The Hard Problem, Revisited: Adversarial Collaboration Can’t Overcome Mainstream Consciousness Science’s Axiomatic Assumption that ‘0 = 1’
preprint DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/6x29u
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractA major source of replication problems in consciousness science is not adversarial collaboration failures but a fundamental, self-contradictory assumption embedded in the field's foundations, described as a '0 = 1' error. Using a mathematical-system analogy, the work explains how this flaw undermines basic methodology and, because of perceived links between consciousness and intelligence, limits science's ability to provide coherent commentary on AI developments.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key finding | A self-contradictory '0 = 1' assumption in the foundations of consciousness science is the real source of protracted methodological problems, not sub-optimal experimental design. |
Abstract
Biology and psychology have replication issues. 'Adversarial collaboration', where advocates of competing hypotheses cooperate on experiments, may help resolve these - if sub-optimal design is their source! But in mainstream consciousness science, the real origin of protracted problems is an inherently-contradictory, '0 = 1', assumption, in current field-foundations. Here, a mathematical-system analogy is used to explain serious and unresolved flaws in the basic methodology of current consciousness science, and to explore ways to fix them. Because of perceived links between consciousness and intelligence, these flaws profoundly affect science’s ability to offer coherent societal commentary on continuing developments in AI.