Science is difficult. The science of consciousness is extremely difficult and suffers from philosophical difficulties and a shortage of experimental data.
So when the results of a head-to-head experimental competition between two rival theories were announced in June at the 26th annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness in New York City, they were received with some fanfare.
The results were inconclusive, with some favoring “integrated information theory” and others giving weight to “global workspace theory.” The outcome was discussed in both Science and Nature, as well as in larger newspapers, including the New York Times and The Economist.
And that may have been that, as researchers continue to explore these and other theories about how our brains generate experiences.
But on September 16, a group of 124 consciousness scientists and philosophers—many of whom are leading figures in the field—apparently driven by media coverage of the June results, published an open letter attacking integrated information theory as “pseudoscience.” .
The letter has caused a stir. The science of consciousness has its factions and arguments, but this development is unprecedented and threatens to cause lasting damage.
IIT has a lot of problems. but ‘pseudoscience’ is like dropping an atomic bomb over a regional dispute. it is disproportionate, not supported by sound reasoning, and causes enormous collateral damage to the field far beyond IIT. as in Vietnam, “we had to destroy the field to save it.”
— David Chalmers (@davidchalmers42) September 18, 2023
What is Integrated Information Theory?
Italian neuroscientist Giulio Tononi first proposed an integrated information theory in 2004, and it is now at “version 4.0”. It is not easy to summarize.
At its core is the idea that consciousness is identical to the amount of ‘integrated information’ a system contains. Roughly speaking, this means the information that the system as a whole has, in addition to the information of its parts.
Many theories start by looking for correlations between events in our minds and events in our brains. Instead, integrated information theory begins with “phenomenological axioms,” supposedly self-evident statements about the nature of consciousness.
The theory is known to imply that consciousness is extremely widespread in nature, and that even very simple systems, such as an inactive network of computer circuits, have some degree of consciousness.
Three points of criticism
This open letter makes three major claims against integrated information theory.
First, it argues that this is not a “leading theory of consciousness” and has received more media attention than it deserves.
Second, it expresses concerns about its implications:
If [integrated information theory] is proven or perceived as such by the public, it will have a direct impact not only on clinical practice regarding coma patients, but also on a wide range of ethical issues ranging from current debates on AI awareness and its regulation from it, to stem cell research, testing on animals and organoids, and abortion.
The third claim has provoked the most outrage: integrated information theory is “pseudoscience.”
Is integrated information theory a leading theory?
Whether you agree with integrated information theory or not – and I have criticized it myself – there is little doubt that it is a “leading theory of consciousness.”
A 2018 and 2019 survey of consciousness scientists found that nearly 50% of respondents said the theory was probably or definitely “promising.”
It was one of four theories discussed in a keynote debate at the 2022 meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, and it was one of four theories discussed in a review of the state of the science of consciousness that Anil Seth and I published last year.
By one explanation, integrated 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 has significant support in the scientific community.
Is it more problematic than other theories?
What about the potential implications of integrated information theory – its impact on clinical practice, the regulation of AI, and attitudes toward stem cell research, animal and organoid testing, and abortion?
Consider the issue of fetal consciousness. According to the letter, integrated information theory says that “human fetuses at a very early stage of development” are likely conscious.
The details matter here. I was the co-author of the paper cited in support of this claim, which essentially argues that no major theory of consciousness – including integrated information theory – posits the emergence of consciousness before 26 weeks’ gestation.
And while we must be aware of the legal and ethical implications of integrated information theory, we must also be aware of the implications of all theories of consciousness.
Are the implications of integrated information theory more problematic than those of other leading theories? That is far from obvious, 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 the accusation of pseudoscience. The letter does not define ‘pseudoscience’, but suggests that the theory is pseudoscientific because ‘the theory as a whole’ is not empirically testable. It also claims that integrated information theory was not “meaningfully tested” during the head-to-head competition earlier this year.
It is true that the core principles of the theory are very difficult to test, but so are the core principles of any theory of consciousness. To put a theory to the test one must assume a large number of bridging principles, and the status of those principles will often be in question.
But none of this justifies treating integrated information theory – or any other theory of consciousness – as pseudoscience. All a theory needs to be truly scientific is that it generates testable predictions. And whatever its flaws, the theory certainly did.
The charge of pseudoscience is not only inaccurate, but pernicious. In effect, it is an attempt to “deplatform” or silence integrated information theory—and to deny that it deserves serious attention.
Not only is this unfair to integrated information theory and the scientific community at large, it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of trust in science. If the theory is indeed bankrupt, the ordinary mechanisms of science will show that too.
Tim Bayne, Professor of Philosophy, Monash University
This article is republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
