Talk:Integrated information theory

Spectrum? What "spectrum"?

The introductory section includes this sentence:

"The limitations on the physical system for consciousness to exist are unknown and consciousness may exist on spectrum implied by studies involving split brain patients and conscious patients with large amounts of brain matter missing." 2601:200:C000:1A0:6D0B:78E1:8950:3FB4 (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is ungrammatical, because in English the word "spectrum" should be preceded by either the word "a" or the word "the".

But in any case it is entirely unclear what the word "spectrum" means here.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can fix this. 2601:200:C000:1A0:6D0B:78E1:8950:3FB4 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Cause-effect space

The subsection on Cause-effect space states that the set of probabilities of the before and after states of a simple binary element is a point or "star" which represents a concept. Can somebody please explain, on what basis does a concept necessarily comprise before and after states? Tononi is notorious for arguing that a sufficiently large and complex computer memory may be conscious, even if it is static like an unplugged USB stick. There appears a deep inconsistency between the notions of stasis and causal before-after. This bears explanation. Or, if I am missing something, can somebody please explain what? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Puffery and weasel-words in lead paragraph

For the second time, I have removed In principle, a mature and tested theory of IIT may be capable of providing a concrete inference about whether any physical system is conscious, to what degree, and what particular experience it is having. from the lead paragraph.
The sentence has too much in the way of puffery and weasel-words to convey any actual meaning. It doesn't say anything, it just hypes up what might be to make this look more important than it is. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This passage is not editorial speculation on our part, it is the underlying motivation for IIT. Maybe that needs making clearer, I'll take a longer look when I can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Done my best. Hope it makes more encyclopedic sense now? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Current version looks good to me. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead

I've added the following to the lead:

IIT has been widely criticized, including being characterized as unfalsifiable, magical and pseudoscience. A letter published 15 September 2023 in the preprint repository PsyArXiv and signed by 124 scholars dismissed it as pseudoscience. A number of researchers defended the theory in response.

I feel strongly that some summary of the extensive criticism section should be in the lead, as well as mentioning this latest example of the theory being discredited. 80.202.244.142 (talk · contribs) disagreed that this should be there, or apparently any mention of the fact that this is widely criticized, with the edit summary Removed mention of the letter from intro/lead. It is already covered in the criticism section, and it is neither typical nor reasonable to have the lead cover an opinion letter which explicitly aimed to tarnish the popular opinion of the theory, reduce funding and publication for the theory's associates, and hamstring recruitment of young researchers to the theory.

Defense of the standing of the theory is not a goal of Wikipedia and not a relevant argument. WP:DUE and WP:NPOV demand some mention of the fact that this is a widely criticized thory. Note that there are two portions, one is a summary of the existing criticism section, the other is the mention of the latest criticism. If the latest criticism should be moved to the criticism section that is one thing, but the first sentence unequivocally belongs in the lead. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This theory is certainly controversial, we do have a section on criticisms, and a top-level one-liner on that is appropriate to the lead. But a detailed example is not so appropriate here. I have edited out the detailed example and made the sentence more a direct summary of the section on its reception. Progress? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Integrated information theory (IIT) if interested. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

References

How about a section called "Relationship to panpsychism"?

There's a section called "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory#Relationship_to_the_%22hard_problem_of_consciousness%22".

It seems to me that IIT is confusingly close to being identical to or implied by or based on or implying panpsychism, and so it would be nice to have a section explaining how they compare. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the argument goes the other way. In panpsychism, consciousness is an inherent property of matter and even a single elementary particle has some rudimentary germ of consciousness. In IIT, consciousness is an emergent property of information - moreover this is not the physical information of information theory but the semantic information of meaning and value carried by complex but structured patterns. There is no relationship as such between the theories. Similarly, I would argue that the Relationship to the "hard problem of consciousness" does not need its own subtitle either. It is no more than a passing observation on why one of the axioms of IIT has to be an axiom. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Metaphysical idealism

Just a clue, as this may be a key term some sources may use to describe this type of pseudoscience, making claims of consciousness outside of brains... —PaleoNeonate – 06:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Why make up a metaphysical rule that only "brains" (however you define them) can be conscious? It's barely less chauvinist than declaring that only Homo sapiens is conscious. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)