Introduction

Thousands of neuroscientists collect new results every year,  gaining more insights about how the brain may work. However, despite the collective efforts, there is still much progress to be made in tackling the big questions. Could this be because dominant concepts in neuroscience, which were developed between 50 to more than 100 years ago, are now outdated \cite{Stern_2017}? If the answer is yes, then we have to search for contradictions in the overwhelming flood of information, or we may have to change the viewpoint from which we interpret those results. We will show here, that such a revision can reveal unknown biological mechanisms which will change our perspective on neuroscience fundamentally.

Today's neuroscience is incomplete

Let us first approach neuroscience philosophically. In regard to consciousness, the advantage of philosophy over science is that it can consider something like 'experience' where science has no ability to measure this of yet. Therefore, what seems to be an advantage to philosophy may be a stumbling block for today's neuroscience. 
To understand this, we divide consciousness into two parts\cite{Chalmers_1998}. The first part is the 'easy problems of consciousness' which include the following phenomena: the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli; the integration of information by a cognitive system; the reportability of mental states; the ability of a system to access its own internal states; the focus of attention; the deliberate control of behaviour; and the difference between wakefulness and sleep. On the contrary, the hard problem refers then to the problem of explaining why and how  sentient organisms have qualia or phenomenal experience.