

A Neuroscientist’s Radical Theory of How Networks Become Conscious - npalli
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/christof-koch-panpsychism-consciousness/

======
protonfish
This is another example of the poor quality work being done on higher
intelligence research. He defines consciousness so that it has no testable
characteristics. Saying that it is an emergent property of multiple
connections in a system smacks of magic smoke. This hypothesis is not
"radical" at all but a lazy throwback to pre-science philosophy. I hope that
this guy is just a suit and it is not representative of the work being done at
the Allen Institute. If it is, Paul should think about spending his money
elsewhere.

~~~
KingMob
There aren't really _any_ good definitions of consciousness that are _easily_
falsifiable. It's in the nature of the problem. All of our collected data
about other people's/organism's consciousness is third-person, while
consciousness is definitely a first-person phenomenon.

I don't know for sure that anyone else is conscious; the world could be
populated by zombies (in the philosophical sense) for all I know.

Anyway, the root of the word "science" comes from "knowledge", not
falsifiability. These are still very early days for brain science and
consciousness is its hardest problem.

Integrated information theory (IIT) in particular, does offer some falsifiable
predictions, btw. IIT's phi metric requires both interconnectedness, but also
heterogeneity. E.g., Koch alluded to the cerebellum. The cerebellum has half
of the neurons in the brain, but they are arranged in a simple, almost
crystal-like pattern. People who have had cerebellums removed due to cancer
show no alterations in consciousness. If we were to find someone who had their
cerebellum removed and it _did_ impact their consciousness, IIT would be
incorrect.

Likewise, IIT fits with data about the lack of consciousness during slow wave
sleep and generalized seizures (simple, rhythmic firing patterns), but again,
if we were able to find counterexamples, it would be disproved.

------
colanderman
_That’s associative memory. What is the simplest explanation for it? That
consciousness extends to all these creatures, that it’s an imminent property
of highly organized pieces of matter, such as brains._

Um, I'm pretty sure there are mathematical explanations for how associative
memory works, that don't invoke the paranormal:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopfield_network](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopfield_network)

