B
Ben_Sinner
Guest
What should we make of ITT? ITT is basically a way that people try to come up with theories that everything has consciousness. How can this be refuted?
Here is the wikipeida page with some information on it below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
–Neuroscientist Christof Koch, who has helped to develop the theory, has called IIT "the only really promising fundamental theory of consciousness.”[13] Technologist Virgil Griffith says "IIT is currently the leading theory of consciousness.
–Critics of IIT argue that the theory fails to explain where consciousness comes from. Science writer John Horgan argues, “you can’t explain consciousness by saying it consists of information, because information exists only relative to consciousness.”
Cause-effect space[edit]
For a system of {\displaystyle N} N simple binary elements, cause-effect space is formed by {\displaystyle 2 imes 2^{N}} {\displaystyle 2 imes 2^{N}} axes, one for each possible past and future state of the system. Any cause-effect repertoire {\displaystyle R} R, which specifies the probability of each possible past and future state of the system, can be easily plotted as a point in this high-dimensional space: The position of this point along each axis is given by the probability of that state as specified by {\displaystyle R} R. If a point is also taken to have a scalar magnitude (which can be informally thought of as the point’s “size”, for example), then it can easily represent a concept: The concept’s cause-effect repertoire specifies the location of the point in cause-effect space, and the concept’s {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} value specifies that point’s magnitude.
In this way, a conceptual structure {\displaystyle C} C can be plotted as a constellation of points in cause-effect space. Each point is called a star, and each star’s magnitude ( {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}}) is its size.
Central Identity[edit]
IIT addresses the mind-body problem by proposing an identity between phenomenological properties of experience and causal properties of physical systems: The conceptual structure specified by a complex of elements in a state is identical to its experience.
Specifically, the form of the conceptual structure in cause-effect space completely specifies the quality of the experience, while the irreducibility {\displaystyle \Phi ^{ extrm {Max}}} {\displaystyle \Phi ^{ extrm {Max}}} of the conceptual structure specifies the level to which it exists (i.e., the complex’s level of consciousness). The maximally irreducible cause-effect repertoire of each concept within a conceptual structure specifies what the concept contributes to the quality of the experience, while its irreducibility {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} specifies how much the concept is present in the experience.
According to IIT, an experience is thus an intrinsic property of a complex of mechanisms in a state.
Here is the wikipeida page with some information on it below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
–Neuroscientist Christof Koch, who has helped to develop the theory, has called IIT "the only really promising fundamental theory of consciousness.”[13] Technologist Virgil Griffith says "IIT is currently the leading theory of consciousness.
–Critics of IIT argue that the theory fails to explain where consciousness comes from. Science writer John Horgan argues, “you can’t explain consciousness by saying it consists of information, because information exists only relative to consciousness.”
Cause-effect space[edit]
For a system of {\displaystyle N} N simple binary elements, cause-effect space is formed by {\displaystyle 2 imes 2^{N}} {\displaystyle 2 imes 2^{N}} axes, one for each possible past and future state of the system. Any cause-effect repertoire {\displaystyle R} R, which specifies the probability of each possible past and future state of the system, can be easily plotted as a point in this high-dimensional space: The position of this point along each axis is given by the probability of that state as specified by {\displaystyle R} R. If a point is also taken to have a scalar magnitude (which can be informally thought of as the point’s “size”, for example), then it can easily represent a concept: The concept’s cause-effect repertoire specifies the location of the point in cause-effect space, and the concept’s {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} value specifies that point’s magnitude.
In this way, a conceptual structure {\displaystyle C} C can be plotted as a constellation of points in cause-effect space. Each point is called a star, and each star’s magnitude ( {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}}) is its size.
Central Identity[edit]
IIT addresses the mind-body problem by proposing an identity between phenomenological properties of experience and causal properties of physical systems: The conceptual structure specified by a complex of elements in a state is identical to its experience.
Specifically, the form of the conceptual structure in cause-effect space completely specifies the quality of the experience, while the irreducibility {\displaystyle \Phi ^{ extrm {Max}}} {\displaystyle \Phi ^{ extrm {Max}}} of the conceptual structure specifies the level to which it exists (i.e., the complex’s level of consciousness). The maximally irreducible cause-effect repertoire of each concept within a conceptual structure specifies what the concept contributes to the quality of the experience, while its irreducibility {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} {\displaystyle \varphi ^{ extrm {Max}}} specifies how much the concept is present in the experience.
According to IIT, an experience is thus an intrinsic property of a complex of mechanisms in a state.