No one knows how consciousness works, but top researchers are fighting over which theories really count as science

Science is hard. The science of consciousness is particularly difficult, plagued by philosophical difficulties and a paucity of experimental data.

So, in June, when the results of a head-to-head experimental contest between two competing theories were announced at the 26th annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Consciousness in New York City, they were met with some fanfare.

The results were inconclusive, with some favoring “integrated information theory” while others gave weight to “global workspace theory.” The score is covered in both Sciences And naturein addition to larger outlets including The New York Times And The Economist.

And perhaps so, as researchers continue to investigate these and other theories about how our brains generate experience. But on September 16, apparently prompted by media coverage of the June findings, a group of 124 consciousness scientists and philosophers – many of them leading figures in the field – published a report. Open letter Attacking integrated information theory as “pseudoscience.”

The message was born sensation. The science of consciousness has its factions and conflicts, but this development is unprecedented, and threatens to cause lasting damage.

What is integrated information theory?

Italian neuroscientist Giulio Tononi I Proposal Integrated Information Theory in 2004, and is now on the “Version 4.0“.It cannot be easily summarized.

At its core lies the idea that consciousness is identical with the amount of “integrated information” contained in the system. This roughly means the information possessed by the system as a whole as well as the information contained in its parts.

Read more: What makes us conscious?

Many theories begin by looking for connections between events in our minds and events in our brains. Instead, integrated information theory begins with “phenomenological axioms,” which are assumed to be self-evident claims about the nature of consciousness.

The theory is known to suggest that consciousness is widespread in nature, and that even very simple systems, such as an inactive network of computer circuits, have some degree of consciousness.

Three criticisms

This open letter makes three main claims against integrated information theory.

First, he argues that this is not a “groundbreaking theory of consciousness” and has received more media attention than it deserves.

Secondly, that He expresses his concerns And about its effects:

if [integrated information theory] Whether proven or perceived by the public as such, it will not only have a direct impact on clinical practice related to coma patients, but also on a wide range of ethical issues ranging from current debates about artificial intelligence consciousness and its regulation, to stem cell research, testing, On animals, organs, and abortion.

The third claim has generated the most buzz: Integrated Information Theory is “pseudoscience.”

Is integrated information theory a leading theory?

Whether you agree with integrated information theory or not – I personally do Criticize There is no doubt that it is a “groundbreaking theory of consciousness.”

a reconnaissance In a study of consciousness conducted by scientists in 2018 and 2019, nearly 50% of participants found that the theory was probably or definitely “promising.” It was one of four theories featured in a keynote discussion at the 2022 meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, and it was one of four theories featured in a review About the State of Consciousness post that Anil Seth and I published last year.

With one accountIntegrated information theory is the third most discussed theory of consciousness in the scientific literature, surpassed only by global workspace theory and recurrent processing theory. Like it or not, integrated information theory enjoys great support in the scientific community.

Is it more problematic than other theories?

What about the potential consequences of integrated information theory – its impact on clinical practice, regulation of artificial intelligence, attitudes toward stem cell research, animal and organ testing, and abortion?

Consider the issue of fetal consciousness. According to the letterIntegrated Information Theory says that “human fetuses in the very early stages of development” are likely conscious.

Details are important here. I was the co-author of paper It is cited in support of this claim, which in effect says that no major theory of consciousness—including integrated information theory—postulates the emergence of consciousness before the 26th week of pregnancy.

While we should be aware of the legal and ethical implications of integrated information theory, we must also be aware of its implications. everyone Theories of consciousness.

Are the implications of integrated information theory more problematic than those of other leading theories? This is far from clear, and there are certainly versions of other theories whose implications would be just as radical as those of integrated information theory.

Is it pseudoscience?

And so, finally, to the charge of pseudoscience. The thesis does not provide a definition of “pseudoscience,” but rather suggests that the theory is pseudoscientific because “the theory as a whole” is not experimentally testable. It also claims that Integrated Information Theory was not “meaningfully tested” through the head-to-head competition earlier this year.

It is true that the basic principles of the theory are very difficult to test, but so are the basic principles of any theory of consciousness. To put a theory to the test, one needs to postulate a set of bridging principles, and the status of these principles is often disputed.

Read more: Where is the evidence in pseudoscience?

But none of this justifies treating integrated information theory – or any other theory of consciousness – as pseudoscience. All it takes for a theory to be truly scientific is that it generate testable predictions. Whatever its faults, the theory certainly did.

The charge of pseudoscience is not only inaccurate, it is harmful. In effect, it is an attempt to “deplatform” or silence integral information theory – its denial deserves serious attention.

This is not only unfair to integrated information theory and the scientific community as a whole, but it also shows a fundamental lack of faith in science. If the theory is indeed bankrupt, normal scientific mechanisms will prove it.