The p word

So, a group of 124 prominent researchers in the field of consciousness published a one-page preprint titled The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness as Pseudoscience to express their concerns about the media hype of Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and a heated discussion ensued on Twitter.

This is a collection of threads that would be valuable for anyone interested in gathering well-rounded opinions around this preprint. I’m hoping that the flame wars will encourage researchers to rethink their approaches

Anil Seth

IIT can and should be critiqued, but this letter, despite many admirable signatories (& colleagues/friends) is disappointing. The accusation of pseudoscience is serious & clickbaity & IMO the letter doesn’t justify it
IIT can generate counterintuitive and (with difficulty) testable predictions, has potential explanatory power, so - despite being odd - seems like science. The media fluff, while unfortunate, is irrelevant to this distinction
I do worry that this letter will be read by some as theory-policing by appeal to authority, which would be a shame since it will entrench positions and detract from the debate about (all) theories of consciousness that needs to be had
I also worry that some people may take it as a reason/excuse to dismiss IIT without figuring out what they think of it themselves, which would also be a shame. IIT is a bit bonkers, but it is a brave attempt to say something genuinely new
There’s also room for many ideas under the IIT remit like weak IIT, which avoids many of the problems attending strong IIT, while making different (though weaker) claims. Read The strength of weak integrated information theory
FWIW here’s my take on the @ArcCogitate adversarial collaboration between IIT and GNW, in Nautilus magazine. Progress is being made, even though core claims are not tested
One example is that the distinction between inactive and inactivated neurons can make a difference to consciouness. A striking, hard to test, prediction. (Also, IIT is not a computational theory in the sense that Searle argues against)

Hakwan lau

but Anil, if all u want is for ppl to think for themselves, why does your opinion here matter? of coz expert opinion in the public matters. this is what our statement is about, as stated: to rectify the untruthful promotion. it was not meant to be a review of scientific debate

Johannes Kleiner

100 Authors against Einstein: A Look in the Rearview Mirror
On being the subject of a media cycle
First, IIT clearly isn’t pseudoscience. Anyone who thinks this has probably not engaged thoroughly with IIT’s mathematics. There are lots of problems, but also lots of very important ideas. IIT isn’t just metaphysics
Second, while the criticism of the media coverage is fair, it has nothing to do with the title. The title is attention-grabbing of the worst kind. It won’t lead to better science or more thorough coverage. It certainly won’t lead by example
Third, I think this is hurtful to the field as a whole. It is super important to be critical about each other’s work, but pushing opinionated criticism of this sort into the public sphere will likely lead to depreciation of the field as a whole
Think about the main message to the public: Something they have heard related to consciousness was pseudoscience after all. The majority won’t get what you want to say

Renzo Lanfranco

1/8 IIT proposes any system that implements certain computations could be conscious. While IIT opens the door for panpsychism (that consciousness may be a property of the universe, hence allowing all entities to exhibit awareness), the main issue here is IIT’s untestability
2/8 In order for a theory to be considered scientific, its core assumptions and predictions must be falsifiable (testable). In the context of IIT, this entails examining the mathematical foundations that underpin the implementation of consciousness within a system
3/8 A theory that depicts itself as scientific but doesn’t allow its core assumptions to be tested is pseudoscience. This issue with IIT has been discussed for years, but it wasn’t until the recent spread of misinformation by the media that scientists decided to speak out
4/8 Since psychology & cognitive science are relatively young fields, and their objects of study are often elusive, several theories have behaved in a pseudoscientific way, making untestable claims, with psychoanalysis being perhaps the most famous example. What can the field do?
5/8 IIT should undergo scrutiny to ascertain whether it can be saved. Of all its core assumptions, which ones can be empirically tested? The advers. collab. contrasting IIT/GNWT should discuss their results in light of this critique - have their exps. tested the core assumptions?
6/8 IIT’s core assumptions are significantly more elusive and potentially untestable compared to those of other theories (e.g. GNWT). Therefore, contrasting theories, as the adversarial collaboration aims to do, may produce confusing and challenging-to-interpret results
7/8 I value the adver. collab.’s efforts as they help us, consciousness scientists, to raise these concerns and engage in further discussions about the meaning of our findings. However, if we fail to address these issues, we might misinform the general public, as it just occurred
8/8 IMO, the fact that IIT opens the door for panpsychism isn’t a problem. But “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”. We need scientific theories to understand reality. Pseudoscientific theories only survive when we believe in them and avoid inconvenient questions

Ken Miller

As I discuss in above post, IIT proposes that II is a measure of consciousness (C); but when confronted that this predicts that arrays of logic gates (and organoids, and plants) have C, IIT responds “then they have C”. IOW, IIT declares II=“C”, with no independent assay of
whether “C” has any relationship to what the rest of the world means by C. Indeed, if you accept the intuition that arrays of logic gates lack C, then that disproves IIT as a theory of C. But it persists, because it is an uncontradictable theory of “C”. Pseudoscience

Diego Candia Rivera

1/n Beyond the fact that I believe many cannot properly explain complex theories, like IIT or FEP. Even people in this authors’ list, I wouldn’t be surprised
2/n Of course IIT can fall within the pseudoscience tag. There’s even a paper out there applying IIT to fruitflies
3/n Having had a mathematical background as a major. To me it’s hard to conceive axioms like IIT does within a proper scientific practice
4/n The core of the scientific method is about hypothesis testing. Theory testing comes after well sustained, broadly accepted evidence. We’re far from that, for all theories of consciousness
5/n Yet, that letter is unnecessary. It’s like a shame wall. Even worse, it contributes to undermining the huge efforts of the ongoing adversarial collaborations

Ryoto Kanai

Setting aside the debate on whether it’s justifiable to call IIT pseudoscience, I noticed a growing polarization within the consciousness research community over the past decade or so, largely following the introduction of IIT.
IIT enthusiasts may have acted as though traditional cognitive neuroscience approaches were outdated or irrelevant. Conversely, many engaged in empirical consciousness research might see IIT as making audacious claims rooted in ostentatious mathematical jargon.
Since my interests encompass both realms, I still believe that there are many productive ways to combine the different approaches. Previous work on making some versions of integrated information computable for simple systems is one such example (i.e. Weak IIT). I have been also applying conceptual aspects of IIT to develop empirical research projects.
In this vein, I saw the COGITATE project as a commendable effort aimed at reconciling the divergent perspectives. While I concur with the criticisms directed at the project, as discussed by Steve Fleming’s blog post and Hakwan Lau’s open review, I believe its intent was in the right direction.
My hope is for a deeper mutual understanding within our community so that we can collectively advance the science of consciousness