By David Stephen
The best thing that happened to consciousness science research in the last four decades is the new book by Michael Pollan, A World Appears: A Journey Into Consciousness. However, if the best thing to happen to a field, is a book that contributes nothing new to the field, or not incipient of anything significant, it shows that the only reason the field is not dead is because whatever is keeping it in coma must be endemic corruption of unprecedented magnitude.
There is a recent [March 31, 2026] podcast by The New York Times, The More You Study Consciousness, the Weirder It Gets, stating that, “Here’s the paradox of our consciousness: It is the only thing we truly know — and the only thing we have actual firsthand experience of. Yet we don’t understand it at all.”
“We don’t know what it’s made of. We don’t know how it works. We don’t know why it exists. And the closer we look at it, the weirder it gets. The more we try to describe it, the more our language begins to fail.”
“I find it delightful that something so close to us can remain so mysterious. That a central question about the universe is happening inside of us, all of the time. Now, that’s not to say we haven’t tried to understand it — or that we haven’t learned a lot from those efforts.”
“In his new book, “A World Appears: A Journey Into Consciousness,” the science writer Michael Pollan takes us on a tour of those efforts, of those theories, of those experiments, of those psychedelic trips and meditation retreats — and keeps finding himself in stranger and stranger territory, deeper inside the mystery.”
Consciousness corruption
“We don’t know what it’s made of. We don’t know how it works. We don’t know why it exists.” OK.
So, what are the people studying it doing? Like what exactly are all the conferences, papers, research, and everything else about, if they know nothing about it, if the statement in The Times, is reflective of the consensus?
Assuming the relevant people studying consciousness are neuroscientists, so consciousness as a science should mean the study of the brain. OK. What are the possible elements of consciousness in the brain?
If all the elements are listed, which ones rank high and which ones rank low? How can the ones that rank higher be used to develop a working theory, which will also be able to explain brain states that include mental disorders and addictions?
This should at least be the prevailing approach. So, if progress is the objective, then work has to follow that line. But no, progress is not the objective because they have been stuck for four decades, and the people there do narrative control, so nothing else can be considered other than it is unsolved.
Consciousness is subjective experience they will say. OK. How do you find elements for this in the brain? They say there are neural correlates of consciousness. OK. But assuming there are neural correlates of fear, thirst, hunger, satiation, a smell, a taste and so on, what makes a set of correlates different from others?
Yes, there are different types of neurons, still they are not enough differences between neurons to specify every function. So, even as neurons are involved in functions, something else must be dynamic enough to represent all the differences, to ensure that they are able to be stored, updated and then useful for interpretations. The candidates must be close to neurons but not neurons.
It is unlikely to be glia, because they aid neurons, and not as involved directly in functions as neurons — according to empirical evidence in neuroscience. So, what else must they be?
This is the one question for progress in consciousness science but you can’t ask, because, even though they are discussing the brain, unsolved is the agenda.
Michael Pollan
The mystery that is bigger than consciousness is why Michael Pollan will write a book about consciousness.
Why? Like he has nothing new to say. There is nothing differential in the book that did not reinforce the talking points of the consciousness corruption circle.
In all the interviews that Michael Pollan did about consciousness, he said nothing new. He kept mentioning names of this expert or that. He kept using tangents. It is rare, if he mentions neurons in interviews. Even when he does, it is not about mechanisms that maybe related to how consciousness may work, but about the work of some and like that.
What are his ideas for neuroscience about how consciousness might work? Zilch. What has he said that can be applied in a useful direction? Nada. He defines consciousness the same way. He would disagree slightly, he would talk about a worthless beeper experiment, or some trip he made that did not matter to the neuroscience. Like what exactly is going on? He will discuss meditation like he’s the only one who has done so and thought about consciousness. No one wrote a book. He used the meditation ruse for those that will buy the façade.
Several reviews. Several interviews. All soft balls. All wink-wink. He made it so obvious that someone could guess that they asked him to do it. Like, he is so obedient to the talking points. He is so clueless. So lacking in the science. The best way to describe him is like an advertisement manager for a banana republic.
In some settings, some journalists would be on the same side with some authorities, but will pelt them with controlled criticism in public. But in consciousness, there’s no need for any appearance of independence, just do what you’re told.
Oh, this scientist said the brain makes predictions. OK, how, and what components do so? Even if it is not accurate but at least a theory of it. Nothing. This other scientist said controlled hallucination, another said phi, or workspace, or microtubules, ask them to give some components and then use it to explain a mental disorder or addiction. Pollan did not.
Why would Pollan choose to embarrass himself so badly. Why would he choose self-disgrace by promoting consciousness, a seriously corrupt field of study. Well, maybe what he did can be used to define all his work. But seeing what is happening can help to understand more about the world.
What is seen and heard as the truth can be what some people decide it is, however bad for society. Any progress on the brain is desperately needed for the world, where, even this past week, social media addiction was in the news, in the United States and Australia with nothing pivotal on answers about mind safety against it, yet.
Then, Pollan wrote a useless book. There is no problem today, in brain science that an answer is needed that will ever require his book. None. He went on media blitz. They hyped him. They should have left a vacuum to ensure that people with new things can try, rather than have this insistence on impossibility to gate people.
Pollan helped them to do their dirty work, as an outsider that will look like he is objective but he is not. He did a disservice to the future, to progress, to transparency, to inspiration.
It will be a diversion to say Pollan is a useful idiot. He knew he had no answers in consciousness. He knew he won’t have any answers even after a few years. But that if he wrote a nothing book, he’d make sales, speaking fees, then further his name and network. So that is all it is for him. There is nothing beyond self-benefit in the book.
Consciousness cannot be solved. Consciousness is weird. Oh, really. How about what is known about neurons? How about trying to find a way to do a neural theory of consciousness? Oh no, you can’t, consciousness cannot be solved. But we are going to study it forever, so we keep our prestige and jobs.
Pollan will mumble that AI cannot be conscious. For someone who has nothing new to say about consciousness in the brain. Anything he says should not just be taken with a grain of salt but the opposite should be believed. His bloated ignorance made it so.
Pollan’s best quote was this, “That’s part of the hard problem of consciousness: Why aren’t we just zombies? Wouldn’t that have been simpler?” He has several other obtuse quotes elsewhere, like “The quest is everything you learn along the way.” “We can be more conscious, and there’s some urgency to that, in that consciousness is really under siege.” “step outside the stream of consciousness in order to observe it from its banks”?” “to look for the subject is to treat it as an object, which is to negate it.” “Our scientific tools were designed for the objective, measurable world. And consciousness, by definition, by its nature, is subjective.” “But to go from that to the idea that consciousness is a production of brains, you can’t do that. No one has really succeeded in showing that.”
Even when Pollan ask questions or makes statements, they are not original. In fact, the test of nonsense now, in consciousness, is whatever Pollan says or mentions. What a shame. There will be innumerable casualties of his stupid book, but of course, he won’t care.
Pollan can be asked the following questions. 1. Since you know more about psychedelics, what does it mean to you that chemicals can alter experiences, and if you were to design a working theory for the brain, can you come up with a chemical theme? 2. Can you design an electrical theme as well, since there are electrode approaches to brain measure and therapy?
He can’t answer because he does not know. Yet, he blurts psychedelics at any opportunity, like he’s some expert. What a fake!
Neural correlates of consciousness
There are no neural correlates of consciousness. There never has been. There never will be. If neural correlates assume that consciousness is in one part of the brain, and not in others, then it will be possible that consciousness can be forgotten, which is not the case.
Simply, it is possible to forget a memory, of something, say because it is in a location in the brain and it may not be visited in a moment. The same with some emotions that may not appear sometimes, even if the situation seems right but that part was not reached, at least conceptually.
So, if consciousness is in one part or there are specific neural clusters for it, then conscious will not be involved in all the functions ascribed to it.
This would mean, at least, theoretically, that consciousness is mechanized in the same cluster where the function is mechanized. So, if a taste is conscious, then the consciousness that made it so, is in the same location. This applies to a smell, a touch, a sight and so forth. So, subjectivity is everywhere, so is attention. And intent is wherever it is possible, as well, conceptually.
Now, why would neurons be able to process consciousness? Neurons are cells. How much can their anatomy change that would mean being able to specify this myriad of functions?
The other likely candidates for consciousness are the electrical and chemical signals of neurons. The key reason is because there is nothing neurons do for consciousness that does not involve the signals.
Also, the signals, said to be for communication are [conceptually] carrying and making information architecture — or organizing information — specifying them at respective locations, or where they terminate, after relaying from within the PNS and CNS. Also, whatever ways subjectivity is possible or attention is also by the electrical and chemical signals.
This should be a natural direction in the neuroscience research for consciousness. Signals. Exhausting it. Formulating theories around them, and trying and trying, for the purpose of advancement.
No, they would not. Because consciousness must be something mysterious, then primitive around with questions that have no meaning. Anything philosophy no matter from who, is useless to the neuroscience of consciousness. There’s no need. No connection.
Good science cannot be completely useless
It is possible to do science as an inquiry and hope it leads somewhere. Or, to start, with something great in mind and keep going. But it is not possible to do dead end science, and hope it becomes something, even with all the so-called scientific method.
Two useless theories of consciousness are in competition in what is called ARC-COGITATE. Why don’t they use their theories to explain anxiety or depression, or addiction, testing each against real-world problems?
Why not explore the brain fully for consciousness, especially signals, and then keep out noise like philosophy and several other Pollan-promoted crap.
No, they won’t do that because the intention is useless science.
Michael Pollan will make money. Consciousness corruption will persist. Journalism that claims to hold power to account would ask questions that the corrupt consciousness expects. Journalists will stoke the corruption. Under the guise of reputable science there will be misleading efforts.
Even if it is science, in labs, in journals, with posters, and speeches, and affiliations, it can be complete corruption.
Whenever next you hear about some consciousness book or sentience event or some conference or whatever they are arguing, it is totally a racket — with seriousness.
