9 ms·

I have been hearing about Koch, and Tononi, and panpsychism, and phi for years now, in these articles summarizing consciousness for laymen, (a group that includ

I have been hearing about Koch, and Tononi, and panpsychism, and phi for years now, in these articles summarizing consciousness for laymen, (a group that includes me). And these very long articles bloviate but never go any further than giving a facile description of phi, claiming that this IIT "theory" is testable, and then not saying how it could be tested. The articles from five years ago and this one seem interchangeable. I call bullshit. Could someone please explain what I'm missing?

cambalache 6y ago
You are no missing anything. Reputations in academy are not only made by being correct and inventive. You can go pretty far if you know how to dress-up bullshit.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  I completely agree, and would only point out that the ability to get far on properly calibrated bullshit is a well established phenomenon throughout human history.
  - namero999 6y ago
    But then the onus is on those who sense it to point out said bullshit.
    - hawkice 6y ago
      I mean, I just eat lunch while I read things, not sure why you think I've signed up to put a professional level effort into rolling my eyes at these guys.
    - hntrader 6y ago
      Burden of proof generally isn't on the skeptic.
      - namero999 6y ago
        I think there is a difference between a proof and the refutation of an argument. I expect proofs from scientific theories, and if a theory of consciousness would posit itself as scientific, I would be in perfect agreement with you that proofs or testable predictions should be provided. But I think here we are well into philosophy grounds, where neither proofs nor predictions are required. If that is the case, a philosophical claim needs to be actively rejected. I will admit that I still have to make my mind whether IIT is purely philosophy, purely scientific, or neither. Currently I don't think it's a theory of consciousness, rather just a model to "quantify" consciousness, without explaining its origin.
        geophile 6y ago
        The author of TFA disagrees with you: "Most importantly, though, IIT is a scientific theory, unlike panpsychism."
    - geophile 6y ago
      See above. TFA claims that IIT is testable, but does not say anthing at all about a test that has been published, a test that has been done, a test that some research group is doing, a test that is being considered, a test that could be done given some scientific or technological development. Nothing.
  - twobitshifter 6y ago
    See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      I love when I run into this, because I actually took two classes taught by Dr Peter Boghossian, the first was Critical Thinking, the second was Atheism. Checking Portland State's course catalog, he's still teaching those classes. Oh, and as you might imagine, there was a pretty considerable amount of material that existed in both of those classes.
justinpombrio 6y ago
I don't think you're missing anything. Tononi made a formula related to how complicated a system is, and claimed that its measures consciousness. And what are you supposed to say to that, when no one can agree on what the word "consciousness" means, but people are still so attached to the word? For Scott Aaronson's take on "Integrated Information Theory": https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799
- geophile 6y ago
  Excellent reference. I see that Aaronson is pointing to articles more than ten years old, so the lack of progress goes on longer than the five years I mentioned.
  - geophile 6y ago
    ... and I agree completely with your point about consciousness lacking a definition.
- tosser0001 6y ago
  Being able to model consciousness mathematically opens up some grotesque possibilities. Human suffering presumably has some sort of limit based purely on our physical makeup. Suppose though the very concept of subjective suffering could be modeled in some way. Is there any law in the universe that says there is a limit to suffering, pain (or pleasure)? Could an investigator of the future test out an algorithm on a conscious entity modeled in software, just to see what the mathematical limit of pain is? Maybe that's what Hell is...
  - selestify 6y ago
    It's interesting that our minds automatically turn to the worst possibility, even though this also implies that we could find out what the mathematical limit of joy is. Chances are, there would be a lot more processes simulating joy than pain.
    - 6y ago
jbotz 6y ago
Don't "call bullshit" because you can't personally see how to falsify a theory by reading some popularized science articles. There are real papers with math behind these claims, and when you've read them and at least tried to understand the math, then you can call bullshit if you still think so.
- geophile 6y ago
  I am not qualified to do so. The existence of "real papers with math behind thest claims" is sort of irrelevant. IIT is being proposed as a scientific theory, and the author of TFA claims that IIT is testable, but he has not said anything about actual testing. I cannot judge the math, and I doubt that I could judge a scientific paper describing a test. I'm simply asking: Is there any actualy testing, completed or in progress? TFA did not make such a claim.
  - elektropionir 6y ago
    Here is a talk in which he mentions specific experiments: https://youtu.be/LGd8p-GSLgY?t=3512 https://youtu.be/LGd8p-GSLgY?t=3512 This is a fairly old talk and if you do a bit more digging I think he has other talks with more experiments.
    - geophile 6y ago
      Thanks, I'll take a look.
skindoe 6y ago
You should read Consciousness by Anaka Harris it's short read that may help you understand the position a bit better.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
A good place to start, if you are a firm skeptic and not willing to even attempt faith or your own empirical experiences, is a book called Entangled Minds. There is not a single claim made in this book which does not have a reference to a proper peer-reviewed paper attached to it, iirc several hundred papers in all. It firmly supports consciousness being in at minimum earthworms, and probably even ,,lower,, creatures. Once you actually open your mind to this idea, you will begin to see it everywhere, and with practice be able to connect, communicate, and derive mutual benefit. It,s up to you to take the first step, though. Of course, you can also choose to remain in the safe comfort of materialism. I know from experience that it can be a very lonely place. I wish you a happy journey, wherever it may lead.
- kharak 6y ago
  Is there a good podcast or Youtube video for starters? Highly sceptic of the idea and therefore intrigued.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    not that i am aware of, sorry.
  - anoonmoose 6y ago
    You can start with the last time Radin's work was savaged in the comments of an HN article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26066233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26066233
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win :)
      - anoonmoose 6y ago
        not everyone who gets ignored, laughed at, or attacked ends up winning sometimes they just end up ignored and/or laughed at
brighton36 6y ago
We're eating the menu instead of the food.
fortunes_favors 6y ago
You're correct that the mathematical veneer proposed here is bullshit - however the philosophical argument presented is perfectly sound. In these matters it's a mistake to adhere to the scientistic fallacy that the only things that are true are those that can be directly observed or quantified.
bnralt 6y ago
I think there's a sort of definitional sleight of hand going on here, a type that I see often these days: 1. [Word A] means [Concept X] to most people. 2. [Concept X] doesn't apply to [Item K], but [Concept Y] does. 3. By creating a new definition, finding an obscure definition, or twisting a current definition I can argue that [Word A] technically can mean [Concept Y], and then apply the term to [Item K]. 4. Now that I'm using [Word A] for [Item K], most people will associate [Item K] with [Concept X]. So when we say "consciousness," most people conjure up some concept about human like thought and communication. That's the reason why most people find the word compelling, and it obviously (almost by definition) doesn't apply to most of the stuff talked about in this article. When coming across arguments that rely on this type of sleight of hand, I think it's best to ask yourself what the article would actually be saying if the loaded term was replaced by another term or phrase that makes it explicitly clear what the other means. So when the author of this article writes something like this: > This is utterly frigid, hundreds of degrees colder than any temperature terrestrial organisms can survive. But the fact that the temperature is non-zero implies a corresponding tiny amount of heat in deep space. This of course implies a corresponding tiny amount of experience. It seems that he's arguing that consciousness is experience and experience is any activity, even at the atomic level. So if we remove the sleight of hand and ask "Is there some level of activity, even sleight activity at the atomic level, everywhere?" The answer might be affirmative (if we're using a loose sense of the word "everywhere"), but it's not a particularly surprising or even interesting question to answer.
Hammershaft 6y ago
How do you even define the boundaries of a 'system' under IIT?

cambalache 6y ago

You are no missing anything. Reputations in academy are not only made by being correct and inventive. You can go pretty far if you know how to dress-up bullshit.

meepmorp 6y ago
I completely agree, and would only point out that the ability to get far on properly calibrated bullshit is a well established phenomenon throughout human history.
- namero999 6y ago
  But then the onus is on those who sense it to point out said bullshit.
  - hawkice 6y ago
    I mean, I just eat lunch while I read things, not sure why you think I've signed up to put a professional level effort into rolling my eyes at these guys.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Burden of proof generally isn't on the skeptic.
    - namero999 6y ago
      I think there is a difference between a proof and the refutation of an argument. I expect proofs from scientific theories, and if a theory of consciousness would posit itself as scientific, I would be in perfect agreement with you that proofs or testable predictions should be provided. But I think here we are well into philosophy grounds, where neither proofs nor predictions are required. If that is the case, a philosophical claim needs to be actively rejected. I will admit that I still have to make my mind whether IIT is purely philosophy, purely scientific, or neither. Currently I don't think it's a theory of consciousness, rather just a model to "quantify" consciousness, without explaining its origin.
      - geophile 6y ago
        The author of TFA disagrees with you: "Most importantly, though, IIT is a scientific theory, unlike panpsychism."
  - geophile 6y ago
    See above. TFA claims that IIT is testable, but does not say anthing at all about a test that has been published, a test that has been done, a test that some research group is doing, a test that is being considered, a test that could be done given some scientific or technological development. Nothing.
- twobitshifter 6y ago
  See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    I love when I run into this, because I actually took two classes taught by Dr Peter Boghossian, the first was Critical Thinking, the second was Atheism. Checking Portland State's course catalog, he's still teaching those classes. Oh, and as you might imagine, there was a pretty considerable amount of material that existed in both of those classes.

justinpombrio 6y ago

I don't think you're missing anything. Tononi made a formula related to how complicated a system is, and claimed that its measures consciousness. And what are you supposed to say to that, when no one can agree on what the word "consciousness" means, but people are still so attached to the word? For Scott Aaronson's take on "Integrated Information Theory": https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799

geophile 6y ago
Excellent reference. I see that Aaronson is pointing to articles more than ten years old, so the lack of progress goes on longer than the five years I mentioned.
- geophile 6y ago
  ... and I agree completely with your point about consciousness lacking a definition.
tosser0001 6y ago
Being able to model consciousness mathematically opens up some grotesque possibilities. Human suffering presumably has some sort of limit based purely on our physical makeup. Suppose though the very concept of subjective suffering could be modeled in some way. Is there any law in the universe that says there is a limit to suffering, pain (or pleasure)? Could an investigator of the future test out an algorithm on a conscious entity modeled in software, just to see what the mathematical limit of pain is? Maybe that's what Hell is...
- selestify 6y ago
  It's interesting that our minds automatically turn to the worst possibility, even though this also implies that we could find out what the mathematical limit of joy is. Chances are, there would be a lot more processes simulating joy than pain.
  - 6y ago

jbotz 6y ago

Don't "call bullshit" because you can't personally see how to falsify a theory by reading some popularized science articles. There are real papers with math behind these claims, and when you've read them and at least tried to understand the math, then you can call bullshit if you still think so.

geophile 6y ago
I am not qualified to do so. The existence of "real papers with math behind thest claims" is sort of irrelevant. IIT is being proposed as a scientific theory, and the author of TFA claims that IIT is testable, but he has not said anything about actual testing. I cannot judge the math, and I doubt that I could judge a scientific paper describing a test. I'm simply asking: Is there any actualy testing, completed or in progress? TFA did not make such a claim.
- elektropionir 6y ago
  Here is a talk in which he mentions specific experiments: https://youtu.be/LGd8p-GSLgY?t=3512 https://youtu.be/LGd8p-GSLgY?t=3512 This is a fairly old talk and if you do a bit more digging I think he has other talks with more experiments.
  - geophile 6y ago
    Thanks, I'll take a look.

skindoe 6y ago

You should read Consciousness by Anaka Harris it's short read that may help you understand the position a bit better.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

A good place to start, if you are a firm skeptic and not willing to even attempt faith or your own empirical experiences, is a book called Entangled Minds. There is not a single claim made in this book which does not have a reference to a proper peer-reviewed paper attached to it, iirc several hundred papers in all. It firmly supports consciousness being in at minimum earthworms, and probably even ,,lower,, creatures. Once you actually open your mind to this idea, you will begin to see it everywhere, and with practice be able to connect, communicate, and derive mutual benefit. It,s up to you to take the first step, though. Of course, you can also choose to remain in the safe comfort of materialism. I know from experience that it can be a very lonely place. I wish you a happy journey, wherever it may lead.

kharak 6y ago
Is there a good podcast or Youtube video for starters? Highly sceptic of the idea and therefore intrigued.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  not that i am aware of, sorry.
- anoonmoose 6y ago
  You can start with the last time Radin's work was savaged in the comments of an HN article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26066233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26066233
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win :)
    - anoonmoose 6y ago
      not everyone who gets ignored, laughed at, or attacked ends up winning sometimes they just end up ignored and/or laughed at

brighton36 6y ago

We're eating the menu instead of the food.

fortunes_favors 6y ago

You're correct that the mathematical veneer proposed here is bullshit - however the philosophical argument presented is perfectly sound. In these matters it's a mistake to adhere to the scientistic fallacy that the only things that are true are those that can be directly observed or quantified.

bnralt 6y ago

I think there's a sort of definitional sleight of hand going on here, a type that I see often these days: 1. [Word A] means [Concept X] to most people. 2. [Concept X] doesn't apply to [Item K], but [Concept Y] does. 3. By creating a new definition, finding an obscure definition, or twisting a current definition I can argue that [Word A] technically can mean [Concept Y], and then apply the term to [Item K]. 4. Now that I'm using [Word A] for [Item K], most people will associate [Item K] with [Concept X]. So when we say "consciousness," most people conjure up some concept about human like thought and communication. That's the reason why most people find the word compelling, and it obviously (almost by definition) doesn't apply to most of the stuff talked about in this article. When coming across arguments that rely on this type of sleight of hand, I think it's best to ask yourself what the article would actually be saying if the loaded term was replaced by another term or phrase that makes it explicitly clear what the other means. So when the author of this article writes something like this: > This is utterly frigid, hundreds of degrees colder than any temperature terrestrial organisms can survive. But the fact that the temperature is non-zero implies a corresponding tiny amount of heat in deep space. This of course implies a corresponding tiny amount of experience. It seems that he's arguing that consciousness is experience and experience is any activity, even at the atomic level. So if we remove the sleight of hand and ask "Is there some level of activity, even sleight activity at the atomic level, everywhere?" The answer might be affirmative (if we're using a loose sense of the word "everywhere"), but it's not a particularly surprising or even interesting question to answer.

Hammershaft 6y ago

How do you even define the boundaries of a 'system' under IIT?