A Traditional Scientific Perspective on the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness.

Two theories of consciousness are compared: Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Neurobiological Naturalism (NN). IIT defines consciousness as integrated information (phi-max) and claims even simple systems with interacting parts possess some consciousness. Its strengths include logical axioms, mathematical formalism, an experience-first approach, avoidance of the mind-body problem, consistency with evolution, and testable predictions. A weakness is that some logic-based reasoning was not checked against hard evidence during construction. NN incorporated evidence earlier, is less mature and less formalized, but has identified neural correlates of consciousness and offers a scientific-method roadmap for future study.

Study at a glance

Abstract

This paper assesses two different theories for explaining consciousness, a phenomenon that is widely considered amenable to scientific investigation despite its puzzling subjective aspects. I focus on Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which says that consciousness is integrated information (as ϕMax) and says even simple systems with interacting parts possess some consciousness. First, I evaluate IIT on its own merits. Second, I compare it to a more traditionally derived theory called Neurobiological Naturalism (NN), which says consciousness is an evolved, emergent feature of complex brains. Comparing these theories is informative because it reveals strengths and weaknesses of each, thereby suggesting better ways to study consciousness in the future. IIT's strengths are the reasonable axioms at its core; its strong logic and mathematical formalism; its creative "experience-first" approach to studying consciousness; the way it avoids the mind-body ("hard") problem; its consistency with evolutionary theory; and its many scientifically testable predictions. The potential weakness of IIT is that it contains stretches of logic-based reasoning that were not checked against hard evidence when the theory was being constructed, whereas scientific arguments require such supporting evidence to keep the reasoning on course. This is less of a concern for the other theory, NN, because it incorporated evidence much earlier in its construction process. NN is a less mature theory than IIT, less formalized and quantitative, and less well tested. However, it has identified its own neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) and offers a roadmap through which these NNCs may answer the questions of consciousness using the hypothesize-test-hypothesize-test steps of the scientific method.