3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYes. 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 agoWhat predictions does IIT make that could be 'de facto' falsified in the sense you're imagining?
- 7373737373 10y agoIt 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...