Elaboration of "leading theory of consciousness is pseudoscience" 
from the perspective of one (of 124) author, Hakwan Lau
https://psyarxiv.com/28z3y

(For the 124 author post, see this from yesterday: https://neuromatch.social/@NicoleCRust/111074417017972359)

Among many highlights from Lau's piece:

Defines pseudoscience as 

i) a set of important claims with far-reaching implications that are ii) neither currently supported by science nor are they likely to be so in the foreseeable future (perhaps even in principle), and yet they iii) masquerade as being already scientifically tested and established.

Explains why IIT is a problem as:

"Flat earth theory is clearly wrong but we don’t see articles appearing in Science11–13, Nature14, The New York Times15,16, The Economist17, NewScientist18,19, etc, repeatedly, over many years, sometimes by authoritative figures, proclaiming that it is a leading, empirically tested, and well established scientific theory. Therefore, flat earth theory is, in a sense, more ‘harmless’ and less threatening than the rise of IIT and panpsychism in the media."

Explains why IIT is pseudoscience as:

IIT shares many common features with other pseudoscientific ideas: that it is unresponsive to empirical challenges4–7; that it uses an unnecessarily complex and impractical4 language that diverges from mainstream science; that its popularity is mainly driven by the opinions by a few authoritative figures, and populist appeal8,23, rather than consensus within the scientific community or empirical success, etc. It is also notable that proponents of IIT publicly engage with religious leaders on the very topic of panpsychism24 and related metaphysical matters, and openly profess the ‘spiritual dimension’ of their ‘science’, together with controversial figures like Sadhguru25 and the New Age alternative medicine advocate Deepak Chopra26.

Also explains the events leading up to the letter and much more (for that, have a read).

Really curious to hear thoughts!
@359dd83b, @14e9d346 +++ 

 @8599d6ab @14e9d346 I only read the section on pseudoscience so far. I wasn't overly impressed, but I also had my priors adjusted with regards to the reliability of the main authors by reading this line-by-line, source-by-source dissection of the original letter from Erik Hoel:
https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/ambitious-theories-of-consciousness

I may have a look at the rest of Hau's paper later, but once things get to a stage where I'm not even sure whose intentions are genuinely for good, as opposed to "being right", it's saddening.