Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi on Consciousness at the FQXi conference 2014 in Vieques

The past century in physics seems to lead in a surprising direction: away from physics as a description of objects and their interactions, and towards physics as a description of the evolution of information. Is this the correct way to think about physics and the physical world? What is information? What does the term "information" even mean? What role does information play in quantum gravity, cosmology, thermodynamics, life and consciousness, and what links does it provide between these areas?

FQXi's international, interdisciplinary conference on the Physics of Information brought together leading researchers to discuss the significance, meaning, and uses of information in physics.

[ruwanraj]

Fascinating, the first serious attempt at A) Acknowledging consciousness and B) Trying to build a mathematical framework for it, at least from a functional standpoint. If these ideas can be bridged with Metzinger's broader ideas on the adaptive value of consciousness, we have at a minimum some great background to understanding the problem. 

[fishybishbash]

Great upload. Good to hear that the science of consciousness is finally being addressed in a serious minded manner.

[Ontologistics]

Although interesting, and perhaps effective in terms of guessing the extent of consciousness within systems, this is still merely a form of Functionalism and so does not resolve the Hard Problem of Consciousness, mentioned at the beginning. At the end Koch speculates about the internet having an 'übermind', perhaps ignorant of the 'China Brain' thought experiment, and the problems associated with that vis-a-vis the Hard Problem. Ultimately, all that has been achieved here is that integrated neural systems have been abstracted from so to create a model (ABC, etc), that can then even be applied to non-neuronal systems. However, the Hard Problem which is that of explaining phenomenology from physiology has simply been transferred to the problem of explaining phenomenology from any ABC-physiology/structure. At the end Koch acknowledges that they are proposing a form of panpsychism, but then strawman's panpsychism as a view that everything has mind without distinction. From Spinoza, Leibniz, Koestler, Fechner, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Whitehead, et al., the 'units' that are the subjects of mind have been distinguished (e.g. 'dominant monads', 'holons', 'the will (to survive/to power)', 'actual entities', etc.). The picture's the same, they've only bought new pencils to draw it.

[Aluminata]

If he did not try to talk so fast he would not have so many line of articulation derailments- and if he knew any thing about consciousness - he would no how irritating such persistent pot holed, back tracking, side stepping thought formulation processes are.

[mattsigl]

Without the fancy math: For any system (collection of logic gate elements) the state of that system (which elements are on or off) constrains the past state the system could have been in to lead to that state and constrains the future state of the system similarly (some states would be impossible in the next time step given the current state). The information about the cause/effect repertoire is intrinsic to the system at any given time BY VIRTUE of being in the state it’s actually in, therefore generating intrinsic information. The system is a single integrated system insofar as partitions to the system (cuts to the internal connectivity within the elements) effect the cause/effect repertoire(s) BY VIRTUE of their irreducible causal connectivity. Indeed, this is how causal irreducibility between interacting elements is determined and defined! If a partition/cut makes no difference to the cause/effect repertoire of a system state then that system is not a single system at all, does not generate information over and above the sum of its parts, and does not exist as a single causal entity, and, from the POV of the theory, cannot exist as a single conscious entity. An integrated system cannot be decomposed into smaller systems without loss of information; information is a difference that makes a difference. No difference, no integration. The structure of an experience is determined by the abstract shape the integrated information generates within a single system in a particular state, when the integrated information “pops up” into the higher dimensionality of “qualia-space”. You can think of non-integrated systems (systems which only exist from the POV of an outside mind and do not exist intrinsically) as having information flow only in the 2-D space of the non-integrated circuitry. Whereas integrated differences that make a difference build a n-dimensional architecture (where n is determined by the number of all possible intrinsically discriminable cause/effect repertoires of a system, as far as I understand) that specifies the structure and quality of experience. (The shape maps onto phenomenology isomorphically.) Real, irreducible causal power has to really EXIST, and this existence is realized within qualia-space, which is a real “space” but exists in the ontological realm of information (ultimately geometric information) and, according to the bedrock identity theory of IIT, within consciousness, as consciousness IS integrated information. Different system states in an integrated system specify different architectures of qualia that that system can “build” and realize. This is the quale repertoire of the system (as contrasted with the cause/effect repertoire of any particular state), where each quale is, IN VIRTUE OF BEING WHAT IT IS, a reduction of uncertainty about what states it could have been and what states it can transform to. And even though the number of system states that could have lead to the current state, and number of system states that it could transform to, is often plural, the shape generated by this reduction of uncertainty is singular and determinate for any integrated system in a particular state.

[BrandonGMubarak]

This was incredibly stimulating, thank you for posting these videos!

[nimim.markomikkila]

A straight question to the World Wide Web: Does it feel like something to be the World Wide Web?:)

[otonanoC]

Tononi and Koch used to carefully differentiate the act of 'being conscious' with the contents-of-consciousness.   (so-called "intentional" states).  In recent years it seems as if they are downplaying that distinction.

[Stadtpark]

2:29 “the hard problem”
20:40 Tononi starts here
37:14 “unconscious zombie-system”; things are starting to get interesting
42:33 last Tononi slide

[vectorshift]

The axioms need to be cashed out with multiple examples and non examples for each.

[alvincay]

Necessary, but unclear that it is sufficient.

[fangming]

Interesting talks! However, several of Giulio Tononi's axioms are questionable, especially the ones relating to an unique experience at any given moment. I think some of his axioms will be disproven over time by case studies of people with special or irregular conditions.

[deborahansari]

You can not decouple? I am recalling some Oliver Sacks stories that seem to come close.

[SeanMauer]

For one thing the internet does not need to sleep. And it's one of those things whose creators do not want it to have it's own volition. On the other hand we could be seeing the beginnings of what will become bible prophecy - Rev. 15 He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

[deeliciousplum]

Thank you so much for sharing this talk. Christof and Giulio share in so many ideas as well as within this talk they expose the viewer to glimpses of their inquiries. The idea of applying a tentative label: experience and from there set upon the task of exploring the numerous things needed for an experience to happen is an exceptionally stimulating idea.

[kyberuserid]

More like what I was hoping to hear in the other segment on immortality. Then the inevitable let down at the end. I love my animal nature and would rather not exist at alll than loose its precious qualia. That and a lil veiled homophobia oder, in jumping from ability to interface consciousness to the rut.

[kantiannambo]

Good morning it was a quantum light wake

[goodwill-yd]

I am curious how far they have advanced since 2014?

[babydolldreams]

Things that don't exist in the physical world can also generate experience (sets of hallucinations can cause delusions and physical reactions).

[lmbus]

why do we even try to find this out, it seems like we try to figure this out to create another lifeform which is better than us ... its like its meant to happen and everyone is playing a role in it, they do this research without even asking them selves why do they even do this research ? what do we wanna achieve by knowing what conciousness is and how it works ? it just rases other stupidd questions... man