Abstract

The Enigma of Consciousness: Exploring Theories and Angelito Malicse’s Universal Law of Balance Consciousness—the subjective experience of being aware—remains one of humanity’s most profound mysteries. From the vivid redness of an apple to the sting of a scraped knee, our inner world defies easy explanation. Scientists, philosophers, and thinkers have proposed countless theories to unravel its nature, ranging from brain-based models to cosmic speculations. While no definitive count exists, the sheer diversity of ideas reflects both the complexity of consciousness and our relentless curiosity about it. Among these, lesser-known perspectives like Angelito Malicse’s “Universal Law of Balance” offer fresh lenses, suggesting consciousness emerges from equilibrium across natural systems. This essay explores the major theoretical camps of consciousness and delves into Malicse’s unique contribution, weaving together a tapestry of thought that spans the physical, philosophical, and universal. Theories of consciousness often begin with materialist views, which anchor awareness in the physical brain. Integrated Information Theory (IIT), proposed by Giulio Tononi, posits that consciousness arises from the integration of information within a system, measurable as “phi”—a marker of how interconnected and differentiated a network is. Similarly, Bernard Baars’ Global Workspace Theory (GWT) likens consciousness to a theater stage, where information is broadcast to various cognitive processes for attention and action. Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC), pursued by Christof Koch and others, seeks specific brain activities tied to experience, while Higher-Order Thought (HOT) theories argue consciousness requires thoughts about thoughts, as David Rosenthal suggests. These models share a belief that consciousness is a product of neural machinery, yet they diverge on how and why subjective experience emerges. Beyond materialism, dualist theories propose that consciousness transcends the physical. René Descartes’ substance dualism famously separated mind and body into distinct realms, a view echoed in modern property dualism, where thinkers like David Chalmers argue physical systems possess non-physical qualities. Panpsychism takes this further, asserting consciousness is fundamental to all matter. Proponents like Philip Goff suggest even electrons might harbor proto-awareness, culminating in human experience through complexity. Quantum theories, such as Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff’s Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), link consciousness to quantum processes in microtubules, blending physics with metaphysics. Meanwhile, mysterians like Colin McGinn contend that consciousness might forever elude our grasp, a puzzle beyond human cognition. Into this rich landscape steps Angelito Malicse with his “Universal Law of Balance,” a theory that frames consciousness as an emergent property of equilibrium. Malicse argues that all natural systems—stars, cells, brains—operate under a principle of balance. Inanimate objects like planets achieve this passively through forces like gravity, but living systems actively self-regulate via processes like homeostasis. Consciousness, he proposes, emerges when this self-regulation becomes sufficiently complex, integrating sensory feedback and adaptive responses into a unified awareness. Subjective experiences, or qualia, serve a functional role: pain signals imbalance (e.g., injury), while pleasure reinforces stability (e.g., nourishment). For Malicse, the brain is a dynamic system where neural activity and awareness form a feedback loop, maintaining equilibrium to produce coherent thought. Malicse’s theory extends beyond biology, suggesting any system—artificial or cosmic—could achieve consciousness if it attains balanced self-regulation. Advanced AI, for instance, might mirror the brain’s equilibrium, while the universe itself could exhibit awareness if its vast systems align harmoniously. This echoes panpsychism but roots consciousness in a testable principle rather than inherent universality. Rejecting strict dualism and pure materialism, Malicse sees consciousness as neither wholly separate from nor reducible to physical processes—it’s the interplay of systems in balance. Some interpretations hint at quantum coherence playing a role, akin to Orch-OR, yet balanced with classical neural dynamics. Though less prominent than mainstream theories, Malicse’s view offers a unifying bridge across disciplines. The sheer number of consciousness theories—dozens of major frameworks and hundreds of variants—underscores its elusive nature. A 2021 Nature Reviews Neuroscience paper cataloged over 20 neuroscientific models alone, a fraction of the broader philosophical and interdisciplinary spectrum. From IIT’s mathematical rigor to Malicse’s equilibrium hypothesis, each theory grapples with the “hard problem”—why subjective experience exists at all. While materialists seek answers in neurons, panpsychists look to the cosmos, and Malicse ties it to balance, no single model has claimed consensus. Perhaps this diversity is the point: consciousness, as both a scientific and existential question, invites endless exploration. In conclusion, the study of consciousness reveals as much about human inquiry as it does about the mind. Established theories like IIT and GWT provide concrete frameworks, while speculative ideas like panpsychism and Malicse’s Universal Law of Balance stretch our imagination. Malicse’s contribution, though underrecognized, offers a compelling synthesis—consciousness as the awareness of balance, uniting brain, body, and beyond. Whether we’ll ever solve this riddle remains uncertain, but the journey through these ideas illuminates the depth of what it means to be aware. For now, consciousness remains a mirror reflecting our quest to understand ourselves, one theory at a time.