What makes people believe consciousness is fundamental?

The gap that pushes people toward a fundamental view

The most common motivation is a perceived explanatory gap. We understand a great deal about how networks of neurons calculate and process information, which sheds light on how we think—but that does not tell us how we feel [2]. A mind, on this view, is thinking plus feeling, and the feeling part is exactly what the physical story leaves out [2]. If decades of work at the biological and neural levels have not closed that gap, it becomes tempting to conclude that consciousness cannot be derived from non-conscious parts at all.

Once you accept that premise, the logic of a fundamental view is straightforward. Fundamental approaches bypass the problem of getting consciousness from non-conscious components by positing that consciousness is a universal primitive [5]. Instead of asking how matter produces experience, you ask what it would mean structurally for experience to come first—and then try to show how organized complexity, identity, and even clinical phenomena follow from that starting point [1]. The appeal is that the hard question is dissolved rather than answered.

What the arguments actually look like

The proposals vary widely in ambition. One line treats information itself as having a phenomenal aspect—the so-called double aspect theory—so that consciousness is present wherever information is, and human consciousness arises where information is amplified through closure and dynamics at the edge of chaos [5]. On that account, the apparent scarcity of consciousness may be an illusion, because closure shields us from external consciousness by making information flow inward-biased [5]. Another line proposes a specific mechanism, the Sentonic Theory of Fundamental Consciousness, aimed at supplying the missing explanatory glue from the physical world to value and consciousness, and pointing to brain sites where the phenomena may occur [2].

At the far end, the claim becomes cosmological: one premise speculates that a pre-Big Bang non-physical geometrical architecture was projected by fundamental consciousness, eventually giving rise to forces, matter, and living things that culminate in consciousness and self-awareness—from which it began [4]. This is explicitly framed as speculation, and it illustrates how far the fundamental move can be pushed once it is granted. The structural argument takes a more restrained form, offering a thirteen-level derivation chain from mass, charge, and spin through recursive self-reference and identity formation, presented as falsifiable and clinically operational [1].

Why this idea keeps returning

The fundamental view is not new. Western philosophy spent much of the latter half of the previous century turning away from idealism and metaphysics toward ordinary language and logical positivism, a move one account describes as discipline-destroying [3]. The renewed interest in consciousness as a feature of fundamental reality can be read as a partial reversal of that turn—a willingness to ask metaphysical questions about what is basic again [3].

What unites these otherwise different proposals is a shared structural instinct: if consciousness is fundamental, what does that structurally mean? [1] Each tries to answer that question in its own domain—quantum consciousness, recursive identity, AI consciousness, simulation architecture [1]—or in its own vocabulary of information, value, or geometry [2][4][5]. The conviction that the question should be inverted is what makes the belief feel compelling, more than any single piece of evidence.

What the fundamental view has not settled

The proposals are candid about their status. The cosmological account is offered as a premise and a speculation rather than a demonstrated result [4]. The structural framework is described as falsifiable and clinically operational, but its evidence is structural rather than experimental [1]. The information-amplification account proposes mechanisms—closure, divergence and convergence, phenomena analogous to focusing, interference, and resonance in light—as possibilities for how phenomenal information becomes human consciousness [5].

So the honest answer to why people believe consciousness is fundamental is partly explanatory and partly sociological: the standard derivation has not delivered the feeling of experience [2], and the fundamental alternative offers a way to stop demanding that derivation while still pursuing a rigorous account of mind [1][5]. Whether that bet pays off is exactly what the competing frameworks are trying to establish.

Sources used in this answer

Related research questions