Debunking False Claims of Consciousness

This piece, by Mariano Frare, was published on 04/29/25. The original text, by IIT-concerned et al., was published by Nature Neuroscience on 03/10/25.

First, the authors argue that scientific theories should be testable, while IIT is not. One example they provide is the suggestion that a strong test of IIT would be to measure Φ in humans. Φ (Phi) is a mathematical measure of the degree of integrated information within a system. However, calculating Φ would require considering how every component of the system, at every spatial and temporal scale, constrains the past and future states of the system. However, this is a very complex process, and thus, it is impossible in principle to compute Φ; hence, it is also impossible to identify conscious states. 

The article provides four main reasons why the authors doubt that IIT has provided a proper explanation of consciousness. 

1. Overreach: IIT addresses existential questions in an ambiguous manner, such as the nature of being and the existence of free will. This elevates the theory to an all-encompassing explanatory framework, a characteristic common to pseudoscientific theories. 

2. Incompatibility with physics: Doubts have been raised regarding IIT's compatibility with physics, and supporters of this theory acknowledge these issues while still promoting it as a well-established scientific theory.

3. Misrepresentation and promotion: Despite its lack of scientific support, IIT is still presented by the media and the general public as a direct competitor of other theories of consciousness, which in turn misleads the public. 

4. The pseudoscience criterion: The definition of pseudoscience is presenting unscientific claims falsely as scientific, which applies to IIT as it portrays untestable assertions as empirically grounded science.

So why is this a problem? The authors argue that treating IIT as a genuine account of consciousness may impact areas such as legal and medical issues. For instance, stating that 'Φ = consciousness' may affect law and policy, such as decisions involving measures of quality of life, ranging from abortion to the use of artificial intelligence. 

The writers conclude that IIT is flawed for two main reasons: it lacks well-defined, empirically testable consequences and explicitly asserts and entails bold, non-empirical claims. The authors feel that these claims threaten to delegitimize the scientific study of consciousness. They conclude that in the future, people must be cautious about labeling claims as scientific, as these assertions can have significant practical and ethical implications for understanding consciousness.

Want to submit a piece? Or trying to write a piece and struggling? Check out the guides here!

Thank you for reading. Reminder: Byte Sized is open to everyone! Feel free to submit your piece. Please read the guides first though.

All submissions to berkan@usc.edu with the header “Byte Sized Submission” in Word Doc format please. Thank you!