New version of "the letter" in Nature Neuroscience. Like many others in the field, I signed because I believe that IIT threatens to deligitimize the scientific study of consciousness: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-025-01881-x.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Is IIT really such a juggernaut that it requires this level of public accusation? I was just at the NYU conference on Infant Consciousness and IIT never came up once. Lots of GWS, lots of HOT, but not an integrated bit anywhere to be seen.
Honestly, I haven't seen much IIT at all since like...2017? It had a moment with all the PCI stuff, but my sense of someone adjacent to the field (and who works on non-IIT information theory) is that IIT just doesn't seem to have the same "juice" it once did.
I suspect an unspoken concern is that if we quantified consciousness we would find that not everyone is conscious in the same way or to the same degree (to the extent comparisons are possible).
Unfortunately even this version lacks of solid arguments. But I think it was a good chance to restate what should matter in consciousness science: consciousness https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-025-01880-y
I am curious to know - what was the process for vetting/deciding on who "gets" to sign (and who does not)? Is this information available (or is this process laid out transparently) anywhere? Apologies if it has and I have missed it (it's been a little while)
Comments
(I don't have access to the article, so apologies if it answers my question.)
I am curious to know - what was the process for vetting/deciding on who "gets" to sign (and who does not)? Is this information available (or is this process laid out transparently) anywhere? Apologies if it has and I have missed it (it's been a little while)