Joanna Szczotka

Some arguments for why we should believe that visual experience is the way it seems to be - in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, from myself and Giulio Tononi:

authors.elsevier.com/a/1lMzy4sIRv...

this seems like great technical work but pinning "conscious perception" to detection of a target leads to conceptual problems. like.. isn't the subject conscious of the black background, in the stimulus region, at all times? where's the signature for that - is it also being "gated"?

Don’t all proper theories of C need to address consciousness’ relation to the physics domain? My main question was about your claim on IIT’s „inconsistence” with existing physical laws though.

What „new law” inconsistent with other established laws are you talking about, could you elaborate? The two-sentence section on „incompatibility of physics” in the letter is perhaps the most puzzling one for me.

Do you know of any IIT theorist who ever suggested the theory should have anything to say about reproductive rights? I’m genuinely curious.

So it’s only a „loose connection to the theory” when it comes to any PCI’s empirical success, but it’s a „real consequence of the theory/juice for concern” when the same exact measures are applied to prenatal consciousness? Which one is it then? It really seems like arguing in bad faith.

Didn’t you claim in the letter that these kind of complexity measures *aren’t* actually IIT inspired and could derive from/are consistent with any theory? I’m just surprised in this context you explicitly call them “IIT inspired”.

Have updated the Consciousness Science Community Feed to include everyone in the #consci starter packs. 🧪
🧠📈

👉 Pin feed:
bsky.app/profile/did:...

The feed runs on a #consci list hosted by @consci-feeds.bsky.social.

List: bsky.app/profile/cons...
Starter Packs: bsky.app/profile/joha...

Intrinsic meaning, perception, and matching Integrated information theory (IIT) argues that the substrate of consciousness is a maximally irreducible complex of units. Together, subsets of the complex specify a cause-effect structure, composed ...

New preprint out with @algarwegian.bsky.social and Giulio Tononi arxiv.org/abs/2412.21111

Some questions we address 👇 🧵

@joannaszczotka.bsky.social @renzocom.bsky.social @ksks.bsky.social @anilseth.bsky.social @davidchalmers.bsky.social @romainbrette.bsky.social

Join us for @jaanaru.bsky.social's talk on Monday!

👉 amcs-community.org/events/progr... #consci

Progress&Visions in #Consciousness Science Online Seminar series this week: Carlos Montemayor, "Scientific Constraints on Contemporary Theories of Consciousness" (Wed); Claire Sergent, "The Global Workspace and the Global Playground:" (Fri). Info to join, see: amcs-community.org/events/progr...

New online seminar series! amcs-community.org/events/progr...
You're cordially invited to join us! 🙂
#consci 🧪

Aside from this discussion, I've been wondering about the scope of psyarxiv, and preprint servers more generally. Are they also aimed at publishing things carry the hallmark of public debate rather than that of empirical work? Is the difference between psyarxiv and a blog post demarcated in any way?

I'm making a 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝗱 to help us move over.

👉 It follows all of the wonderful people in consciousness science. Everyone from ASSC, AMCS, MESEC, etc. is cordially invited! Ping me or answer to be added!

Find it here: bsky.app/profile/did:...

Initial list 😍 ⬇️

Nobody knows how consciousness works – but top researchers are fighting over which theories are re... Big names in consciousness research have signed an open letter attacking ‘integrated information theory’ as pseudoscience, sparking uproar.

"The charge of pseudoscience is not only inaccurate, it is also pernicious. In effect, it’s an attempt to “deplatform” or silence integrated information theory – to deny it deserves serious attention."

Great summary of the recent IIT "debate" for those who have not reached "IIT debate saturation"

The Worth of Wild Ideas Even if a leading theory of consciousness is wrong, it can still be useful to science.

Brilliant piece by Anil Seth.