Over 100 consciousness researchers contest the integrated information theory’s validity, sparking debate about the intersection of science and philosophy in understanding consciousness.
Civil war has broken out in the field of consciousness research. More than 100 consciousness researchers have signed a letter accusing one of the most popular scientific theories of consciousness – the integrated information theory – of being pseudoscience.
Immediately, several other figures in the field responded by critiquing the letter as poorly reasoned and disproportionate.
Both sides are motivated by a concern for the long-term health and respectability of consciousness science. One side (including the letter signatories) is worrying that the association of consciousness science with what they perceive to be a pseudoscientific theory will undermine the credibility of the field.
The other side is pressing that what they perceive as unsupported charges of pseudoscience will ultimately result in the whole science of consciousness being perceived as pseudoscience.
Integrated Information Theory Unpacked
Integrated information theory – often referred to as IIT – is a very ambitious theory of consciousness proposed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi. It ultimately aims to give mathematically precise conditions for when any system – a brain or some other lump or matter – is or is not conscious.
The theory revolves around a mathematical measure of integration of information, or interconnections, labeled with the Greek letter ϕ. The basic idea is that a system becomes conscious at the precise moment when there is more ϕ in the system as a whole than in any of its parts.
IIT implies that many more things are conscious than we ordinarily suppose. This means it gets close to a kind of “panpsychism” – the view that consciousness pervades the physical universe. Having said that, there are big differences between IIT and the new wave of Bertrand Russell-inspired panpsychism which has recently been making waves in academic philosophy, and which has been the focus of much of my research.
IIT even implies, as pointed out by the computer scientist Scott Aaronson, that an inactive grid of connected logic gates would be conscious.
The signatories of the letter worry that, while certain aspects of IIT may have been tested, the theory as a whole has not. Therefore, they argue, there is little experimental support for these bold and counter-intuitive implications. Opponents of the letter say that this is true of all current theories of consciousness, and reflects challenges with current neuroimaging techniques.
Adversarial Collaboration
All of this follows the announcement over the summer of the first results of an “adversarial collaboration” between IIT and another popular theory of consciousness, known as the global workspace theory.
According to this theory, information in the brain becomes conscious when it is in a “global workspace”, which means it is available to be used by many and varied systems throughout the brain – perceptual areas, long-term memory and motor control – for a wide variety of tasks. In contrast, if certain information is only available to a single system in the brain to perform a highly specific task, such as to regulate breathing, then that information is not conscious.
The idea of an adversarial collaboration is that the proponents of each of the rival theories design experiments together, and agree in advance on which results would favour each theory.
The hope is that agreeing in advance about what the results would mean will prevent theorists from interpreting whatever results come up as fitting with their preferred theory. This first round of experimental results turned out to be mixed. Some confirmed certain parts of IIT, and some backed up particular aspects of global workspace theory. On balance, there was arguably a slight advantage to IIT.
The announcement of these ambiguous results was accompanied by the neuroscientist Christof Koch – a prominent proponent of IIT – publicly conceding defeat on a bet he made 25 years ago with philosopher David Chalmers, that the science of consciousness would be all wrapped up by now.
Source: SciTechDaily
- Brighter Than Ever: The Secret Behind Next-Gen OLED Technology
- Cosmic Oddity Explained: Astrophysicists Discover Why Our Supergalactic Plane Lacks Spiral Galaxies
- Extragalactic Surprise: First-Ever Circumstellar Disc Discovered Beyond the Milky Way
- Mind Tricks of Ancient Times: New Study Decodes Pareidolia in 40,000-Year-Old Cave Paintings
- Cosmic Cloak & Dagger: Quasars Shrouded by Starburst Galaxies
- Age and the Perfect Partner: Is There a Connection?
- Neuroscience of the Swipe: What Makes an Online Dating Profile Irresistible?
- Debunking the Myth: Alcohol, Attraction, and the Illusive Beer Goggles Effect
- What Is the Hardest Part of Waiting? Scientists Have Discovered the Answer
- Clicks and Tricks: How Online Tests Are Changing Motor Learning
- Harvard Engineers Discover Method to 10x Rubber’s Resistance
- A Boost in Dopamine During Adolescence Permanently Amplifies Impulsivity and Aggression
- Ancient Predator Unearthed: New Species of 65 Million-Year-Old Fossil Shark Discovered in Alabama
- Potassium Depletion: The Invisible Threat to Global Food Security
- Reviving Ancient Skills to Solve Prehistoric Puzzles
- Unlocking Your Body’s Natural Weight Loss System That Works Like Wegovy, Ozempic and Mounjaro
- Counteracting Addiction: How Alcohol and Drugs Genetically Rewire Your Brain
- Unraveling the Mystery of Insects Circling Lights at Night
- Fiber’s Surprising Role in Brain, Immune System, and Overall Health
- Measles: The Most Infectious Disease Known to Science – Why Adults Need an MMR Vaccine Booster