Scientific Scandal Erupts in Study of Consciousness
In the UK, a scientific scandal has emerged in the study of consciousness. Over 100 scientists have denounced one of the most popular scientific theories of consciousness, the integrated theory of information (IIT), branding it as pseudoscience. Proposed by neuroscientist Julio Tononi, IIT aims to provide mathematically precise criteria for determining whether a system, such as the brain, is aware or not. The theory posits that a system becomes conscious when its information integration surpasses that of its individual components.[1]
Critics argue that while certain aspects of IIT have been investigated, the theory as a whole lacks comprehensive testing and does not possess sufficient experimental support. They express concerns that associating the science of consciousness with what they consider a pseudoscientific theory could erode public trust in the field. Conversely, supporters of IIT contend that baseless accusations of pseudoscience could ultimately tarnish the entire study of consciousness.[1]
This controversy follows the release of initial findings from a “hostile cooperation” between IIT and another prominent theory of consciousness, known as the theory of the global workspace. According to the global workspace theory, information in the brain becomes conscious when it enters a “global working space” accessible to various systems throughout the brain for a wide range of tasks.[2]
What sets IIT apart is its integration of scientific experiments and philosophical ideas. The theory is founded upon five “axioms” that supporters argue can be apprehended through one’s own conscious experience. For instance, IIT illustrates the unity of conscious experience via the integration of physical systems. Opponents of IIT seek a clearer demarcation between the science and philosophy of consciousness, emphasizing the rigor and scientific nature of the former.[3]
This scientific dispute underscores the intricacy of studying consciousness, which presents not only as a scientific quandary but also a philosophical problem necessitating collaborative efforts to unlock its mysteries.[4]