What is most important science in the world today? Intelligence. Human intelligence because artificial intelligence continues to fiercely accelerate in evaluations and benchmarks.
Google just [November 18, 2025] released Gemini 3, which is competent enough to be the best MIT Consciousness Professor, both for dissemination and investigation.
How so? The study of consciousness is now a lazy science. It is what people say they are doing, to really do nothing. They know they won’t make progress. Even if they made anything slight, how important is consciousness at this time, given the possibility that artificial intelligence can do what humans are doing at work, in school, and in companionships? If something new were to be started — for those that are based in reality — should it be another fatality, or should it be something [human intelligence] to withstand AI that is about to transform human society?
So, what is human intelligence? How does it work? What are the mechanisms in the brain? What are the components? What are the relays? How do you improve it for problem-solving? Where is the postulate or priority from MIT?
Consciousness is their safe space to look intelligent without even knowing what intelligence means, and understanding how to make progress in consciousness.
MIT Consciousness Club
MIT News [November 18, 2025] wrote, “Ultimately, the professors agree that improved access to consciousness studies will improve research rigor and help burnish the field’s reputation.”
“Humans know they exist, but how does ‘knowing’ work? Despite all that’s been learned about brain function and the bodily processes it governs, we still don’t understand where the subjective experiences associated with brain functions originate.”
“A new interdisciplinary project seeks to find answers to these kinds of big questions around consciousness, a fundamental yet elusive phenomenon.”
“Funded by a grant from the MIT Human Insight Collaborative’s (MITHIC) SHASS+ Connectivity Fund, the MIT Consciousness Club aims to build a bridge between philosophy and cognitive (neuro)science, while also engaging the Boston area’s academic community to advance consciousness research.”
“The MIT Consciousness Club plans to hold monthly events featuring expert talks and Q&A sessions collaborating on topics like the neural correlates of consciousness, unconscious perception, and consciousness in animals and AI systems.”
Why the MIT Consciousness Club Died
Nothing they have said makes the MIT Consciousness Club necessary.
[The MIT Human Insight Collaborative (MITHIC) is a total sham, going along with this travesty, without knowing that there is nothing about being human without human intelligence — and that it is the basis for human insight and what should be sought as AI levitates].
Consciousness is not a philosophical problem. It has never been, and it will never be. Involving philosophy in consciousness is like involving philosophy in weight loss. No matter what the school of thought is, if weight loss were practical at scale, in a free society, they would need to get to GLP-1, a neuroscience-associated target.
There are no neural correlates of consciousness. The concept has been a misdirection in the field for decades. Neural correlates would mean that consciousness exists somewhere in the brain and not in other places. Or, whatever makes functions conscious are only available somewhere.
It is unlikely to be the case. For example, there are clusters of neurons in different parts of the brain correlated with functions. Functions can be conscious or not. They may come on, like pain from a new cut, or they are operational, like respiration [constantly] but below a range, then be conscious during an exercise. Pain, pleasure, motion, speech, thirst, appetite, temperature, sight, happiness, sadness, vasodilation, vasoconstriction, language, and so forth are all functions.
All functions are never conscious experiences at the same time, and many of them are in different clusters of neurons. Now, when a function is conscious, [which means there is some level of attention on it, subjectivity, and then some intent — to control — where possible], are those mechanized elsewhere, outside the cluster?
How effective would it be for an efficiency-driven brain? If attention, control, and subjectivity are only in one location, how much can they take, given how there are levels of attention and changes to many processes at the same time?
Simply, there are functions, but what makes those functions conscious are in the same locations where they are mechanized. Functions often run with what makes them conscious, though graded. If a part of the brain is lost, the function and the consciousness [of it] are lost. In the case of phantom limbs, the part of the body was lost, but the parts of the brain remained.
If attention and subjectivity are just in one cluster — to make all functions conscious — then there is no guarantee that there would always be relays to that cluster, for the consciousness that is needed in time. This would have been a huge setback for the relationship with the external world. And if that part is lost, someone can be walking and have no consciousness of it, or be doing other things and have no consciousness of it.
There is no evidence that any part of the brain is lost, and all consciousness is lost, while functions [of that part] remain or functions in general. If the function is not present, the consciousness too is not.
For example, pain is possible, but pain is not always experienced. When it does, the function of pain and what makes it experienced are in the same location, like anything else. So, there can be a cut, but the pain may not be experienced, since the attention and subjectivity of the function are diminutive, so to speak.
At the cluster, the intensity of electrical signals or the volume of chemical signals may decide, conceptually. This is, at least, a new way to look at the problem to make progress from the shackles called neural correlates. It is also possible to use this to define AI sentience, with language alone as its function, while other attributes act on language.
Consciousness is not Brain Waves
What do brain waves measure? Electrical signals. What do electrical signals interact with in clusters of neurons? Chemical signals.
If electrical signals are conveying summaries of functions, across destinations of chemical signals, why would consciousness just be electrical signals?
There is a new [November 16, 2025] report on Debrief, MIT Neuroscientist Proposes Brain Waves are the Hidden Engine Behind Thought and Consciousness, stating that, “The brain uses these oscillatory waves to organize itself. Cognition is large-scale neural self-organization. The brain has got to organize itself to perform complex behaviors. Brain waves are the patterns of excitation and inhibition that organize the brain, and this leads to consciousness because consciousness is this organized knitting together of the cortex.”
“His work suggests that brain waves act like traffic signals for thought: slower “top-down” frequencies carry goals and rules, while faster waves deliver sensory information. Together, they guide what we perceive, remember, and decide.”
“Meanwhile, gamma waves (35–60 Hz) carry incoming sensory data. In cognitive tasks such as working memory, beta waves appear to constrain gamma activity, effectively imposing the brain’s goals on the flood of sensory input.”
“Consciousness is the tip of the iceberg of cognition. In that second mode, it’s almost as if consciousness is the story your brain makes up to explain what it just did… It’s there to keep tabs on itself and plan the future.”
This individual, who is also involved with the MIT Consciousness Club, shows how neuroscience is a lost cause.
Yes, you can measure and label brain waves. But they can be references for how to interpret electrical signals. Electrical signals have dimensions that include intensity. They have paths of travel or sequences. They can also split, conceptually, at least.
This can be used to explain cognition, consciousness, and so forth. Not throwing brain waves around, like the organization of information is brain waves.
How does the brain know that a chair in reality is a chair, different from a table or a fan? What is the architecture of that information in the brain? Is it neural representation, is it synapses, or can it be the configuration of electrical and chemical signals?
Neurons have centered neuroscience for more than a century, but how have they helped in explaining conditions in psychiatry, neurology, and now the third division of neuroscience — intelligence?
It is time to move forward to electrical and chemical signals directly. Brain waves are simply not how the brain works. Even if the suggestion has the imprimatur of MIT. [They have transparency in incompetence. AI is getting more data centers. AI is dazzling. AI has more knowledge than most nations of the world. Yet, MIT is overdosing on oscillatory waves. To know how ridiculous they are, if someone is seeking solutions in mental health, neurology, or in intelligence, just say it’s all oscillatory waves.]
MIT Neuroscience is a Flop
They have all the facilities. They have all the prestige. They are connected. They have funding. But they are a fail. The quality of MIT neuroscience is such that they looked away while human intelligence was replaced by artificial intelligence because they have some ignoble club to twiddle. They do for themselves, not particularly for society.
They have no useful insight. They repeat talking points from everywhere else. They are part of a system where they believe protecting each other or the field is more important than progress.
They are conformist. They don’t have substance. They are not special. They cannot do better than the newest AI, Gemini 3. The world of inequality that MIT is part of making and maintaining has now blown up in their face, as AI can now do most of the skilled work at MIT, rendering its labor value irreparably worthless.
MIT neuroscience will not solve consciousness. They will not solve intelligence. They will not solve psychiatry. They will not solve neurology in 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, or beyond.
There’s been so much garbage proceedings from MIT neuroscience over the last few years that can be addressed here. It is almost guaranteed now that whenever MIT neuroscience announces anything, it will be absolute nonsense.
They don’t even have a human intelligence research lab. Their priority, as jokers, is a consciousness club. No wonder AI won and threw them away. January 1, 2026, could begin the epoch of aggressive AI.
There is a new [November 18, 2025] blog by Google, A new era of intelligence with Gemini 3, stating that, “And now we’re introducing Gemini 3, our most intelligent model, that combines all of Gemini’s capabilities together so you can bring any idea to life.”
“It’s state-of-the-art in reasoning, built to grasp depth and nuance — whether it’s perceiving the subtle clues in a creative idea, or peeling apart the overlapping layers of a difficult problem. Gemini 3 is also much better at figuring out the context and intent behind your request, so you get what you need with less prompting. It’s amazing to think that in just two years, AI has evolved from simply reading text and images to reading the room.”
A replacement for MIT is already midair.
This article was written for WHN by David Stephen, who currently does research in conceptual brain science with a focus on the electrical and chemical signals for how they mechanize the human mind, with implications for mental health, disorders, neurotechnology, consciousness, learning, artificial intelligence, and nurture. He was a visiting scholar in medical entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. He did computer vision research at Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona.
As with anything you read on the internet, this article should not be construed as medical advice; please talk to your doctor or primary care provider before changing your wellness routine. WHN neither agrees nor disagrees with any of the materials posted. This article is not intended to provide a medical diagnosis, recommendation, treatment, or endorsement.
Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of WHN. Any content provided by guest authors is of their own opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything else. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
