I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[NotEvenWrong]

Suggestion for the neuroscience researchers doing the split brain experiments:

Flash a question on the screen that is not visible to the eye that maps to the half of the brain responsible for speech (only the non-speaking half sees it). Similar experimental setup to the word queues where the patient draws what he sees.

Have that hemisphere answer the question that he saw on screen. Some suggestions for questions:

"Are you conscious?"
"Can you speak?"
"Are you an invisible green dragon?" (To satisfy the word salad posters in this thread. Joking!!!)

etc.

Does the half that can't speak realize it can't speak? Does it believe it is a distinct consciousness? Or is it simply processing information and is not actually conscious like the majority of the brain and rest of the nervous system are not conscious of what they are doing?

This would be much more interesting than assuming there are a bunch of invisible green dragons controlling individual pieces of the brain that we can't observe.

 

[Belz...]

Suggestion for the neuroscience researchers doing the split brain experiments:

Flash a question on the screen that is not visible to the eye that maps to the half of the brain responsible for speech (only the non-speaking half sees it). Similar experimental setup to the word queues where the patient draws what he sees.

Have that hemisphere answer the question that he saw on screen. Some suggestions for questions:

"Are you conscious?"
"Can you speak?"
"Are you an invisible green dragon?" (To satisfy the word salad posters in this thread. Joking!!!)

etc.

Does the half that can't speak realize it can't speak? Does it believe it is a distinct consciousness? Or is it simply processing information and is not actually conscious like the majority of the brain and rest of the nervous system are not conscious of what they are doing?

This would be much more interesting than assuming there are a bunch of invisible green dragons controlling individual pieces of the brain that we can't observe.

See, this is why I said you don't know enough about this topic, and there's nothing wrong with that: we're all ignorants of a lot of topics. The issue here is that you think you know a lot about it.

Here's the deal: people who are NOT split-brain patients don't have the twin brain problem because the hemispheres DO communicate. They are linked directly and thus form a _single_ neural mass. Split brain patients aren't like that. The hemispheres are NOT connected directly and thus don't have a single "processor".

For instance, if I cover my right eye and ear, and you ask me a question, my left brain can still answer with my mouth because it got the question anyway. If the brains are split, the left brain has no way to hear the question, and thus will _not_ answer. The right brain, however, can write down the answer, and it might be very different from the left's, once you get _it_ to hear it.

This is verified experimentally, and there's good reason for this: once split, the two halves operate more-or-less independantly. They can't communicate directly (though since normally their eyes and ears and limbs are operational, they can coordinate their actions, and the 'lower' brain is still connected to them), and thus they have their own thoughts and conclusions.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

No, we're talking about consciousness in a real context, here.

Well, that explains it. As I said a week ago, we are conflating definitions of the word "consciousness".

Philosophically, it means something akin to self awareness. Neurologically, we're talking about biophysical information processing. Completely different things. Well, related. But still different.

The two are one and the same.

Uh, no. You said yourself perception in a psychological experiment is irrelevant. Presumably you believe information processing is relevant (otherwise the rest of your position makes no sense whatsoever). Therefore they are different, and you must realize this on some level.

Again, here's the bit you ignore: people are NOT aware of their internal processes. Asking them how things work inside their head is only going to result in nonsensical answers. Also, only the left hemisphere of the brain is able to respond with speech, so the right side gets the shaft unless you find a way to control for that.

Bro, I'm aware there are unconscious brain processes. I'm aware the brain processes information unconsciously. The rest of the nervous system does as well. So do my fingers when I type. No one is disputing this.

I am also aware people create rational sounding reasons to explain their actions, when they are usually very much automatic. Like how when a materialist is completely refuted he comes up with rational sounding explanations and strawmen so that he doesn't sound like a buffoon. Yeah, like that.

This doesn't mean self awareness is an illusion or doesn't exist or isn't a separate problem from biophysical information processing. The hard problem of consciousness is a real thing man. Read some philosophy.

I'm not sure the hemispheres are aware of what's going on, given that they don't communicate directly.

Surely a previously conscious hemisphere would realize when he suddenly can't talk. Why doesn't the alien hand realize it is conscious? MAYBE it is because it isn't conscious and it is just processing information unconsciously. THE SAME WAY WE KNOW THE REST OF THE BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM DO.

But aside from that, you evaded the question (evasion noted, fwiw). Does the non-speaking half of the brain have self-awareness the way the right side does? i.e. are there actually two consciousnesses the way you claimed? Or is it just processing information unconsciously like the rest of the brain and nervous system?

Only inasmuch as consciousness is invisible: we detect it through actions. It would really be nice if you had some working knowledge of this topic before engaging other people on it.

It's great how you have absolutely no knowledge of science yet you manage to find a way to talk down to people who clearly know some multiple greater than you on this subject.

They don't, actually.

Hahahahaha. It's so great that you acted like I don't have a working knowledge of this stuff in your last line, then you follow up with this. Your nerves process information (in your legs, arms, and everywhere else). How the eff else do you think they transmit information to your brain? There are entire subfields of neuroscience based on this type of research. I should know because I worked on this stuff some years ago. You quite honestly know nothing, and you should stop pretending otherwise.

How so ?

"Materialism true herp derp therefore there must be two consciousnesses in a split brain patient" (nevermind that almost no one in neuroscience believes this)

Yes, that is a tautology. What does that have to do with what I said ? The two hemispheres are not processing unconsciously: they can both respond to requests using the means at their disposal. Their answers, however, clearly indicate that they do not agree.

Wow, I'm starting to think you're incapable of getting the point (reminds me of when I said the brain is great at rationalizing). How do you KNOW both halves are conscious if only ONE conscious is communicating with the researcher as if it were conscious? How do you KNOW the other hemisphere is not simply an unconscious information processor? Which would be the far more likely explanation a priori since we already know the rest of the nervous system is essentially an unconscious information processor.

No. I conflate non-materialistic with "non-existent".

Yeah, that's a mistake. And probably a good part of the reason why you're always wrong.

Why did you continue to post as if my answer above was "yes" ?

What? You answered in your reply just now. I can't time travel bro. And if you aren't conflating non-materialism with religion why did you invoke the "soul" and pretend I was talking about the "soul"? (I'm well aware you're just trying to passive aggressively wiggle your way out of this by pretending you weren't saying things you clearly said.)

You can cut the outrage engine, there. That doesn't help you get your point across.

Not outrage. Vexation. Imagine you're trying to have a debate with someone. Then they come around with a sentence that is the exact opposite of what they have been saying the entire time, indicating they literally aren't following a single thing. Like the core point of the debate has somehow been lost over the course of several posts. Yeah, vexation. Annoyance. Exasperation.

In case you've never seen anyone do this, the first thought that comes to mind is that this exchange has been a complete utter waste of time and there is no way the other person will ever understand anything.

You lost track of the conversation there: that paragraph was talking about a brain NOT split in two.

NO!!! You lost track!! Here is the original post (oh my freaking god):

This is Nonpareil:

There are two distinct consciousnesses, each of which perceives themselves as a complete individual, residing within one brain.

My reply followed. This is seriously a waste of time.

I'm not attacking the arguer. I am simply saying that you do now know enough about this topic. If that's attacking you, then you have an incredibly thin skin.

I used to work in neuroscience and synthetic neurobiology. Currently more biophysics and bioinformatics, but the neuroscience was no more than 4 years ago. When someone clearly demonstrates superior knowledge to you in every way, and has way way way more experience than you in the field, and your reply is "you need to learn moar before u understand dis stuff" it is attacking the arguer, not the argument, by definition. If this is hard to process, recognize that my credentials are superior to yours on this topic, and you were attacking my knowledge. That is attacking the arguer, not the argument. Hope that clarifies things for you and you don't make the same mistake repeatedly! Your welcome.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

See, this is why I said you don't know enough about this topic, and there's nothing wrong with that: we're all ignorants of a lot of topics. The issue here is that you think you know a lot about it.

Here's the deal: people who are NOT split-brain patients don't have the twin brain problem because the hemispheres DO communicate. They are linked directly and thus form a _single_ neural mass. Split brain patients aren't like that. The hemispheres are NOT connected directly and thus don't have a single "processor".

For instance, if I cover my right eye and ear, and you ask me a question, my left brain can still answer with my mouth because it got the question anyway. If the brains are split, the left brain has no way to hear the question, and thus will _not_ answer. The right brain, however, can write down the answer, and it might be very different from the left's, once you get _it_ to hear it.

This is verified experimentally, and there's good reason for this: once split, the two halves operate more-or-less independantly. They can't communicate directly (though since normally their eyes and ears and limbs are operational, they can coordinate their actions, and the 'lower' brain is still connected to them), and thus they have their own thoughts and conclusions.

Jesus Christ man. I was talking about performing that experiment with the split brain patient. Not a normal person. What is wrong with you?

 

[tsig]

Well, that explains it. As I said a week ago, we are conflating definitions of the word "consciousness".

Philosophically, it means something akin to self awareness. Neurologically, we're talking about biophysical information processing. Completely different things. Well, related. But still different.



Uh, no. You said yourself perception in a psychological experiment is irrelevant. Presumably you believe information processing is relevant (otherwise the rest of your position makes no sense whatsoever). Therefore they are different, and you must realize this on some level.



Bro, I'm aware there are unconscious brain processes. I'm aware the brain processes information unconsciously. The rest of the nervous system does as well. So do my fingers when I type. No one is disputing this.

I am also aware people create rational sounding reasons to explain their actions, when they are usually very much automatic. Like how when a materialist is completely refuted he comes up with rational sounding explanations and strawmen so that he doesn't sound like a buffoon. Yeah, like that.

This doesn't mean self awareness is an illusion or doesn't exist or isn't a separate problem from biophysical information processing. The hard problem of consciousness is a real thing man. Read some philosophy.



Surely a previously conscious hemisphere would realize when he suddenly can't talk. Why doesn't the alien hand realize it is conscious? MAYBE it is because it isn't conscious and it is just processing information unconsciously. THE SAME WAY WE KNOW THE REST OF THE BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM DO.

But aside from that, you evaded the question (evasion noted, fwiw). Does the non-speaking half of the brain have self-awareness the way the right side does? i.e. are there actually two consciousnesses the way you claimed? Or is it just processing information unconsciously like the rest of the brain and nervous system?



It's great how you have absolutely no knowledge of science yet you manage to find a way to talk down to people who clearly know some multiple greater than you on this subject.



Hahahahaha. It's so great that you acted like I don't have a working knowledge of this stuff in your last line, then you follow up with this. Your nerves process information (in your legs, arms, and everywhere else). How the eff else do you think they transmit information to your brain? There are entire subfields of neuroscience based on this type of research. I should know because I worked on this stuff some years ago. You quite honestly know nothing, and you should stop pretending otherwise.



"Materialism true herp derp therefore there must be two consciousnesses in a split brain patient" (nevermind that almost no one in neuroscience believes this)



Wow, I'm starting to think you're incapable of getting the point (reminds me of when I said the brain is great at rationalizing). How do you KNOW both halves are conscious if only ONE conscious is communicating with the researcher as if it were conscious? How do you KNOW the other hemisphere is not simply an unconscious information processor? Which would be the far more likely explanation a priori since we already know the rest of the nervous system is essentially an unconscious information processor.



Yeah, that's a mistake. And probably a good part of the reason why you're always wrong.



What? You answered in your reply just now. I can't time travel bro. And if you aren't conflating non-materialism with religion why did you invoke the "soul" and pretend I was talking about the "soul"? (I'm well aware you're just trying to passive aggressively wiggle your way out of this by pretending you weren't saying things you clearly said.)



Not outrage. Vexation. Imagine you're trying to have a debate with someone. Then they come around with a sentence that is the exact opposite of what they have been saying the entire time, indicating they literally aren't following a single thing. Like the core point of the debate has somehow been lost over the course of several posts. Yeah, vexation. Annoyance. Exasperation.

In case you've never seen anyone do this, the first thought that comes to mind is that this exchange has been a complete utter waste of time and there is no way the other person will ever understand anything.



NO!!! You lost track!! Here is the original post (oh my freaking god):

This is Nonpareil:


My reply followed. This is seriously a waste of time.



I used to work in neuroscience and synthetic neurobiology. Currently more biophysics and bioinformatics, but the neuroscience was no more than 4 years ago. When someone clearly demonstrates superior knowledge to you in every way, and has way way way more experience than you in the field, and your reply is "you need to learn moar before u understand dis stuff" it is attacking the arguer, not the argument, by definition. If this is hard to process, recognize that my credentials are superior to yours on this topic, and you were attacking my knowledge. That is attacking the arguer, not the argument. Hope that clarifies things for you and you don't make the same mistake repeatedly! Your welcome.

There's that philosophical condensation we've all come to know an love.

If only credentials were a sure sign of competence.

Of course internet credentials are easy to come by.

 

[tsig]

Jesus Christ man. I was talking about performing that experiment with the split brain patient. Not a normal person. What is wrong with you?

No need to involve deities or are you praying to be right? Are you a split brain person, Waht is wrong with you?

 

[Belz...]

Jesus Christ man. I was talking about performing that experiment with the split brain patient. Not a normal person. What is wrong with you?

I'm really trying to be patient with your arrogant nonsense, but if all you're willing to do is be dismissive towards the science that conclusively dispels the notion of souls, that's your business. Just be aware that you'll look foolish doing so.

Here's an example from your previous post:

I am also aware people create rational sounding reasons to explain their actions, when they are usually very much automatic.

That's a good start. It almost seems like you're going to be discussing this issue dispassionately. But then...

Like how when a materialist is completely refuted he comes up with rational sounding explanations and strawmen so that he doesn't sound like a buffoon.

Why keep going on that road when you can just fill the remaining space with snark, am I right ?

This doesn't mean self awareness is an illusion or doesn't exist or isn't a separate problem from biophysical information processing.

Who said it was ? I'm saying that human consciousness is brain processing, and that splitting one's brain in twain leave enough of said processing in each hemisphere to produce two distinct minds. The evidence is pretty solid on this.

Surely a previously conscious hemisphere would realize when he suddenly can't talk.

Perhaps. However, this 'common sense' reasoning might not hold in reality. Who knows how a half-brain really thinks by its lonesome ?

Does the non-speaking half of the brain have self-awareness the way the right side does? i.e. are there actually two consciousnesses the way you claimed? Or is it just processing information unconsciously like the rest of the brain and nervous system?

Slight correction: the non-speaking half IS the right side. And it can answer questions. It's conscious, yes.

It's great how you have absolutely no knowledge of science yet you manage to find a way to talk down to people who clearly know some multiple greater than you on this subject.

I have absolutely no knowledge of science ? Are you now claiming that the split brain science I am discussing with you is a figment of my imagination ? Are you so utterly unable to discard your dualistic beliefs ?

Hahahahaha.

I'm starting to wonder if Annnnoid has two accounts, here.

Your nerves process information

Correction: they transmit impulses. They don't process it. You need a bunch of neurons working together for that. A leg does not perform information processing except in the broadest possible sense, which is not a definition that's useful here.

"Materialism true herp derp therefore there must be two consciousnesses in a split brain patient"

I'm sorry, but this is not the demonstration you were talking about. It also ressembles in no way what I'm saying. No wonder you're having trouble following the conversation.

How do you KNOW both halves are conscious if only ONE conscious is communicating with the researcher as if it were conscious?

BOTH HALVES ARE COMMUNICATING. I keep telling you this.

Yeah, that's a mistake.

Really ? Name one non-material thing that exists.

What? You answered in your reply just now. I can't time travel bro.

Exactly the point of my question: why did you not wait for the answer and instead assumed that I would say "yes" ?

I used to work in neuroscience and synthetic neurobiology.

Were you fired for incompetence ?

 

[punshhh]

No need to involve deities or are you praying to be right? Are you a split brain person, Waht is wrong with you?

Hi Tsig, worshipping at the split alter again I see

I just wanted to say that I am going to be posting at a more philosophical forum from now on, well I will drop in here from time to time if there is some meat on the bone.

It will be at, forums.philosophyforums.com

I will be using the same poster sig "punshhh" and any one who is interested in joining me will be most welcome.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Suggestion for the neuroscience researchers doing the split brain experiments:

Flash a question on the screen that is not visible to the eye that maps to the half of the brain responsible for speech (only the non-speaking half sees it). Similar experimental setup to the word queues where the patient draws what he sees.

Have that hemisphere answer the question that he saw on screen. Some suggestions for questions:

"Are you conscious?"
"Can you speak?"
"Are you an invisible green dragon?" (To satisfy the word salad posters in this thread. Joking!!!)

etc.

Does the half that can't speak realize it can't speak? Does it believe it is a distinct consciousness? Or is it simply processing information and is not actually conscious like the majority of the brain and rest of the nervous system are not conscious of what they are doing?

This would be much more interesting than assuming there are a bunch of invisible green dragons controlling individual pieces of the brain that we can't observe.

Clearly you haven't spent much time looking for this stuff yourself. I understand that you believe there is nothing going on in the mute non-dominant hemisphere, and that you like to counter arguments about the meaning of the split brain experiments with your own unfounded beliefs, but why not try reading about the experiments yourself? They're quite interesting and informative and well worth your time.


Below is an excerpt from this article:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-split-brain-a-tale-of-two-halves-1.10213

"In Gazzaniga's video, the boy is asked: who is your favourite girlfriend, with the word girlfriend flashed only to the right hemisphere. As predicted, the boy can't respond verbally. He shrugs and shakes his head, indicating that he doesn't see any word, as had been the case with W.J.. But then he giggles. It's one of those tell-tale teen giggles — a soundtrack to a blush. His right hemisphere has seen the message, but the verbal left-hemisphere remains unaware. Then, using his left hand, the boy slowly selects three Scrabble tiles from the assortment in front of him. He lines them up to spell L-I-Z: the name, we can safely assume, of the cute girl in his class. “That told us that he was capable of language comprehension in the right hemisphere,” Gazzaniga later told me. “He was one of the first confirmation cases that you could get bilateral language — he could answer queries using language from either side.”......"

 

[MuDPhuD]

Bro, I'm aware there are unconscious brain processes. I'm aware the brain processes information unconsciously. The rest of the nervous system does as well. So do my fingers when I type. No one is disputing this.

Surely a previously conscious hemisphere would realize when he suddenly can't talk. Why doesn't the alien hand realize it is conscious? MAYBE it is because it isn't conscious and it is just processing information unconsciously. THE SAME WAY WE KNOW THE REST OF THE BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM DO.

.

I trimmed out the fat and left the substance.


I suggest you read the article above and watch the videos. Gassangia's own interpretation of the experiments is not that the split brain patient has 2 complete conscious entities, but that what was a unified consciousness has been divided into two incomplete halves; that our own consciousness is actually a fusion of functonal domains, based on the division of function in the brain, and that our sense of unity is an illusion.

The non speaking half of a split brain does in fact behave as if it is conscious.

Rather than argue around an infinite loop of "no it isn't, yes it is", I will simply refer you to the link in my previous post which contains a nice description, several informative videos, and a handful of links to primary sources.

I think the argument here regarding the meaning of the split brain experiments will benefit if everyone reads a little more about it.

PS. Your fingers are not processing information, the motor control circuits are in the CNS.

 

[The Man]

I am well aware you are the one that made the original post, and you can stop talking about yourself in the third person.

I expect that poster will refer to themselves however they see fit.

Here is a paper on the holographic principle:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089

A paper where the author acknowledges that even just string theory might not provide “an interesting candidate for a holographic theory”.

Cited over 2500 times. Also, AdS/CFT correspondence. Seems pretty important in modern theoretical physics, to me at least. I have no interest in getting into a semantic argument over the word "core".

“Cited over 2500 times” you say? Out of how many citations total in the field of theoretical physics since September 1994?

I doubt anyone here was unaware that “at least” you felt it “Seems pretty important in modern theoretical physics” or would have a problem with you asserting simply that. However, if you have no interest is discussing the actual meaning of your own argument then I suggest you try to make better arguments.

Theoretical problems and theoretical fixes are the entire point of theoretical physics. Again, I have no interest in getting into a semantic argument over the word "core", of all things. My entire point was that there are plenty of other ontological possibilities that are not materialism, and many of those make more sense than materialism given our current best understanding of physics. I don't know (and I don't think anyone should particularly care) what we "call" the fundamental of nature of things; whether that be matter, mind, information, physics, logic, whatever. It all depends on assumptions and perspective. As long as it is internally consistent (which materialism really isn't, at least as an ontology) and consistent with empirical evidence who cares really.

Perhaps this is the source of your problem as “what we "call" the fundamental of nature of things”” is intended to reflect the “assumptions and perspective” “It all depends on”. If matter or materialism can be just anything “mind, information, physics, logic, whatever” then there are no “other ontological possibilities that are not materialism”. The whole precept to an assertion of an alternative to materialism is that it is based on something one would not generally call material. As I’ve noted up thread this can be problematic as material, itself, isn’t a fundamental concept in physics, so that leaves the door pretty much open.

 

[dlorde]

If something does not have an influence or effect within or on a system, it is not detectable from that system and does not exist with respect to that system.

There are numerous ways in which such is not the case. For example if the influence is in the form of the nature, structure, configuration, or signature of the system, which was imparted in some way during the process involved in its origin. As such the influence is a priori to both the system and its contents.

In that case, you can consider either that the influence is therefore detectable in the nature, structure, configuration, or signature of the system, or that it is no longer an influence within or on the system and so no longer exists with respect to that system.

 

[barehl]

I suggest you read the article above and watch the videos. Gassangia's own interpretation of the experiments is not that the split brain patient has 2 complete conscious entities, but that what was a unified consciousness has been divided into two incomplete halves; that our own consciousness is actually a fusion of functonal domains, based on the division of function in the brain, and that our sense of unity is an illusion.

I've looked over the link. Did you notice the flaws in the experiment or the stated contradictions? I'm wondering if there is enough clean data to draw conclusions from.

 

[Dancing David]

The splitt because of brain architecture will be there for some functions but not others. The 'medial and lower' brain is still conjoined.

 

[barehl]

I already linked you to the paper defining the theory written by the man who came up with it.

For anyone who might be interested, I found a more comprehensive description of Integrated Information Theory written by Dr. Giulio Tononi, University of Wisconsin-Madison: www.scholarpedia.org/article/Integrated_information_theory. This includes descriptions and explanations. This level of detail makes it easier to see problems with the theory.

 

[dlorde]

For anyone who might be interested, I found a more comprehensive description of Integrated Information Theory written by Dr. Giulio Tononi, University of Wisconsin-Madison: www.scholarpedia.org/article/Integrated_information_theory. This includes descriptions and explanations. This level of detail makes it easier to see problems with the theory.

Which are? (as briefly as you like).

 

[barehl]

Which are? (as briefly as you like).

IIT basically states that consciousness is caused by the active formation of unique memories. According to the theory, the more unique your memories are (high Phi) the greater your level of consciousness.

Start with the Tononi paper from 2008.

You can get the description from the abstract. But first we should cover one of his confusing symbol uses.

Integrated information is indicated with the symbol Φ (the vertical bar “I” stands for information, the circle “O” for integration

By his description, you might think he invented the symbol. However, this is in fact the Greek symbol, Phi, although he never calls it that in his 2008 paper. So when researchers referred to his paper some would call the symbol phi. Others would carefully avoid using it and instead use the word integration or the phrase integrated information. In his scholarpedia article, Tononi explicitly defines Integrated Information as phi. He then goes on to define the integrated information of a whole experience as big phi Φ and that of parts of an experience as small phi φ.

Specifically: (i) the quantity of consciousness corresponds to the amount of integrated information generated by a complex of elements; (ii) the quality of experience is specified by the set of informational relationships generated within that complex. Integrated information (Φ) is defined as the amount of information generated by a complex of elements, above and beyond the information generated by its parts. Qualia space (Q) is a space where each axis represents a possible state of the complex, each point is a probability distribution of its states, and arrows between points represent the informational relationships among its elements generated by causal mechanisms (connections). Together, the set of informational relationships within a complex constitute a shape in Q that completely and univocally specifies a particular experience.

We can explain the "above and beyond information generated by its parts" fairly simply. Suppose you have eight bits. Each bit of course can be a 1 or a 0. So, how many possibilities are there?

no 1s
one 1
two 1s
three 1s
four 1s
five 1s
six 1s
seven 1s
eight 1s

So, that's a total of nine possibilities. However, if you put these bits in order then you get 2⁸ or 256 possibilities. And, that's information above what you have from just the parts.

He talks about the information as being irreducible. Then the Maguire paper from 2014 pointed out that maximum irreducibility is the same as maximum data compression. That brings you to a discussion over whether or not the information in IIT is lossless. There's a problem because new memories are integrated not only with regard to each other but also with regard to past memories. As the Maguire paper puts it:

The memories generated by the video camera can be easily edited independently of each other. For example, I can decide to delete all of the footage recorded yesterday between 2pm and 4pm. In contrast, a person viewing the same scenes encodes information in an integrated fashion. I cannot delete Amy’s memories from yesterday because all of her memories from today have already been influenced by them. The two sets of memories cannot easily be disentangled. When it comes to human consciousness it is not possible to identify any simple divisions or disjoint components.

However, this then leads to:

In line with this view, Bringsjord and Zenzen (1997) specifically argued that the difference between cognition and computation is that computation is reversible whereas cognition is not. For instance, it is impossible for the neurosurgeon to operate on Amy’s brain and directly edit her conscious memories, because the process of integration is irreversibly complex.

We are treading dangerously close to the Creationist doctrine of irreducible complexity but I'm going to ignore that. If it is true that consciousness is the result of forming integrated memories and these memories are integrated with past memories and maximal Phi is equivalent to maximum data compression then how can memories be retrieved? What you are talking about is akin to mpeg compression where each new frame is dependent on the previous frame. You couldn't instantly call up a memory since you would have no idea where within the whole that memory was located. This would also require postulating some type of linear search function in the brain--which has no evidence of existing.

To be honest, I can't really take a theory seriously that depends on computational functions but also states that its result is non-computable. However, that isn't the biggest problem. Fundamentally, the concept that the uniqueness of memory formation is directly related to the degree of consciousness is simply wrong unless you make it a circular definition. Specifically, marijuana interferes with memory formation which enhances experiences rather than making them less.

This is before you get into the things that are just dingbat crazy as we can find in Tononi's Scholarpedia article:

Indeed, according to IIT, circuits as simple as a single photodiode constituted of a sensor and a memory element can have a minimum of experience (Oizumi, Albantakis et al. 2014). Moreover, a simple but large two-dimensional grid of appropriate physical elements could be highly conscious, even if it were doing “nothing” (all binary elements off), and even if it were disconnected from the rest of the world (no external inputs and outputs, the conscious grid).

This conclusion is unfortunately unavoidable since Tononi doesn't just see complexity as a correlation with consciousness but rather as a direct cause.

The only other theory right now is Global Workspace theory which views consciousness as a function of broadcast. I can't take this one seriously either.

 

[doronshadmi]

Great- your "reason" is based on circular assertions. It's true that without "symmetry," you wouldn't be able to define (or use the word) "asymmetry"; but only trivially true, and kind of a weak point to throw so many words at.

At actual symmetry (absolute calmness) no word (including "symmetry" or "asymmetry" or any meaning that is given by thoughts) is found, but only self awareness without thoughts.

This circularity is defined only at the level of thoughts.

 

[doronshadmi]

IIT basically states that consciousness is caused by the active formation of unique memories. According to the theory, the more unique your memories are (high Phi) the greater your level of consciousness.

Fundamentally, the concept that the uniqueness of memory formation is directly related to the degree of consciousness is simply wrong unless you make it a circular definition.