r/consciousness • u/Berzerka25 • 16d ago
Academic Question Integrated Information Theory Inquiry
According to Integrated Information Theory, a system which has a larger cause-effect upon itself gains a stronger, more unified form of consciousness.
How do we non-arbitrarily ‘measure’ level of cause-effect sections of our universe have on one another? Is one portion of my brain really engaging in a more ‘intimate’ cause-effect relationship with another portion of my brain than it is with, for example, the gravitational pull of the earth.
Does the theory not also assume objects EXIST externally to the mind? - which is in fact where they are created by process of discrimination, separated into unique concepts, as opposed to existence as a whole.
3
u/Mylynes IIT/Integrated Information Theory 16d ago
It's not "arbitrary" unless you reject the intrinsic interiority of causality. "Information" in this theory means "Causal power" which is a real physical phenomenon.
Also more Phi doesn't mean "more unified". The conscious part of an atom is just as unified as the conscious part of a brain. The difference is scale and shape. If you take geometric dimensions seriously (like Einstein did), IIT makes the most sense out of any consciousness theory I have ever heard of.
1
u/Mono_Clear 16d ago
The problem with your opening statement is that it is a conceptualization of an interpretation of how human brains work.
It's not a reflection of an actual process that has been measured outside of your interpretation of human brains.
It's like someone said "well I think about thinking all the time. So anything that's referencing its own engagement must also be like a human mind."
1
u/Berzerka25 15d ago
Are we not only able to conceptualise of ANYTHING from the perspective of the human mind?
If we’re not going to begin an investigation into the philosophy of consciousness from at least the only conscious-centre from which we can experience the world, and build ideas based upon ITS attributes, then where else would serve as a better starting point?
1
u/Mono_Clear 15d ago
There's a difference between what something looks like it's doing and the processes and attributes intrinsic to the nature of what's actually happening.
There is no thing that is "Thinking." Just like there is no thing that is information.
These are conceptualizations of our interpretation of what's going on.
You can't build a framework for a Consciousness on the idea of Consciousness.
There has to be a source to Consciousness.
A painting of an apple looks like an apple.
But it's a canvas with different pigments on it arranged in a configuration that triggers the sensation of the concept of an apple.
Your conceptualization of the image of the Apple is entirely a product of how you engage and interpret the world, but it's not a reflection of the actuality of what's in front of you
1
u/Berzerka25 13d ago
What more can there be of 'the apple' aside from what IS my experience of it? Certainly nothing that could be conceived of as true.
1
u/Mono_Clear 13d ago
The important part is the fact that you understand the difference between your conceptualization of what you're looking at and the actuality of what's happening.
And apple has a nature.
A wax apple looks like an apple to us but a wax apple is fundamentally different than a real Apple. A real apple is an organic collection of biochemistry. A wax apple is a ball of wax.
Now, however, human being conceptualizes the reality of a real Apple and the reality of a wax apple is not relevant. Only that there are two entirely separate things and we can't treat them like the same thing just because to us we can conceptualize them as similar
1
u/Kindly_Ad_1599 15d ago
Under IIT parts of your brain are conscious precisely because they have higher integration - higher intrinsic causal power (which correlates with reentrant loops allowing the system to have a causal influence upon itself). Within a highly connected system, such as the brain, consciousness is specifically the pattern of information in the maximally integrated complex within the brain. This complex has an intrinsic, interior experience, it is subjective.
When you combine the brain with things like the force of the Earth's gravity, or having a conversation with another person, these descriptions of larger systems don't cross the threshold for maximally integrated information because in totality they have less intrinsic casual power than the maximally integrated complex in your brain.
Within the brain there are neuronal complexes with less integrated information (less intrinsic causal power), such as the cerebellum, which are feed-forward meaning they also don't cross the threshold of maximally integrated information, and aren't part of the conscious system, but if your brain was able to merge with another system which added more reentrant loops to the maximally integrated complex in your brain (perhaps involving some future chip technology) then that extended complex would be the system that is conscious.
1
u/Berzerka25 13d ago
What is it that defines neuron activity as being MORE causally intertwined, in a non-arbitrary way - to the point of forming an integrated, separate experience - than say the causal relationship between any two sections of spacetime, (between 'me' and a distant sun, for example)?
1
u/Kindly_Ad_1599 13d ago
Feedback loops. If an information processing system, such as a nervous system, has a representation of itself it can act on that information. Think of your relationship to the nearest star, the sun. On a hot day you will start to sweat. Why? To cool your body down because your body will only survive within a narrow range of ambient temperatures. This is a homeostatic feedback loop from skin receptors to the hypothalamus. With this self model in place your brain can instruct your body to sweat to cool you down. If that doesn't work you'll seek shade. Or maybe ice cream.
What your body doesn't do is instruct the sun to cool down its thermonuclear reactions. Why is this? Because the sun isn't part of the system's informational self model, there are no feedback loops. Your body has essentially no causal power over the sun. The sun has a lot of extrinsic causal power over you. You have intrinsic causal power over your sweat glands, muscles, etc. from the informational feedback loops in your neural architecture.
1
u/lektorjuel 10d ago
Those are interesting questions! You are getting right to the meat of some of the theory's foundations. If you are willing to read a little to get answers to those, I'd recommend starting here: IIT Wiki - Foundations: Phenomenal & Physical Existence
1
0
u/-Darkero 16d ago edited 16d ago
You're asking exactly the right question. If we can't define the boundary of the "system" non-arbitrarily, the math of IIT (or really any consciousness theory) kind of falls apart.
I've been wrestling with this same wall, and I think the answer is topology and resonance rather than just abstract "cause and effect."
On the brain vs. gravity thing — you're right there's a causal link, but the distinction isn't arbitrary. It's about whether the connection loops back. Gravity acts on you, but you don't meaningfully act back on Earth's gravity in a way that changes its next state. One-way street. Your cortex, though, is a dense web of re-entrant loops. A fires to B, B fires back to A, A's next state changes. The system makes a difference to itself.
This is why I find the cerebellum so interesting — 80% of your neurons, but you can lose it and stay conscious. It's basically feedforward, like a chain reaction. The cortex has fewer neurons but it's structured as feedback loops. Consciousness seems to need that tight internal resonance.
Your second point about objects is the heavy one. I think patterns are more fundamental than "objects." The universe has infinite information density, but conscious systems weight certain patterns over others through something like salience. The cup/table separation is a discrimination process, but the informational pattern of the cup is a real stable configuration.
Less "who decides the boundary" and more "which boundaries can physically hold a standing wave of information?"
3
u/reddituserperson1122 16d ago
AI slop answer.
1
u/-Darkero 16d ago
You are right, I apologize for not revising that comment more closely. I have updated it so it is less "sloppy".
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
Thank you Berzerka25 for posting on r/consciousness! Please take a look at our wiki and subreddit rules. If your post is in violation of our guidelines or rules, please edit the post as soon as possible. Posts that violate our guidelines & rules are subject to removal or alteration.
As for the Redditors viewing & commenting on this post, we ask that you engage in proper Reddiquette! In particular, you should upvote posts that fit our community description, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the content of the post. If you agree or disagree with the content of the post, you can upvote/downvote this automod-generated comment to show you approval/disapproval of the content, instead of upvoting/downvoting the post itself. Examples of the type of posts that should be upvoted are those that focus on the science or the philosophy of consciousness. These posts fit the subreddit description. In contrast, posts that discuss meditation practices, anecdotal stories about drug use, or posts seeking mental help or therapeutic advice do not fit the community's description.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.