A new inference to the best explanation (IBE) process is proposed for comparing theories of consciousness based on empirical support. The process has four steps: Assimilate, Compile, Validate, and Compare. Most work so far has focused on assimilation. To demonstrate feasibility, the authors compile a complete collection of empirical evidence for the distinction between access consciousness (A-Consciousness) and phenomenal consciousness (P-Consciousness) and the overflow hypothesis. They also validate the interpretation of aphantasics' performance on retro-cue paradigms, which has been used to support the overflow hypothesis. This compilation is the first step toward enabling side-by-side comparisons of theories and the empirical phenomena they explain.
Misrepresentation, as proposed by some higher-order theories of consciousness, is plausible because conscious states are generated by brain processes that can be corrupted. Drawing on cognitive and behavioral neuroscience, brain state corruption is both possible and relatively frequent, and such corruption may occasionally lead to misrepresentation. The main alternative view, the no-consciousness reply, appears less supported by current knowledge. This meta-level argument rests on a general premise acceptable to most participants in the debate, distinguishing it from other empirically based arguments.