The Local-Quantitative vs. the Anti-Local-Quantitative: A Novel Framework for Organising Theories of Consciousness

Theories of consciousness can be grouped into two broad perspectives: Local-Quantitative (LOQ), which holds that consciousness arises solely from measurable neural processes, and Anti-Local-Quantitative (ALOQ), which posits extra-physiological, unquantifiable origins. A framework based on criteria like neural localization, empirical measurability, and metaphysical assumptions helps organize and compare theories from Global Workspace Theory to Orchestrated Objective Reduction. This dichotomy is intended as a supplementary tool, not a replacement for existing taxonomies, to clarify commitments and experimental conditions, streamline discourse, and promote more coherent debate in consciousness research.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Theories of consciousness span a wide conceptual spectrum, yet most may be broadly categorised into one of two methodological perspectives: the Local-Quantitative (LOQ), positing consciousness arises exclusively from quantifiable, neurological processes, and the Anti-Local-Quantitative (ALOQ), positing extra-physiological, unquantifiable origins. By delineating key criteria—such as neural localisation, empirical measurability, and metaphysical assumptions—this framework offers a structure with which one may more effectively organise and compare theories ranging from Global Workspace Theory (Baars, 1988) to Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996). Rather than replacing existing philosophical taxonomies, this framework serves as a supplementary tool to identify the commitments and experimental conditions of contemporary models. Establishing this dichotomy may streamline discourse, clarify philosophical commitments, and promote more coherent debate in consciousness research.