Skip to content

Integrated Information Theory, Intrinsicality, and Overlapping Conscious Systems

James C. Blackmon

Journal of Consciousness Studies November 20, 2021 DOI: 10.53765/20512201.28.11.031 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Key points Argues that because IIT defines consciousness as having a maximum amount of integrated information, consciousness is not intrinsic; IIT also implies a physical system could be conscious while its physical duplicate is not. To preserve intrinsicality, the author proposes that IIT abandon its exclusion postulate and that theories attributing consciousness to physical systems accept overlapping conscious systems.

Abstract

Integrated information theory (IIT) identifies consciousness with having a maximum amount of integrated information. But a thing's having the maximum amount of anything cannot be intrinsic to it, for that depends on how that thing compares to certain other things. IIT's consciousness, then, is not intrinsic. A mereological argument elaborates this consequence: IIT implies that one physical system can be conscious while a physical duplicate of it is not conscious. Thus, by a common and reasonable conception of intrinsicality, IIT's consciousness is not intrinsic. It is then argued that to avoid the implication that consciousness is not intrinsic, IIT must abandon its exclusion postulate, which prohibits overlapping conscious systems. Indeed, theories of consciousness that attribute consciousness to physical systems should embrace the view that some conscious systems overlap. A discussion of the admittedly counterintuitive nature of this solution, along with some medical and neuroscientific realities that would seem to support it, is included.

Citations in the library

Explore topics