Theory Selection Criteria
How we decide which theories to include, which to exclude, and why transparency about these choices matters more than pretending to be neutral.
Our position: We prioritize testable theories over metaphysical frameworks. This is a deliberate choice.
The Three Gates
Every theory must pass three gates to be included. Without defensible criteria, every exclusion becomes political. With criteria, it becomes a conversation about whether the theory meets the standard.
1. Self-Nomination
The framework must explicitly present itself as a theory of consciousness. If the authors don't call it a consciousness theory, we don't interpret on their behalf. This prevents us from co-opting models that were designed for other purposes.
2. Peer Review
There must be at least one substantive peer-reviewed publication. Not necessarily Nature, but the field must have had a chance to scrutinize the theory. Preprints and blog posts alone are not sufficient.
3. Testability
The theory must make empirically testable predictions — predictions that could, in principle, be wrong. This is the line between a theory and a philosophical position. If you can't name a prediction that could fail, it's a position, not a theory.
What We Include and Why
The following 12 theories currently pass all three gates:
| Theory | Why It's Included |
|---|---|
| Integrated Information Theory (IIT) | Mathematically precise predictions about integrated information; extensive peer-reviewed literature |
| Global Workspace Theory (GWT) | Testable via masking, attentional blink, and inattentional blindness paradigms; decades of empirical work |
| Higher-Order Thought Theory (HOT) | Predicts dissociations between first-order and higher-order representations; active experimental program |
| Predictive Processing (PP) | Generates testable predictions about prediction error and conscious perception; growing empirical base |
| Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) | Explicitly models conscious control of perception; testable control-hierarchy predictions |
| Illusionism (ILLU) | Makes the testable prediction that introspective reports systematically misrepresent underlying processes |
| Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) | Specific predictions about quantum coherence in microtubules; peer-reviewed since the 1990s |
| Dual-Level Causal Theory (DLCT) | Testable predictions about causal relationships between neural levels; peer-reviewed publications |
| Irruption Theory (IRRUP) | Predicts specific conditions under which consciousness emerges; published in peer-reviewed venues |
| Free Energy Principle (FEP) | Generates predictions about surprise minimization and conscious inference; extensive literature |
| Recurrent Processing Theory (RPT) | Specific predictions about recurrent neural activity and visual awareness; well-established experimental evidence |
What We Exclude and Why
Exclusion is not a judgment of intellectual value. Some of the most important ideas in consciousness studies don't meet our criteria — because our criteria are designed for a specific purpose: enabling empirical comparison.
Applying the Same Standard to Everyone
These criteria must apply uniformly — including to theories associated with this project's contributors. If a theory doesn't pass the gates, it doesn't pass, regardless of who proposed it. This is what makes the criteria credible.
How to Propose a Theory
We welcome proposals for new theories to include. To propose a theory, it should meet the three gates:
- The theory explicitly self-nominates as a theory of consciousness
- At least one substantive peer-reviewed publication exists
- The theory makes empirically testable predictions
If you believe a theory meets these criteria, you can submit it through the Upload Theory page (requires sign-in), or open an issue on our GitHub repository. Include references to the relevant publications and a brief description of the theory's testable predictions.
Why Transparency Matters
Nobody believes a consciousness theory comparison tool is neutral. Pretending to be neutral invites attacks. Being transparent about our choices invites productive engagement.
The question isn't “are we objective?” — nobody is. The question is “are we transparent about our framework?” That's what we hope will earn trust.