ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Toward a true understanding of consciousness: the explanatory power behind the non-physicalist paradigm.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article addresses the question of which metaphysical paradigm is most suitable for gaining a deeper understanding of our conscious inner life and bringing us closer to a powerful theory of consciousness (TOC). To answer this question, the key characteristics of a strong theory, namely, predictive and explanatory power, are used to evaluate various paradigms. The predictive power of a TOC relies primarily on how accurately it can state the conditions under which a physical system is capable of forming conscious states, whereas the explanatory power of a TOC reflects the degree to which the theory makes it intelligible why conscious states are formed under the stated conditions. It proves expedient for the evaluation to divide the paradigms into two classes: physicalism and non-physicalism. From the physicalist point of view, consciousness is reducible to the physical, while non-physicalism is predicated on the assumption that consciousness is fundamental and irreducible to physical properties. The analysis reveals that a TOC built on the physicalist paradigm has the potential to achieve high predictive power but fails to unfold explanatory power. It is demonstrated that the non-physicalist paradigm has clear advantages over physicalism when it comes to developing a powerful TOC. These findings make a strong case for initiating a paradigm shift that replaces the prevailing physicalist stance with a non-physicalist approach. Such a paradigm shift does not make the prominent neuroscientific theories obsolete. Rather, it places these theories in a broader context and entails a reinterpretation of the neurophysiological indicators of consciousness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.