Skip to content

Beyond IIT: (how) can we model the evolution of consciousness?

Adrian Kent

PsyArXiv September 25, 2021 preprint DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/kar4c (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper
Key points Argues that IIT-like theories of consciousness face extraordinary fine-tuning problems under Darwinian evolution, such as why we are conscious of an accurate high-level narrative that appears to cause our behavior. Proposes that IIT+-like theories, in which Phi and/or Q influence network dynamics, offer at least partial explanations of how key features of consciousness evolved.

Abstract

Tononi et al.'s "integrated information theory" (IIT) postulates rules for assigning measures Phi and qualia types Q of consciousness to classical information networks. We consider whether IIT is compatible with Darwinian evolution. We argue that an IIT-like theory that assigns consciousness to physical systems by relatively simple mathematical rules poses extraordinary ?ne-tuning problems.For example, why, among all possible lawlike theories of consciousness, do we have one that makes us conscious of a high-level narrative of our environment and actions, so accurate that it appears to us to cause our behaviour?We introduce IIT+, a class of extensions of IIT in which Phi and/or Q influence the network dynamics. We argue that IIT+-like theories, unlike IIT-like theories, offer at least partial explanations of how some key features of consciousness evolved. We conclude that if one takes seriously Darwinian evolution and the case for an IIT-like theory, one has to take seriously the case for an IIT+-like theory.

Citations in the library