Consciousness Theory Declared 'Pseudoscience' by 124 Researchers: IIT's Adversarial Collaboration

Greg Dunn's Neuro Art: USE CODE "BRAIN" AT CHECKOUT FOR 10% OFF

Major scientists and philosophers signed a letter calling integrated information theory of consciousness "pseudoscience" in the wake of the Cogitate adversarial collaboration between IIT and global neuronal workspace theory (GNWT). A 25-year bet about the neural correlates of consciousness is settled between David Chalmers and Christof Koch.

Books and Audiobooks (I will get a small commission at no cost to you to support the channel)

About IIT:

Precursor to IIT, by Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi:

By Erik Hoel:

Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
0:52 Integrated Information Theory
2:13 Adversarial Collaboration: Cogitate
3:02 GNWT's Predictions
3:20 IIT's Predictions
3:58 Brain Art
4:34 Results
6:02 Pseudoscience letter
6:32 Trivial predictions?
7:38 IIT and Other Theories
8:49 Too Ambitious?

(Updates coming soon... sign up to stay posted)

[tylermacdonald]

The fact that this is a petiton and not a formal argument really says something.

[swordfireguy]

After 121 authors wrote a letter protesting Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, Einstein replied: “If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!”

[u_cuban]

I've said this before but I'll say it again... I really appreciate the unbiased presentation. Even though at points you hyperbolize some aspects, it's always in a restrained way, which is great for a listener dedicated to truth rather than pure rhetoric.

[theFminusclub]

You don’t post too much but when your do they’re bangers

[Corteum]

I think they dont really have a theory of consciousness as such, but rather, they have a theory on how to produce systems that mimic conscious behavior as defined in behavioral science. Because they dont have any actual way to explain how subjective experience can be produced by any objective process.All they can do is trry to mimic intelligent behavior. But that's not producing conscious experirence.

[idegteke]

No matter how quickly you can go, how skillfully you climb, how strong, resilient and determined you are if you don’t turn precisely in the correct direction before even taking the very first step. I really doubt that anyone currently has the slightest idea about either the definition of life (even matter, actually), intelligence and consciousness and the relation between these assumed categories. We want to solve a huge crossword on an ancient language that nobody speaks anymore, in which every word is crossing every other and the definitions are merely moods, dreams and songs of birds. As for myself, working on this field in most of my time, I’m trying just to turn to the right direction for the last 20 years. I see others climbing and running around in random directions, for sure

[GoldbergToastyBred]

Yey you finally uploaded a new video!! so excited to see

[dnimon]

I think the problem is one of definition, until we define what consciousness is and what it isn't, we can't expect meaningful resuls

[baronofbaobabs]

Your voice is perfect for presenting scientific information

[popkinbobkin]

great to see you back! i also really would like to hear more about those horrible experiments science hippies do with human brain cells and mice and stuff!

[nathanfisher]

Love it! Super helpful, when does part 2 come out??

[MrArdytube]

I did not sign on to either view. I don’t think consciousness can be localized either physically or intellectually. . Instead, I think that involves integration of multiple sensory and mental inputs. This process would be similar, but more comprehensive than the process of integrating two different images into an interiorized 3d model of our environment.

[Rik]

Very timely video for me, since I'm at the moment researching and writing about the nature of "mind" and "consciousness", and the plethora of vague pseudo-definitions and "theories" of these phenomena is both fascinating and frustrating.

Many thanks for this.

[MartijnEWokke]

Great video!! Thanks for posting. My main problem with the way things were going (mainly in the US!), was the way IIT was being portrayed as 'the leading theory of consciousness', and some things some of the main proponents of the theory claim in the media (mostly referring to panpsychism). All theories of consciousness have major issues and lots of problems, and I think IIT is a valuable contribution to the field. But it should not be portrayed in a somewhat populistic way too much. And for these adversarial collaborations, it would make sense to make clear predictions that would falsify a theory. And to make clear how even Science reports on your more nuanced portrayal of the results: "Two rival theories about the basis of perception went head-to-head in neuroscience experiments, but advocates of “losing” idea aren’t conceding yet". Here the 'losing' idea is the Global Workspace Theory according to the media branch of Science. Which is weird considering the conclusions of the paper itself.

[LiteraryLA]

In Mark Solms’ 2021 book The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness, he argued that consciousness is seated in the brainstem, not the cortex. I found his case convincing, so I’m not surprised by these results.

[jamesking]

In my very uninformed opinion, trying to find a formula for consciousness seems like trying to find a formula for other abstract emergent things like envy.

[JohnVKaravitis]

A well-crafted and great example of how science should/does work. Note: Although I agree that science is a social endeavor, "consensus" is politics, not science.

[ILoveSlyFoxHound]

I can't say I believe that either (or really any of these theories) are right or properly testable, but this sure looks like politics more than science. If the only reason we shy away from ideas like Pan-psychism is because they make us uncomfortable or have problematic indications then that certainly isn't (proper) science. And then of course it spawns the people who want to fight the status-quo. It really just looks like Epistemological Constructivism to me. It really doesn't seem like science can touch the field of consciousness on the basis that we cannot even prove anyone's consciousness but our own. There's no true way to verify a claim so really it belongs in philosophy rather than science. I do think both sides of the field in the video have a point but it's pretty evident by their testing that really they can't demonstrate anything.

While I have no complex ways to try to justify it it certainly seems that either consciousness is a product of order/complexity or is simply a property of how things are. Now whether that order requires something like a neuronal system receiving inputs and outputs is a good question, but not one that can actually be answered. To me intelligence looks like a Complex System (field of study) and things likes plants and artificial neural networks would certainly fit in that, but so would higher order systems likes societies, cities, and colonies (and basically everything else). No idea what that says about consciousness though.

[Window]

This whole thing seems stupid to me. Clearly the debate is just philosophy/religion in scientific terms. They’re leaking into those fields and rightly so because science is about what can be observed. Once you get into things about consciousness or the soul, you’re not being scientific, you’re being philosophical and if you’re calling the study of it pseudoscience, you’re not being scientific, you’re just a materialist with circular thinking. This is a debate that can’t be won in science because the very topic goes beyond what science is by definition.

[schitlipz]

My prediction (on pause now) is the global one is more for humans who use their "holodeck" to reason and play out scenarios, but also need the pre-processing" of IIT, which is probably most favourable on lower order intelligence. Now I will press play and be shown I'm wrong. A recurring theme to my neurons.