In defense of Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

Anyway, the paranormal evidence strongly indicates that consciousness is in fact not bound to the physical substrate of the brain.
Therefore IIT must be wrong.

Or the paranormal ‘evidence’ can be explained by confirmation bias, filedrawers, neural activity during CPR and wishful thinking.

Or the paranormal ‘evidence’ can be explained by confirmation bias, filedrawers, neural activity during CPR and wishful thinking.

I don't [think] this could be true, unless we're going to assume that certain witnesses and researchers are just outright liars.

But it seems to me one would only insist on this if they were in the grip of a belief system like the atheist-materialist religion?

This isn't to say every paranormal claim is true, but it is difficult to see how they could all be false.

Or the paranormal ‘evidence’ can be explained by confirmation bias, filedrawers, neural activity during CPR and wishful thinking.

The body of evidence is so large that I think this explanation is preposterous. As an opening example I would then challenge you to furnish plausible "normal" explanations for every one of the more than 100 independently investigated veridical NDE cases documented in The Self Does Not Die. It would take every single one, since even one unexplainable by any conventional mechanisms would be enough to prove the contrary.

...  more than 100 independently investigated veridical NDE cases documented in The Self Does Not Die.

Incidentally, the updated second edition of "The Self Does Not Die" adds 24 new cases. That means 128 Total Cases for consideration.

This seems to be a tempest in a teapot so to speak. The trouble is, notwithstanding this latest attack on it, IIT still seems to have a fundamental flaw: like materialistic neuroscience it continues to link consciousness with neuronal activities. "IIT is trying to construct a map that allows us to infer the qualities of experience from the information structure of neuronal activity" (from Kastrup's letter defending IIT). 

Unfortunately for IIT, there is a large body of empirical evidence from veridical NDEs and other paranormal phenomena, evidence that mind and subjective awareness can under some circumstances (i.e. deep NDEs for instance) continue while the brain is dysfunctional, and are ultimately a mobile center of consciousness that can separate from the physical body and brain to travel to other locations in the physical world and in other realms. If that is the case, consciousness simply can't be linked to neuronal activities in the brain and IIT is wrong.

Thanks for the thought provoking post.  Your perspective is understandable and important.

Like @Brian, I see no refutation of "evidence that mind and subjective awareness can under some circumstances (i.e. deep NDEs for instance) continue while the brain is dysfunctional, and are ultimately a mobile center of consciousness that can separate from the physical body and brain to travel to other locations in the physical world and in other realms"  in Tononi et all's, positions.  I am no expert on all their publications, so there may be some bias, I haven't encountered.

I agree with Bernardo K., that Koch and Tononi have written in very objective language and focused on math-based tools and thoughtful methods.  If they have fully tied their working model to meaningful activities of experience, again I have not seen their full-throated argument.  The science stuff and metrics for information are great stuff.

Personally, ITT is limited by not addressing mind's role, in detecting and enforcing the selection capabilities for command and control.  This would expose the mind to brain induction of will.

My personal position would be that any science theory that doesn't address Psi as having a pathway to be observable phenomena, will not connect with me.

ITT focuses on information metrics and Tononi has added significantly to the culture.  That makes his ideas metaphysically challenging to materialism, indirectly.  Because if you are defining variables and processes that are not physical and have casual outcomes - you are open to claims of pseudoscience. (referring to the recent letter Sci discussed)

 https://bmcneurosci.biomedcentral.com/ar...-2202-5-42

 The theory also claims that the quality of consciousness is determined by the informational relationships among the elements of a complex, which are specified by the values of effective information among them. Finally, each particular conscious experience is specified by the value, at any given time, of the variables mediating informational interactions among the elements of a complex....
 Implications of the hypothesis
The theory entails that consciousness is a fundamental quantity, that it is graded, that it is present in infants and animals, and that it should be possible to build conscious artifacts. - G. Tononi 

I would address "conscious artifacts" as information objects.  They can be observed with a reductive nature being defined by relations with communication. logic and intent.  Information objects extant in an informational environments is not philosophy, its fact.  Science taking a parallel course with the measuring and modeling of informational processes, as it did with materials and energy once they were math defined.

I don't [think] this could be true, unless we're going to assume that certain witnesses and researchers are just outright liars.

But it seems to me one would only insist on this if they were in the grip of a belief system like the atheist-materialist religion?

This isn't to say every paranormal claim is true, but it is difficult to see how they could all be false.

In fact, I believe the discussion of paranormal evidence becomes irrelevant when considering the egregious attack on IIT. Usually, your stance on the 'atheist-materialist religion' does not resonate with me, but I must acknowledge that this letter provokes potent emotions within me. It's evident that the letter displays a lack of respect toward IIT proponents by labeling it a pseudoscience, although I do not necessarily support IIT myself.

In fact, I believe the discussion of paranormal evidence becomes irrelevant when considering the egregious attack on IIT. Usually, your stance on the 'atheist-materialist religion' does not resonate with me, but I must acknowledge that this letter provokes potent emotions within me. It's evident that the letter displays a lack of respect toward IIT proponents by labeling it a pseudoscience, although I do not necessarily support IIT myself.

I think "atheist-materialist religion" is the most accurate description of the group, but yeah that's a separate discussion.

The letter is really anti-science and seems in part politically motivated, though a deeper discussion of that would require going into the publicly hidden sub-forums.

I'm not a big advocate for IIT but I think it gets us closer to actual reality than the consciousness theories the atheist-materialist fundies find acceptable.

This is the offending statement

Given its panpsychist commitments, until the theory as a whole—not just some handpicked auxiliary components trivially shared by many others or already known to be true is empirically testable, we feel that the pseudoscience label should indeed apply

https://psyarxiv.com/zsr78/

This is quite a statement as some other speculative theories e.g. string theory also immediately becomes a "pseudoscience" with this definition. I wonder if they intended this - it will not be popular in the physicst community? (read this for example Is String Theory Science? - Scientific American   )

With that said I agree IIT is a weak theory as it can not be falsified.

... it gets us closer to actual reality than ...

I'm not sure I'd endorse this style of language for any theory of consciousness. Something about it feels a bit too overconfident, the very idea that we can even contemplate 'actual reality' is something I'd question. All I'd be prepared to say is whether something is useful - and hopefully beneficial - for one or more people in trying to know something which is a mystery. But being useful to one group doesn't thereby make it supervene over other ways of contemplating the nature of things.