---

Recent debates surrounding the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness—along with accusations of pseudoscience raised in Scientific American (Allison Parshall, February 2026)—prompted me to reconsider the question from a different angle.

Rather than viewing consciousness as a mysterious substance, it may be more productive to understand it as a species-specific capacity to make choices, to varying degrees, shaped by the evolutionary development of biological and neural structures. This capacity enables organisms to respond to environmental and behavioral conditions by moving in different directions—physically, cognitively, and behaviorally—for optimal adjustment and survival.

A single-cell organism has very limited options. Human beings, through the evolution of complex neural architecture, can evaluate a vastly wider range of possibilities before acting. When brain function deteriorates due to illness or aging—and ultimately ceases at death—this ability to generate and integrate choices progressively collapses, approaching the state of non-living systems.

From this perspective, the degree of consciousness correlates with the range and integration of choices an organism can generate and meaningfully act upon.

This view resonates with Immanuel Kant’s distinction between the world of phenomena and the world of noumena. Kant argued that human cognition is structured by innate categories that shape how sensory information is perceived and organized. We are therefore confined to knowing only the world as it appears to us—the phenomenal world—while the noumenal realm, reality as it is in itself, remains fundamentally unknown and unknowable to the human conscious mind.

Seen through an evolutionary lens, this limitation need not apply only to humans. All living creatures may be constrained by their own species-specific perceptual and cognitive capacities, each inhabiting its own accessible “phenomenal world.” Their awareness and consciousness—however limited or expansive—remain bounded by biological structure, while the deeper noumenal reality remains beyond direct access. Consciousness, in this sense, is not absolute knowledge, but situated awareness within constraint.

Importantly, this scientific and philosophical framing does not conflict with spiritual, religious, or cosmological understandings. Many traditions hold that all existence arises from a single underlying reality, expressed through diverse manifestations and lived across different existential conditions. The functional view of consciousness offered here can coexist with such perspectives, addressing the how without denying deeper questions of why.

The emergence of artificial intelligence further complicates this landscape. AI significantly expands human cognitive reach and decision-making capacity. Yet without careful ethical guidance, monitoring, and institutional responsibility, it also risks amplifying misinformation or empowering destructive intentions. A subsequent article in the same Scientific American issue—“The Deadly Mirror” by Virginia Cooper—highlights a more concrete and sobering concern: the possibility that AI, combined with advances in artificial biology and quantum computing, could enable the creation of dangerous synthetic organisms. Whether through accident or malicious design, such technologies could unleash infections with incalculable harm, potentially threatening human life on a global scale unless closely regulated and rigorously monitored.

The challenge before us is therefore not merely technological, but moral and institutional: ensuring that expanding intelligence—biological or artificial—remains aligned with human values, responsibility, and collective survival.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the availability of choices alone does not determine lived consciousness or quality of life. Human beings, societies, and cultures often limit or selectively embrace available choices based on deeply held values, traditions, and preferences. Increased choice may not always be desirable; for some individuals or communities, excessive availability can lead to overstimulation, stress, or erosion of meaning. In this sense, consciousness is shaped not only by cognitive capacity, but also by cultural context, value systems, and individual tolerance, making simple comparisons of “greater” or “better” consciousness neither universal nor always applicable.

#Consciousness

#Existential Thoughts

#Philosophy of Mind

#Neuroscience

#Science and Spirituality

#Artificial Intelligence

#Ethics of Technology

#Human Survival