IIT is not a plausible theory of consciousness and it seems badly off track. It doesn’t aim to explain why we believe we’re conscious or really aim to identify a plausible mechanism for when things become access conscious or reportable to us. There was even an open letter signed by over a hundred relevant experts calling it pseudoscience. And you call a proposed counterexample to it fatal.
Why should we believe consciousness is superadditive in general, and to an extent that scales substantially with neuron counts in practice, if we reject IIT?
Because the counterexample is based on the intuition of complexity. Also because the experiments about sleep of Massimmi and Tononi (cited) suggest that some IIT version is true; regarding the letter, you have Hoel answer in the text.
IIT is not a plausible theory of consciousness and it seems badly off track. It doesn’t aim to explain why we believe we’re conscious or really aim to identify a plausible mechanism for when things become access conscious or reportable to us. There was even an open letter signed by over a hundred relevant experts calling it pseudoscience. And you call a proposed counterexample to it fatal.
Why should we believe consciousness is superadditive in general, and to an extent that scales substantially with neuron counts in practice, if we reject IIT?
Because the counterexample is based on the intuition of complexity. Also because the experiments about sleep of Massimmi and Tononi (cited) suggest that some IIT version is true; regarding the letter, you have Hoel answer in the text.