We need to explain subjective experience, but its explanation may not be mechanistic

Summary

Integrated information theory (IIT) offers a model of consciousness that seeks to explain both objective correlates and subjective experiences without reducing them solely to physical or neural systems. The article discusses IIT's rationale, inconsistencies, and its implications for neuroscience, highlighting tensions between its ontological and epistemological claims. It suggests ways to resolve these issues and proposes alternative explanatory approaches, including mathematical and autonomy-based strategies, to advance the understanding of consciousness.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Models of consciousness need to explain both the objective correlates of conscious experience as well as its subjective structure. However, such an explanation would not need to entail a reduction exclusively in terms of physical or neural systems. A model that intends to avoid such reduction is integrated information theory (IIT). In this article, we discuss the explanatory rationale of IIT, its potential inconsistencies and its consequences for the neuroscience of consciousness more broadly. In particular, we identify ambiguities regarding the directionality of the explanation, i.e. important tensions between IIT's purported ontological and epistemological primacy of experience, and its explanatory aim of accounting for consciousness in physical, operational terms. Across the text, we propose several ways to avoid these issues and eventually complement, enhance or replace the model. The main goal is to motivate clarification among IIT-proponents and inform IIT-opponents on accurate points of contention, without thereby misrepresenting the model. In our final section, we introduce alternative explanatory paths: mathematical, processual, and autonomy-based types of explanations. These novel and sound explanatory strategies may better inspire the next generation of models of consciousness.

Tags