Can Lists of Requirements Help Consciousness Research Navigate Its Epistemological Quandaries?

Dissatisfaction with traditional methods like logical deduction and experimental falsification for evaluating theories of consciousness has led to exploration of alternatives, including a method termed 'listed requirements.' A structured literature search and critical review identified five candidate lists, which are a promising but insufficient start. The longest list contains 11 items, but across the five lists 19 unique items appear, and taxonomic analysis surfaces at least 30 potential candidates. Four limitations of the method are discussed, arguing it is best used as one tool within a broader assessment strategy. The conclusion outlines a workplan for a sufficiently complete working taxonomy.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Frustration has been growing with mainstay epistemological methods of logical deduction and experimental falsification for assessing theories of consciousness. This paper explores one among several recent alternatives being explored, captured here under the term 'listed requirements'. This paper conducts a structured literature search and critical review of attempts to develop such lists, identifying five candidates. These five lists are analysed as a promising start, but insufficient to do the method justice. The longest list has 11 items, but 19 unique items are identified across the five lists, and a taxonomic analysis by category further surfaces at least 30 potential candidates. Four limitations of the method are discussed, arguing that it is best treated as one tool within a broader strategy for rigorously assessing theories and identifying avenues for future research. The conclusion describes a workplan for a sufficiently complete working taxonomy to support the field's collective endeavours.