Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.
Post 115.March 9, 2021 continued . . . .
Can Integrated Information Theory
Explain Consciousness?
Axiomatic versus Mysterian explanation
Some very smart people, such as mathematician Martin Gardner7, have admitted to being baffled by the mystery of Consciousness. Although I am not near being in his league of distinguished thinkers, with all due modesty, I propose that the Enformationism thesis may not solve, but at least, point in the direction of a solution to that philosophical and scientific mind-boggler. Moreover, my approach is axiomatic (self evident) instead of mysterian (occult). The primary axiom of my thesis derives from Aristotle’s theory of causation8, in which all observed causes & effects in the world can be inferred to follow from an ultimate First Cause. However, since I have no direct (revealed) information about that Enformer, I must remain a mysterian regarding the preternatural nature of that logical necessity.
Now, back to the inconclusive Integrated Information Theory : it has been criticized for some of its “weird predictions” and “craziness”, that remind me of early reactions to the queerness of Quantum Theory. Ergo, Adam Pautz, a philosopher at Brown University, continued the critique of IIT, in his article : What is Integrated Information Theory a Theory Of?.9 He admitted that “Many have noted that IIT has weird predictions. . . . But if a theory of consciousness fits the data and is more elegant than the alternatives, maybe we should accept the theory even if it has some weird predictions. After all, some of our best physical theories have weird predictions too”. He goes on to say “In general, I don’t yet know what proponents of IIT mean by talk of the ‘amount’ of consciousness – a supposedly unbounded dimension of our experiences”. Does the “quantity” refer to the “intensity” of conscious experiences? I suspect that Tononi’s attempt to quantify Information was intended to keep it within the purview of quantitative science, instead of straying into qualitative philosophy.
Another problem he saw with IIT is that “proponents discussed consciousness at a very abstract level. If we try to get down to the details, it is hard [to see] how the theory might explain even very rudimentary facts about experiences and their phenomenal structure”. So again, I think the theory of Enformationism is more likely to yield deeper understanding of phenomenal structure and noumenal experiences. Neverthe-less, such “extra-sensory” knowledge will still be limited to philosophical Qualities, rather than physical Quantities. Hence, I doubt that paranormal postulations like ESP will ever yield useful scientific knowledge, and will have to be taken on faith. Which is why I don’t include Mystical & Magical notions in the thesis of how & why Information works in the real world.
Neuroscientist Yohan John also found that IIT was a bit too broad in its attribution of Consciousness to all forms of Information10 : “But then again, perhaps we never actually observe consciousness anyway. We observe with conscious-ness. Consciousness itself seems to have no material attributes: it is only the objects or targets of consciousness that have attributes.” That’s why observing physical analogues of Consciousness, such as Energy, Information, and Data, may better facilitate our understanding of the mysterious noumenon of understanding.
End of Post 115
9. A Theory of What? : “But, given just the resources of IIT (F-value, nodes, cause-effect powers, etc.), it is very hard to see what this “doubling” might consist in or be grounded in. F-value doesn’t double, “cause-effect powers” don’t double!. If the theory lacks the resources to explain even this rudimentary pheno-menological fact – it cannot even offer a candidate explanation – then it really hasn’t made it out of the gate, or so it seems to me.” ___Adam Pautz https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/consciousness-and-crazyism-responses-to-critique-of-integrated-information-theory/
7. Martin Gardner : "Gardner was not an introspective tormented soul; he was a searcher, an investigator, a magpie, and an enthusiast"—David Auerbach “ I believe there is a deep mystery about how con-sciousness emerged as brains became more complex, and that neuro-scientists are a long long way from understanding how they work." ___Martin Gardner http://www.martin-gardner.org/MYSTERIAN.html
8. Aristotle on Causality : “Aristotle was not the first thinker to engage in a causal investigation of the world around us.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/ “However, if the cosmos had a beginning, Aristotle argued, it would require an efficient first cause, a notion that Aristotle took to demonstrate a critical flaw.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover The “flaw” in Ari’s causal scheme was the necessity for an eternal Unmoved Mover, which is presumed to subsume the First and Final causes of everything in the space-time world.
Can IIT explain Consciousness?
Scientific American
Magazine John Horgan Science Writer “Going to the workshop bolstered my bias toward mysterianism. . . I predict that the theory’s meta-physical baggage — pan-psychism and all the rest—will limit its popularity..”
Brain or Mind?
Origin of Consciousness :
One of my favorite descriptions of consciousness comes from Julian Jaynes bizarre and beautiful book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind :
“O WHAT A WORLD of unseen visions and heard silences, this insubstantial country of the mind! What ineffable essences, these touchless rememberings and unshowable reveries! And the privacy of it all! A secret theater of speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite resort of disappointments and discoveries. A whole kingdom where each of us reigns reclusively alone, questioning what we will, commanding what we can. A hidden hermitage where we may study out the troubled book of what we have done and yet may do. An introcosm that is more myself than anything I can find in a mirror. This consciousness that is myself of selves, that is everything, and yet nothing at all — what is it? And where did it come from? And why?”
Noumenon : In philosophy, a noumenon [ "the object of an act of thought"] is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
NEXT
BACK
Forum
