Consciousness may be explained by multiple, partly compatible theories rather than a single winner. A group of scientists representing different theories argue that various accounts often address different aspects or mechanistic levels of conscious experience, so they do not necessarily contradict each other. Instead, several theories may converge on fundamental neuronal mechanisms and be complementary, allowing multiple perspectives to simultaneously advance understanding. The authors advocate for unifying, integration-oriented approaches that combine valuable elements from diverse theories, an approach that has so far been largely neglected.
Three theories of consciousness—Integrated Information Theory, Neurorepresentationalism, and Active Inference—are compared and contrasted in a structured adversarial collaboration. The review presents each theory's core claims, the phenomena they explain, their explanatory approaches, and methodological strategies. It outlines key hypotheses to be tested across multi-site experiments, discusses observations that would support or challenge each theory, and describes how data from disparate experiments can be formally integrated to quantify evidential support. The work also provides meta-scientific insights into the mechanics of adversarial collaboration and theory-testing, including how theories may be evaluated by the scientific progress they deliver.