I have understood the math in IIT
In my view, II is one particular (and OK) mathematical measure of one
physical correlate of consciousness ("degree of dynamical emergent
pattern in a system" one might call it)
Aaronson's critique focuses on the fact that some clearly
not-very-conscious systems would have IIT
But if one considers II as a measure of one (but not the only
important) correlate of consciousness, then this complaint is blunted
IIT does not really try to touch the "hard problem" of consciousness,
so it "solves the problem of consciousness" only if one takes a
materialist-reductionist or informationalist-reductionist perspective
on consciousness and dismisses the qualia problem
The math is not just window dressing, it is there because Tononi wants
to actually quantitatively calculate II in real system such as human
brains, which is sort of interesting apart from the philosophical
shortcomings of IIT
-- Ben
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 6:55 AM, John Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TimTyler [mailto:[email protected]]
>>
>> On 2016-04-01 04:09, Colin Parr wrote:
>> > Has anyone understood the math in this IIT?
>> >
>> > Is it just some measure of 'feedback' in a connected system and Koch is
>> supposing that this is a measure of consciousness because... why? What is
>> the explanation of consciousness as 'just' a feedback? If not, can someone
>> explain what they are saying?
>>
>> Surely this is one of these cases where mathematics has been added in an
>> attempt to add credibility. It is cosmetic. I don't think you are supposed to
>> actually try and understand it.
>>
>> Cosmetic mathematics is like legalese: the more incomprehensible it is, the
>> better it does its job.
>
>
> If you think about consciousness in relation to algorithmic information
> theory including entropy, computational complexity, etc.. you will arrive in
> a similar domain but - some important details need to be worked out or are
> ... inaccurate? I don't know...
>
> Check out Scott Aaronson's discussions with Tononi. Aaronson seems to be one
> of those guys who is qualified to critique at that relatively precise level
> of understanding.
>
> For me I just kind of reverse inkblot it and it starts looking right.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> AGI
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279
> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
http://goertzel.org
"I am Ubik. Before the universe was, I am. I made the suns. I made the
worlds. I created the lives and the places they inhabit; I move them
here, I put them there. They go as I say, then do as I tell them. I am
the word and my name is never spoken, the name which no one knows. I
am called Ubik, but that is not my name. I am. I shall always be.” --
Ubik
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
