Oddbean

@8599d6ab Letter feels oddly light in informational value. Would have been useful to lay out core ideas of IIT, its definition of consciousness, etc. Indeed, we get to the end without any concrete idea what the crux of the disagreement is, just that the theory hasn't been satisfactorily empirically tested. For me, a theory is not a pseudoscience "until" it has been empirically tested. A theory is a pseudoscience if it *cannot* be satisfactorily tested. Is this the case? Letter vague on this.

@359dd83b Fair points. (I imagine some of this is about word limits). It's clearly a prototheory (not yet a theory). Whether it can ever be a testable theory is debated. Given how high the stakes are here (the ethics of organoids, AI and coma patients (also eating salad 😉)), how wrong some journalists are getting this, and the fact that the path to this becoming a testable theory is very unclear, I endorse the term pseudoscience in this case. That said, understanding consciousness is also one of the most challenging problems humanity has ever faced and I support the prototheory's development. (BTW: I understand that the team will be posting responses to pushback (including this point) in a few days).

@8599d6ab They're absolutely right to raise the points they do. But the point about certain advocates and media taking demonstration of auxiliary elements for proof of the whole (something that unfortunately can + does happen even with solid theories) is independent of the question of IIT being a pseudoscience. To clearly communicate the latter claim, a minimum would be: a) What is IIT? b) What is a pseudoscience? c) Does IIT meet these criteria? Definitions matter; otherwise we end up here!

@359dd83b Great conversation! It strikes me that any declaration of pseudoscience is a prediction that an idea cannot be transformed into a testable theory. Can we ever do that in a clean way? I'm not so sure.

@8599d6ab A hypothetical ideal empirical researcher is one who, for every scientific belief they hold, can tell you which result from an empirical test would lead to them abandoning that belief. An advocate of IIT should be able to tell us what emp result would convince them IIT does not hold (even if the test is not currently practically possible). If none of them can do this, then state so clearly and base the pseudoscience claim on that rather than vague "until it is empirically testable."

@359dd83b To make sure I understand (what I anticipate are very good points), your proposal is something along the lines of: *) IIT researchers are claiming they have a theory (that's the T). *) However, until they state what would constitute a falsification of their theory, it's pseudoscience. Did I get it right?

@8599d6ab Let's say that if an advocate of a theory does not hold a concept of a potentially falsifying test, then that theory has the cognitive value of a pseudoscience for that person. If none of its advocates hold such a concept, then it is a de facto pseudoscience. I don't want to be dogmatic about what a pseudoscience is though. What's important here is that someone claiming a given theory is pseudoscience must make explicit the criteria being used to make that claim.

@8599d6ab @359dd83b totally agree with this as well. letter in its current form may need revision for clarity and completeness. but Hakwan Lau will be posting a long accompanying piece in coming days that i think will address this concern and a number of other reactions that seem to be repeatedly cropping up, so perhaps that will help the discussion.