4 ms·

Integrated Information Theory[0][1] is the first approach to solving these problems that make sense for me. It takes an axiomatic approach and provides a comput

Integrated Information Theory[0][1] is the first approach to solving these problems that make sense for me. It takes an axiomatic approach and provides a computable method to associate both a level of consciousness and the content of the experience to an arbitrary causal system. Unlike all these unscientific philosophical considerations it can actually be used to create testable hypotheses. [0] http://integratedinformationtheory.org/ http://integratedinformationtheory.org/ [1] http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003588 http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/jou...

ajkjk 10y ago
I don't see why any of that is necessary. It seems just as mystical and hand wavey as other attempts to talk about consciousness, from what I've browsed.
- 7373737373 10y ago
  There isn't anything mystical about it, though - if close to the truth - it would have some interesting implications. I would be interested in seeing different approaches with similar explanatory power.
davmre 10y ago
Have you read Scott Aaronson's "Why I Am Not An Integrated Information Theorist" (http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799)? He commends IIT for making falsifiable predictions, but argues that some of those predictions are, in fact, false.
- 7373737373 10y ago
  Yes. In the follow-up linked above he also describes the authors' responses to this. The predictions are not de facto false. He argues that they are intuitively false, which is a matter of personal belief but not empirical research. The same goes for some counterarguments.
  - davmre 10y ago
    What predictions does IIT make that could be 'de facto' falsified in the sense you're imagining?
    - 7373737373 10y ago
      It will probably depend on how well large systems can be approximated. In terms of reproducible results, it would be most interesting to research the shape of different qualia and how they progress if the underlying network changes (both in function and connectivity). Right now, we can only rely on self-aware and -reporting systems. But if we know how actual experiences integrate if two systems merge it might be possible to get a "feeling" for others. Cases such as these[0] are therefore extremely interesting. If it is possible to gradually change the connectivity between two systems, according to the theory, there should be a sudden "split" into two experiences. High bandwidth brain-computer-brain interfaces could possibly provide such a possibility in the future. [1] is another reason why I tend to be pretty agnostic about intuitive arguments. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniopagus_twins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniopagus_twins [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-b...
Strilanc 10y ago
I really don't get the appeal of IIT. Smells like curve fitting, which would be fine except they don't have anything solid to fit against. I agree with essentially everything Scott Aaronson has said about it [1][2]: > When we consider whether to accept IIT’s equation of integrated information with consciousness, we don’t start with any agreed-upon, independent notion of consciousness against which the new notion can be compared. The main things we start with, in my view, are certain paradigm-cases that gesture toward what we mean > [...] But how does Giulio know that the cerebellum isn’t conscious? [...] he just told us that a 2D square grid [a simple circuit that scores high phi] is conscious! 1: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 2: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1823 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1823

ajkjk 10y ago

I don't see why any of that is necessary. It seems just as mystical and hand wavey as other attempts to talk about consciousness, from what I've browsed.

7373737373 10y ago
There isn't anything mystical about it, though - if close to the truth - it would have some interesting implications. I would be interested in seeing different approaches with similar explanatory power.

davmre 10y ago

Have you read Scott Aaronson's "Why I Am Not An Integrated Information Theorist" (http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799)? He commends IIT for making falsifiable predictions, but argues that some of those predictions are, in fact, false.

7373737373 10y ago
Yes. In the follow-up linked above he also describes the authors' responses to this. The predictions are not de facto false. He argues that they are intuitively false, which is a matter of personal belief but not empirical research. The same goes for some counterarguments.
- davmre 10y ago
  What predictions does IIT make that could be 'de facto' falsified in the sense you're imagining?
  - 7373737373 10y ago
    It will probably depend on how well large systems can be approximated. In terms of reproducible results, it would be most interesting to research the shape of different qualia and how they progress if the underlying network changes (both in function and connectivity). Right now, we can only rely on self-aware and -reporting systems. But if we know how actual experiences integrate if two systems merge it might be possible to get a "feeling" for others. Cases such as these[0] are therefore extremely interesting. If it is possible to gradually change the connectivity between two systems, according to the theory, there should be a sudden "split" into two experiences. High bandwidth brain-computer-brain interfaces could possibly provide such a possibility in the future. [1] is another reason why I tend to be pretty agnostic about intuitive arguments. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniopagus_twins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniopagus_twins [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-b...

Strilanc 10y ago

I really don't get the appeal of IIT. Smells like curve fitting, which would be fine except they don't have anything solid to fit against. I agree with essentially everything Scott Aaronson has said about it [1][2]: > When we consider whether to accept IIT’s equation of integrated information with consciousness, we don’t start with any agreed-upon, independent notion of consciousness against which the new notion can be compared. The main things we start with, in my view, are certain paradigm-cases that gesture toward what we mean > [...] But how does Giulio know that the cerebellum isn’t conscious? [...] he just told us that a 2D square grid [a simple circuit that scores high phi] is conscious! 1: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 2: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1823 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1823