Introduction
This interview is based on a recorded conversation in which roles were intentionally flexible: at times the discussion appears conversational, but structurally it follows a standard interview format.
For clarity in this written version:
- Q. (Question by Host) refers to the interviewer Rebekka Brandt, who guides the conversation.
- A. (Answers) refers to the interviewee Dr. Kanwar Singh, a researcher involved in consciousness studies and interdisciplinary neuroscience-related inquiry.
While the original exchange was informal and exploratory in tone, the following article presents a structured and edited version that preserves the substance of the dialogue while improving clarity, flow, and scientific readability.
Interview
The Core Problem: What Is Consciousness?
Q.
In current neuroscience, consciousness is often treated as a product of brain activity. Do you agree with this view?
A.
Mainstream neuroscience generally assumes that consciousness emerges from neuronal processes. This is a very successful working model, especially in explaining perception, behavior, and brain activity correlations.
However, there is still a fundamental unresolved issue: the transition from neural activity to subjective experience.
We can measure brain states with high precision. We can correlate them with reported experiences. But we still do not fully understand why these physical processes are accompanied by subjective “feeling” at all.
This is sometimes referred to as the “explanatory gap.” It is not a gap in data—it is a conceptual gap.
So the question is not whether the brain is involved in consciousness. It clearly is. The question is whether the brain fully produces consciousness, or whether it is part of a broader mechanism that we do not yet understand.
Is the Brain the Source or a Medium?
Q.
You sometimes suggest that the brain might not be the “origin” of consciousness. What exactly do you mean by that?
A.
This needs to be stated carefully, because it is often misunderstood.
I am not rejecting neuroscience or suggesting that the brain is irrelevant. The empirical evidence for strong brain–mind correlations is overwhelming.
What I am questioning is the assumption that the brain is necessarily the complete generator of consciousness.
An alternative hypothesis is that the brain functions more like a structured interface or transformation system—something that organizes or filters experience rather than producing it entirely from nothing.
This is not a metaphysical claim. It is an open scientific question. At present, neuroscience does not have definitive evidence that rules out alternative interpretations.
Perception as a Filtered Interface
Q.
You argue that perception itself might be a limitation. Can you explain this idea?
A.
All human experience is mediated through sensory systems:
- We only perceive a narrow band of electromagnetic radiation as visible light
- We only hear a limited frequency range of sound
- We only experience processed neural representations, not raw external data
This means we never access the world directly. We always experience a constructed version of it.
A useful analogy is a system that receives signals, processes them, and generates a coherent internal model. What we call “reality” is always already this model.
This does not mean reality is unreal. It means our access to reality is indirect and structured.
The key scientific question is therefore not only “What exists?”, but also “How is experience constructed?”
What Would It Mean to Go Beyond Perception?
Q.
You sometimes use the phrase “beyond perception.” Isn’t that a speculative idea?
A.
It can sound speculative if it is interpreted metaphysically, but that is not the intention.
A more precise formulation would be:
Can we systematically investigate how perception-dependent our model of reality is?
And further:
Can we experimentally modify or extend perceptual and cognitive constraints in order to better understand how experience arises?
This is not about “escaping” perception. It is about studying its structure and limits.
In that sense, it is a methodological question, not a spiritual one.
The Mind as an Active Constructive System
Q.
What role does the mind play in this framework?
A.
The mind is not a passive receiver of information. It actively constructs experience.
Modern neuroscience increasingly supports this through predictive processing frameworks, where perception is understood as inference rather than direct recording.
In this view, perception is not a mirror of reality. It is a continuously updated model generated by the brain based on incoming signals and prior expectations.
This leads to an important implication: what we experience is not “raw reality,” but a structured interpretation of it.
Is There a Reality Independent of Perception?
Q.
Does this mean there is a reality independent of perception?
A.
Philosophically, this is a long-standing question.
Scientifically, we must be precise: we do not have direct access to a perception-independent reality. We only have models constructed from sensory input and measurement systems.
Whether a fully independent “objective reality” exists in an absolute sense is not currently empirically decidable.
What science can do is refine the consistency, predictive power, and intersubjective stability of its models.
Toward a New Methodological Direction
Q.
If perception is always a filter, how can consciousness be scientifically investigated at all?
A.
The only valid path is experimental.
Science progresses by developing testable methods. If existing methods are insufficient, new ones must be developed.
In consciousness research, this means:
- Studying correlations between brain states and reported experiences
- Investigating altered states of consciousness under controlled conditions
- Examining how perception and cognition change under systematic variation
The key requirement remains: reproducibility and empirical validation.
Without that, we remain in speculation rather than science.
What Does Objectivity Mean in This Context?
Q.
How does this perspective affect the idea of objectivity?
A.
Traditionally, objectivity means that multiple observers can reproduce the same result.
However, this still operates within human perceptual and cognitive constraints.
A deeper question is whether there exists a description of reality that is not dependent on a specific sensory system.
If such a description exists, science would need to determine how to approximate it through indirect methods.
This is not a rejection of objectivity, but an expansion of what we mean by it.
Consciousness and Physics: A Possible Convergence
Q.
You suggest a possible connection between neuroscience and physics. What do you mean by that?
A.
At present, neuroscience and physics operate largely independently.
Neuroscience focuses on biological mechanisms of experience.
Physics focuses on the structure of matter and energy.
However, if consciousness is deeply linked to fundamental physical processes—or if both emerge from a deeper underlying structure—then a conceptual unification might eventually become necessary.
This is not an established theory. It is a possible long-term research direction that depends entirely on future empirical findings.
Is This a New Science?
Q.
Would you describe your approach as a new science?
A.
I would avoid that formulation at this stage.
It is more accurate to describe it as an emerging interdisciplinary research perspective that combines neuroscience, physics, and philosophy of science.
Whether it becomes a new discipline depends entirely on whether it produces robust, reproducible experimental results.
Science is defined by method and evidence, not by terminology.
Who Is This Research For?
Q.
Who should engage with these ideas?
A.
Anyone interested in fundamental questions about reality and consciousness.
This includes neuroscientists, physicists, psychologists, philosophers, and also interdisciplinary thinkers who are willing to question foundational assumptions.
The essential requirement is intellectual openness combined with methodological rigor.
Final Reflection
The central question underlying this entire discussion is simple, even if the implications are not:
What is consciousness, and how is it related to the structure of reality?
Current science provides powerful tools to study the brain and behavior. But whether these tools are sufficient to fully explain subjective experience remains an open question.
The proposal discussed here does not reject neuroscience or physics. It suggests that both may eventually need to expand their conceptual frameworks if consciousness is to be fully understood.
Further Reading
Brandt, R. & Singh, K. (2026). Reconceptualizing Objectivity Through Structural Attenuation of Self Reference Integrating Neurocognitive Plasticity Contemplative Practice and Altered States into Epistemic Methodology. Zenodo/Cern 2.0. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19476158
Singh, K. H. B. (2023). Discovery of consciousness: Foundations of a new science. ISBN 978‑93‑5680‑316‑9.