nostr:npub1skvad2l2wrxgdmt6yxk9kt2rjhw5tucjzhf54pktfq2gg0qhgwyqdlaky3 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.