There’s nothing quite like a little wager between professional friends to really inspire one’s work – no matter how long it might take to suss out whose won.

In this case, neuroscientist Christof Koch and philosopher David Chalmers waited twenty-five years to declare a winner.

The pair made the bet while attending the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC) in Germany, staking a case of fine wine to seal the deal.

Koch, who had been working with the team that had discovered the structure of DNA, said that within 25 years, science would discover a signature of consciousness within the brain.

After 20 years a journalist checked in with the pair to see if anyone was looking like a clear winner. Koch then worked for the Allen Institute for Brain Science, and had continued his research into consciousness.

For a while, it seemed the claustrum, a region of the brain that has a “widespread connectivity with the entire cerebral cortex” and that had been shown to experience a “disruption of consciousness” during epileptic events, could be a relatively simple answer.

“Stimulation of the claustral electrode reproducibly resulted in a complete arrest of volitional behavior, unresponsiveness, and amnesia without negative motor symptoms or mere aphasia.”

Further research showed this to not be the case, however, so it was back to the drawing board.

Over the years, both men have looked at many different hypotheses, but came out with two leading theories on how consciousness arises.

One is the integrated information theory (IIT) and the other is the global network workspace theory (GNWT). The former believes signs of consciousness are found at the posterior cortex and the latter seeing it arise as part of the prefrontal cortex.

Technically, Koch has lost the bet since 25 years have come and gone with no definitive answer. Both theories, while interesting, fail to match corresponding data well enough to be convincing.

“This tells us that both theories need to be revised. The extent of that revision is slightly different for each theory.”

I think it’s interesting that the philosopher wasn’t the one willing to make this bet.

He knew better, it seems. Because nothing in philosophy is ever truly resolved.