represents its own states — not a feature of reality.

Keith Frankish distinguishes his position carefully: there is a real phenomenon to explain — why we believe there are qualia — but the qualia themselves are illusory. Daniel Dennett’s earlier version (“quining qualia”) argued that our intuitions about phenomenal consciousness are systematically confused and that the hard problem vanishes once the confusion is dissolved.

The constraint-based assessment: Illusionism does not identify a structural constraint on consciousness. It denies that the central constraint exists. Where every other theory examined in this essay takes the existence of phenomenal experience as a datum to be explained, illusionism treats it as a systematic error to be diagnosed.

This places illusionism in a unique position relative to the IBC framework. The existence of phenomenal experience — that there is something it is like to see red, feel pain, or hear a melody — passes the four constraint criteria robustly: it is reported across every method of investigation, recurs in every cultural and historical context, has resisted every eliminative attempt, and its exclusion renders any account of consciousness visibly inadequate.

Illusionism’s response is sophisticated: the resistance to elimination is itself part of the illusion — the brain’s self-model is designed to represent its own states as having irreducible qualitative character, so of course introspection reports irreducibility. The appearance of phenomenal consciousness is explained; the reality of it is denied.

The strongest objection to illusionism is structural: it relocates the hard problem rather than dissolving it. To explain why the brain represents itself as having phenomenal states, we need an account of what the representing involves — and if that representing has any qualitative character at all, the hard problem returns at one remove. If the representing has no qualitative character, illusionism owes an account of why we have such a vivid impression of phenomenality, an impression that itself seems to involve qualitative character. The objection locates where the genuine disagreement lies: between those who hold that the appearance of phenomenality is itself phenomenal (and therefore real) and those who hold that the appearance is purely functional (and therefore not).

This essay does not adjudicate that disagreement. It locates it. Illusionism and consciousness-first frameworks (idealism, panpsychism, Russellian monism) share nothing at the level of the explanandum. The disagreement between them is prior to all the mechanistic questions the other theories engage.

Attention Schema Theory (AST)

Core claim: The brain constructs a simplified internal model of its own attention processes — the “attention schema.” Consciousness is this internal narrative about what attention is doing. We believe we have subjective experience because the model says we do, but the model is a simplification — like the body schema is a simplified model of the body.

Michael Graziano’s theory exists on a spectrum. In its moderate form, AST identifies a genuine structural feature: the brain models its own attention. In its strong form, AST is deflationary — consciousness as traditionally conceived does not exist; what exists is a self-model that represents itself as being conscious.

The constraint-based assessment: The moderate form identifies a constraint: consciousness involves self-modeling, and attention modeling in particular is a feature of how conscious systems operate. This is compatible with multiple frameworks, including consciousness-first ones, since under any framework taking experience as real, self-modeling is a developed capacity within experience.

The strong form — where the self-model is all there is and phenomenal consciousness is a representational fiction — is genuinely incompatible with consciousness-first frameworks, for the same reason illusionism is. If consciousness is fundamental, it cannot be a fiction generated by a model. The spectrum matters: AST’s incompatibility depends on how strongly the deflationary claim is pressed.

What Deflationary Theories Reveal

The deflationary theories serve an important diagnostic function even for theorists who reject their conclusions. They make explicit what is at stake in the foundational question: Is phenomenal experience real?

Every other theory examined in this essay — IIT, GNW, RPT, predictive processing, moderate HOT, Orch OR, CEMI, and the consciousness-first frameworks examined in Section VI — takes the existence of phenomenal experience as given and seeks to explain it. The deflationary theories refuse this starting point. In doing so, they clarify that the existence of the explanandum is itself a substantive commitment — one that consciousness science largely shares with consciousness-first metaphysics, but that is not universally held.

VI. Theories That Relocate the Primitive

A third category of theories does not fit neatly into either the constraint-identifying or the explanandum-denying camps. These theories modify what counts as fundamental in ways that bring them into the neighborhood of consciousness-first frameworks — sometimes close enough that the boundary between positions becomes unclear.

Panpsychism

Core claim: Consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. Rather than emerging at some level of complexity, experiential properties are present at all levels — including fundamental physics.

Variants:

Relationship to consciousness-first frameworks: Micropsychism retains the physicalist structure (particles are fundamental; consciousness is a property of particles) while modifying the content (particles are experiential). It faces the combination problem — how micro-experiences combine into unified macro-experience — which is structurally analogous to the hard problem it was designed to solve.

Cosmopsychism is structurally near-identical to analytic idealism. Both posit a fundamental consciousness of which individual minds are derivative aspects. The “decomposition problem” of cosmopsychism is idealism’s “granularity problem” — why universal consciousness fragments into these specific individual minds. The frameworks converge on the same explanatory structure and face the same outstanding debt. The difference is primarily one of lineage and emphasis: cosmopsychism emerged from the analytic panpsychism literature; analytic idealism reformulates Schopenhauerian idealism within the same analytic framework.

Panprotopsychism occupies a middle ground — its proto-experiential properties are neither fully experiential (which would make it panpsychism proper) nor fully non-experiential (which would make it physicalism). Whether proto-experience is closer to consciousness-first or physicalist commitments depends on how it is characterized.

What panpsychism contributes as constraint: The intuition driving panpsychism — that deriving experience from non-experience is categorically problematic — is itself a constraint candidate. If sound, it places pressure on any framework that treats experience as wholly emergent from non-experiential primitives. Whether this pressure is decisive is a comparative question handled in First-Principles Assessment.

Russellian Monism

Core claim: Physics describes the world’s relational and structural properties — causal roles, mathematical relations — but says nothing about the intrinsic nature of what occupies those roles. The intrinsic nature might be experiential or proto-experiential. On this view, consciousness is not emergent from something non-experiential; it is the intrinsic character of what physics describes extrinsically.

Relationship to consciousness-first frameworks: Russellian monism dissolves the category-crossing problem that drives the hard problem — if the physical is experiential at its intrinsic level, there is no non-experiential-to-experiential transition to explain. But if this is correct, then “physicalism” in its standard sense — the view that reality is fundamentally non-experiential — is false. What succeeds is a view in which experience is fundamental, which is structurally closer to consciousness-first frameworks than to the physicalism the label preserves. The key open question for Russellian monism is the combination problem.

What Russellian monism contributes as constraint: Physics describes structure, not intrinsic nature. The relational character of physical description leaves the intrinsic nature of reality as an open question — one that physics itself cannot settle. This is a genuine constraint: any complete framework must address the relationship between the structural properties physics describes and the intrinsic nature of what exhibits those properties.

Neutral Monism

Core claim: Reality is fundamentally neither mental nor physical but some neutral “stuff” that can appear as either depending on how it is organized or viewed. Mind and matter are two aspects of the same underlying reality.

Relationship to consciousness-first frameworks: Neutral monism avoids privileging either mind or matter. Its principal challenge is characterizing the “neutral” substrate — what is it, if neither mental nor physical? Depending on how this is resolved, neutral monism can collapse into physicalism, into a consciousness-first framework, or remain genuinely distinct.

What neutral monism contributes as constraint: The duality of mental and physical descriptions may reflect perspectival difference rather than ontological division. Any adequate account must address why reality admits of both experiential and structural description — whether this dual character is fundamental, derivative of something deeper, or the result of one being the appearance of the other.

VII. The Brute-Fact Map

Where Explanation Stops establishes that every framework must terminate somewhere — at brute facts that are accepted without further grounding. The question is not whether a framework has brute facts but where it places them.

Applying this analysis to the theories of consciousness reveals a pattern:

Theory Where It Stops Type of Brute Fact
IIT Integration produces consciousness Why does Φ feel like anything?
GNW Broadcasting produces consciousness Why does global access generate experience?
RPT Recurrence produces consciousness Why does feedback processing feel like anything?
Predictive processing Prediction produces consciousness Why does being a predictive model feel like anything?
HOT Higher-order representation produces consciousness Why does meta-representation generate phenomenality?
Orch OR Quantum reduction produces consciousness Why does objective reduction feel like anything?
CEMI EM field dynamics produce consciousness Why does a field feel like anything?
Illusionism There is nothing to explain Why do we experience being experiencers?
Panpsychism (micro) Experience is fundamental at micro level Why this combination? (combination problem)
Russellian monism Intrinsic natures are experiential Why this combination? (same problem)
Cosmopsychism Cosmic consciousness is fundamental Why this decomposition? (decomposition/granularity problem)
Analytic idealism Mind and dissociation are fundamental Why this decomposition? (granularity problem)

Two patterns are visible.

Pattern 1: Every theory that takes consciousness as something to be produced by non-conscious processes faces a version of the same gap at its brute-fact level: why does this process feel like anything? The specific processes differ — integration, broadcasting, recurrence, prediction, meta-representation, quantum reduction, field dynamics — but the structural gap is the same.

Pattern 2: Theories that take experience as fundamental face a different problem — the combination or granularity problem. Panpsychism, cosmopsychism, Russellian monism, and analytic idealism all accept experience as primitive and ask how it organizes into the specific configurations we observe. Some structural progress on this question has been made within the project — see Architecture of Individuation on how dissociative individuation generates the configurations we observe, and Measurement from Inside on how shared dissociative origin grounds intersubjective regularity. But the problem remains genuinely open at its deepest level.

Both patterns describe real explanatory debts. The structural mirror between them — physicalism starts from parts and must explain unity (the binding problem); consciousness-first frameworks start from unity and must explain specific decompositions — is a consequence of the directional choice. The comparative assessment of which debt is more tractable belongs to First-Principles Assessment; this essay’s diagnostic stops at making the debts visible and structurally parallel.

VIII. The Production Assumption

A thread runs through Sections III–VII that deserves explicit statement. Nearly every neuroscientific theory of consciousness contains a step that is metaphysical rather than empirical: the inference from correlation to production.

The Emergence of Physicalism identifies this pattern: the correlation between brain states and mental states is an empirical finding; the production claim is a metaphysical addition that goes beyond the evidence. The same analysis applies to each theory examined in Section III:

In each case, the finding is empirical and robust. The inference is metaphysical and underdetermined. The correlation is a constraint; the production claim is a commitment.

This does not mean the production claim is false. It means it is not established by the findings that appear to support it. The same findings are equally compatible with a constraint reading: that the brain does not produce consciousness but constrains, filters, and structures it. Damage to the brain disrupts the constraint structure, producing specific experiential deficits — exactly as the production model predicts, but for different ontological reasons.

A serious version of the production reply deserves engagement. Production is not based on passive correlation alone — it is supported by an extensive interventionist literature: lesion-deficit mappings, electrical stimulation producing specific percepts, pharmacological modulation, anesthesia, and brain-computer interface evidence all show that interventions on the brain produce specific, repeatable, manipulable changes in consciousness. The diagnostic point stands intact under this evidence. Even extensive interventionist data leaves untouched the inference from “intervention X produces change Y in consciousness” to “X ontologically generates Y.” Both production and constraint directions predict that interventions on the brain produce specific changes in consciousness — production because the generator is being manipulated, constraint because the structure that channels consciousness is being altered. The interventionist literature establishes that the brain is causally relevant to consciousness; it does not establish that the brain generates consciousness rather than constrains it.

The diagnostic the essay aims to establish is narrower: that the production inference is metaphysical rather than empirical. The inference is not directly forced by the data; it is one ontological packaging among others. Whether the production direction is the most defensible packaging — or whether the constraint direction better accommodates the wider evidential landscape, including phenomena that strain production models — is the comparative question developed in Anomalous Phenomena and Consciousness and Conscious Under Anesthesia. Those essays do the empirical work; the present essay’s contribution is the prior diagnostic — making visible that the production direction is a chosen direction rather than an empirically forced one.

The production assumption is so deeply embedded in consciousness science that it is rarely stated as an assumption. It is treated as the default interpretation — the obvious reading of the data. But as this project has argued throughout (see Myth of Metaphysical Neutrality and The Emergence of Physicalism), the “obvious” reading is the product of a specific historical and institutional trajectory, not of the data themselves. Making the production assumption visible does not refute it. It allows it to be evaluated as what it is: a metaphysical commitment, not an empirical finding.

IX. An Idealist Reading of the Findings

The diagnostic established in Sections II–VIII does not depend on accepting analytic idealism. The reader who agrees that the structural findings are ontologically portable and that the production inference is metaphysical commitment has accepted what this essay claims to establish.

This section does something different. It shows how the structural findings look when interpreted from within the project’s working framework — analytic idealism, in which reality is fundamentally mental and individual minds are dissociated segments of a transpersonal consciousness. The interpretive work below is offered as illustration, not as comparative argument. The case for preferring this framework over physicalism on theoretical-virtue grounds is conducted in First-Principles Assessment; the present section shows only how the findings fit when the interpretive direction is reversed.

How each structural feature looks under idealism

Integration (IIT): Under idealism, integration is intrinsic to consciousness. Mind naturally unifies — thoughts cohere, perceptions bind, experience is whole. IIT’s Φ measures the degree of this integration as it appears in the brain’s information-processing architecture. The mathematical formalism is preserved; the ontological direction of identification is reversed.

Global accessibility (GNW): Under idealism, the global workspace is the neural appearance of how consciousness distributes content across its own field. Broadcasting is not generating experience; it is the extrinsic correlate of experience organizing itself. The clinical and experimental findings — attentional blink, masking, reportability thresholds — describe how dissociative boundaries structure what enters and exits conscious access.

Recurrence (RPT): Under idealism, self-reference is a fundamental property of consciousness. Awareness aware of itself — reflexive knowing — is what contemplative traditions have described for millennia (see Reflexive Awareness). Recurrent processing in sensory cortex is the neural appearance of this inherent self-referentiality. (The interpretive step from architectural recurrence to reflexive awareness is substantive — the empirical finding is about feedback loops, not about reflexive knowing — but under the idealist reading, the architectural and the reflexive align.)

Anticipatory modeling (predictive processing): Under idealism, prediction is native to mentation. Minds anticipate, expect, and update — not because they compute predictions but because anticipation is what mental activity does. The hierarchical predictive architecture of the brain reflects the hierarchical structure of how consciousness models its own experience.

Self-monitoring (HOT): Under idealism, meta-consciousness — awareness of awareness — is a developed capacity within consciousness, not something generated by higher-order neural circuits. The neural correlates of higher-order representation are the extrinsic appearance of consciousness’s capacity to know itself.

Non-computability (Orch OR): Under idealism, the non-computable character of consciousness is expected — experience is not algorithmic because it is ontologically prior to computation. Penrose’s arguments support the idealist contention that consciousness cannot be fully reduced to mechanism; whether the specific microtubule hypothesis is correct is a separate empirical question.

Field-level unity (CEMI): Under idealism, the electromagnetic field’s integrative properties reflect the unity of consciousness as it appears in physical measurement. Experiential unity is fundamental; field-level integration is its extrinsic correlate.

What the reinterpretation does and does not do

It does not replace the science. Every mechanism, every neural correlate, every experimental finding is preserved. What changes is the ontological interpretation, not the data.

It does not claim the theories were secretly idealist. They were developed within physicalist frameworks, and their empirical programs are shaped by physicalist assumptions. Idealism reinterprets; it does not claim credit.

It does not dissolve the remaining questions. Idealism faces its own debts — the granularity problem most prominently — and the development of testable theories within the space it opens is nascent. These are real and acknowledged.

It does not constitute the comparative case. The reinterpretation shows that the findings can be packaged within a consciousness-first ontology. Whether they are better packaged that way than within physicalism is a separate question, conducted on the explicit comparative criteria of First-Principles Assessment. The present section is interpretive, not adjudicative.

What the reinterpretation costs

Honesty requires naming what the idealist reading loses, not only what it preserves. Some theories — IIT most explicitly — make constitutive identity claims: Φ does not merely correlate with consciousness; Φ is consciousness. This identity gives IIT its distinctive explanatory force. When the idealist reading reinterprets Φ as a measure of how consciousness organizes itself rather than as consciousness itself, the identity claim is stripped, and IIT becomes a correlation — useful, but no longer the theory its proponents advanced. The same applies to every production-model identity: the identity is the theory’s most ambitious claim, and stripping it is a real cost.

This cost is not concealed. It is the same kind of cost physicalism would pay if it stripped consciousness-first frameworks’ identity claims (e.g., Kastrup’s dissociation-as-individuation). Whether the cost is worth paying depends on what one judges the identity claim actually delivers — and that judgment is comparative, conducted by FPA.

X. Implications

For consciousness science

This analysis does not ask consciousness scientists to become idealists. It asks them to notice that their empirical findings are ontologically neutral and that the production inference is a commitment, not a discovery. The structural constraints identified by IIT, GNW, RPT, predictive processing, and HOT are genuine contributions regardless of ontology. Making the ontological packaging explicit allows the findings to be evaluated on their own terms — and applied within whichever interpretive framework proves most coherent.

In practice, this means:

For philosophy of mind

The landscape analysis reveals that the apparent competition among theories of consciousness is largely intramural — disagreements about mechanism within a shared physicalist assumption. The deeper question — whether consciousness is produced or fundamental — cuts across all these theories and is engaged by almost none of them explicitly. Making this visible allows philosophy of mind to distinguish two levels of question that are currently conflated:

  1. The structural question: What are the features of consciousness? (Integration, accessibility, recurrence, prediction, unity.) This is answered by the theories and is ontologically neutral.

  2. The ontological question: What is the fundamental nature of consciousness? This is not answered by the theories, though most assume an answer.

For the project

This essay extends the Return to Consciousness project from abstract ontological comparison to engagement with specific theories. The existing essays establish the ontological neutrality of science (The Generativity Question), the historical contingency of physicalism’s dominance (The Emergence of Physicalism), the asymmetry of skeptical standards (Asymmetric Methodological Restraint), the brute-fact structure of frameworks (Where Explanation Stops), and the first-principles comparison (First-Principles Assessment). But they engage “physicalism” as a category rather than as a landscape of specific, well-developed theories.

This essay demonstrates that the project’s diagnostic tools — constraint-based reasoning, ontological portability, the production/correlation distinction — apply not only to physicalism in the abstract but to the specific theories that constitute contemporary consciousness science. The result is a clarification: the conflict between consciousness science and consciousness-first metaphysics is not what it appears to be. The science is ontologically portable. The conflict, where it exists, is at the level of packaging — and packaging is choice, not finding.

XI. Limitations and Honest Assessment

Where the analysis is strongest

The diagnostic claims — separating constraints from commitments, identifying the complementarity pattern, mapping brute facts, and showing that the production inference is commitment rather than finding — follow from the IBC methodology and the portability thesis established elsewhere in the project. They do not require accepting analytic idealism. A reader who rejects the project’s broader idealist commitments but accepts these diagnostic moves has accepted what this essay claims to establish.

Where the analysis is most exposed

Three vulnerabilities should be named plainly.

First, the constraint/commitment distinction requires judgment. The boundary between structural finding and ontological packaging is not always clean. IIT’s identity claim is constitutive of the theory’s explanatory ambition, not detachable shorthand — and similar points apply to other theories’ more deeply integrated commitments. The present essay treats these identity claims as separable for analytical purposes, but the separation is itself an interpretive move. A defender of IIT could reasonably hold that stripping the identity claim transforms IIT into a different theory — a correlation rather than a constitutive account — and that the diagnostic therefore costs more than the essay acknowledges. The reply is that the cost is real but symmetric: stripping any framework’s identity claims (including consciousness-first frameworks’ identity claims) leaves something different. The diagnostic is not free; it is, however, applied symmetrically.

Second, the portability claim is at the level of findings, not theories-as-wholes. The structural findings about integration, broadcasting, recurrence, prediction, and self-monitoring are portable — their predictive content travels across ontological frameworks. But full theories often include identity claims, constitutive commitments, and architectural specifications that do not travel intact. The present essay’s portability claim is calibrated to findings, not to whole theories, but this distinction can be missed if not stated carefully. The strongest version of the criticism — that some theories’ explanatory force depends on their full constitutive form, not on their findings considered separately — applies to specific cases and deserves attention case by case.

Third, the diagnostic is not a vindication of the constraint reading. Showing that the production inference is metaphysical does not show that the constraint reading currently outperforms physicalism on mechanistic specificity or empirical accommodation. The comparative work belongs to Anomalous Phenomena and Consciousness and First-Principles Assessment; the present essay’s diagnostic stops at making the production inference visible as commitment rather than finding. A reader sympathetic to the diagnostic should not mistake it for a comparative verdict.

What this essay does not settle

Whether physicalism or a consciousness-first framework better accommodates the structural findings is the comparative question of First-Principles Assessment. Whether the empirical landscape — anomalous phenomena, anesthesia, psychedelic states, contemplative reports — creates differential pressure on production-direction commitments is the empirical question of Anomalous Phenomena and Consciousness and Conscious Under Anesthesia. Whether the granularity problem can be progressively articulated within consciousness-first frameworks is the work of Architecture of Individuation, Measurement from Inside, and the structural extensions more broadly. The present essay’s contribution is the diagnostic prior to all of these: identifying that the apparent conflict between consciousness science and consciousness-first metaphysics is largely an artifact of ontological packaging, and clarifying where the genuine disagreement actually lies.

Conclusion

The science of consciousness has achieved more than is commonly recognized — and less than is commonly claimed.

More: the structural features identified by IIT, GNW, RPT, predictive processing, HOT, and related theories are genuine discoveries about how consciousness is organized. Integration, accessibility, recurrence, prediction, and self-monitoring characterize conscious experience with growing empirical precision. These findings will endure regardless of which ontology prevails.

Less: these findings do not settle what consciousness is. The production inference — from correlation to generation — is a metaphysical commitment inherited from background physicalism, not a conclusion of the research programs themselves. Every theory examined here terminates at a version of the same gap: why does this process feel like anything? The specific processes differ; the gap between structure and experience persists.

The diagnostic this essay establishes is narrower than the project’s larger ontological argument. It says only this: the structural findings of consciousness science do not entail physicalism. The five recurring features describe a territory that any complete framework must accommodate, and the territory itself is ontologically portable. The production direction is one packaging; the constraint direction is another. Which packaging is more defensible is a question for First-Principles Assessment; whether the empirical landscape creates differential pressure between them is a question for Anomalous Phenomena and Consciousness. The present essay’s contribution stops at making the question itself visible.

What this clarifies is more than a methodological point. It changes which disagreements are real and which are artifacts. The apparent conflict between consciousness science and consciousness-first metaphysics is largely the latter. The science, honestly read, constrains every framework — but does not entail any of them. Acknowledging this opens the space within which genuine comparison can proceed.

References

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

Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2), 227-247.

Carhart-Harris, R. L., Erritzoe, D., Williams, T., et al. (2012). Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(6), 2138-2143.

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

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.

Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. Viking.

Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J.-P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70(2), 200-227.

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

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

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127-138.

Goff, P. (2019). Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. Pantheon Books.

Graziano, M. S. A. (2013). Consciousness and the Social Brain. Oxford University Press.

Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(1), 39-78.

Kastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. Iff Books.

Kelly, E. F., Kelly, E. W., Crabtree, A., Gauld, A., Grosso, M., & Greyson, B. (2007). Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Rowman & Littlefield.

Koch, C., Massimini, M., Boly, M., & Tononi, G. (2016). Neural correlates of consciousness: Progress and problems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(5), 307-321.

Lamme, V. A. F. (2006). Towards a true neural stance on consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(11), 494-501.

Lau, H., & Rosenthal, D. (2011). Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(8), 365-373.

McFadden, J. (2020). Integrating information in the brain’s EM field: The cemi field theory of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2020(1), niaa016.

Melloni, L., Mudrik, L., Pitts, M., et al. (2025). Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness. Nature, 642(8066), 133-142.

Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450.

Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, D. (2005). Consciousness and Mind. Oxford University Press.

Seth, A. K. (2021). Being You: A New Science of Consciousness. Dutton.

Seth, A. K., & Bayne, T. (2022). Theories of consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23(7), 439-452.

Shani, I. (2015). Cosmopsychism: A holistic approach to the metaphysics of experience. Philosophical Papers, 44(3), 389-437.

Stoljar, D. (2001). Two conceptions of the physical. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62(2), 253-281.

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

Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5(1), 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.

Tonetto, B. (2026). Return to Consciousness: A Philosophical Journey from Materialism to Meaning.

Available at: https://returntoconsciousness.org/

Integration by Constraints (ibc) — The methodology this essay applies

Where Explanation Stops (wes) — The brute-fact framework applied here to the full theory landscape

The Generativity Question (tgq) — The portability thesis and category error analysis

First-Principles Assessment (fpa) — Where the comparative assessment of frameworks is conducted; the question this essay’s diagnostic prepares

Anomalous Phenomena and Consciousness (apc) — Where the empirical pressure on production-direction commitments is developed in detail

Conscious Under Anesthesia (cua) — The anesthesia evidence developed at depth

Architecture of Individuation (aoi) — Structural progress on the granularity problem

Measurement from Inside (mfi) — The dissociation-as-measurement identification and intersubjective regularity

Reflexive Awareness (raw) — Cross-traditional phenomenology of non-egoic awareness

Return to Consciousness (rtc) — The framework this essay assumes when illustrating an idealist reading

License

This work is made freely available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). You are free to share and adapt the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.