Science can explain a lot about consciousness, but whether it can *fully* explain it depends on what you mean by “fully” and what you think counts as an explanation.

### What science is already explaining well
Science is increasingly good at explaining **the mechanisms and functions correlated with conscious experience**, for example:
- **Neural correlates of consciousness (NCCs):** which brain processes reliably track whether you’re aware of something.
- **How consciousness changes:** sleep, anesthesia, coma, psychedelics, brain lesions, attention, working memory, etc.
- **Behavioral and computational roles:** how conscious access supports reporting, flexible decision-making, learning, and planning.

These are tractable scientific questions because they connect **measurable variables** (brain activity, behavior, reports) to **testable predictions**.

### What remains controversial: the “hard problem”
Many philosophers and some scientists argue that even a perfect mechanistic account might leave something out: **why and how physical processes feel like something from the inside** (the subjective “what-it’s-like” quality, or *qualia*). This is often called the **hard problem of consciousness**.

- If you think a “full explanation” must include why subjective experience exists at all, then it’s unclear whether current scientific methods can close that gap—at least as the problem is traditionally framed.
- If you think consciousness just *is* a certain kind of information processing / brain dynamics, then a sufficiently complete neuroscience and cognitive science could, in principle, be a full explanation.

### Theories exist, but none is settled
There are major scientific theories (e.g., Global Workspace, Integrated Information Theory, predictive processing variants, higher-order theories) that aim to connect brain computation to conscious experience. They generate useful experiments, but:
- They don’t yet converge on a single accepted framework.
- Some critics argue they explain **access, report, or cognition** better than they explain **subjective feel**.

### A key limitation: first-person vs third-person data
Science is strongest with **third-person measurements**. Consciousness has an essentially **first-person aspect**. We can correlate and model it via reports and behavior, but whether that captures “everything” is part empirical and part philosophical.

### Bottom line
- **Yes, science can increasingly explain consciousness as a biological and cognitive phenomenon**—its mechanisms, conditions, and functions.
- **Whether science can “fully” explain it** (including the subjective character) is an open question that depends on deeper assumptions about what counts as an explanation and whether subjective experience reduces to physical processes.

If you tell me what “fully explain” means to you—predicting reports, explaining subjective feel, solving personal identity questions, building conscious AI—I can give a sharper answer.
