2023 Preprint
Where is the ‘posterior hot zone’? Open Review of Cogitate et al (2023): “An Adversarial Collaboration to Critically Evaluate Theories of Consciousness”
Abstract: The target of this review is the June 26, 2023 version of a recent preprint (1), in which the authors reported the first set of results of a highly publicized project (Cogitate) generously supported by the Templeton World Charity Foundation. The aim of the ongoing project is to empirically arbitrate between two theories of consciousness in the form of an adversarial collaboration. Overall, the project is strong in large part because of the scale, ample funding, and some aspects of the quality and quantity of t…
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
6
1
1
0
Citation Types
0
7
0
0
Year Published
2023
2025
Publication Types
Select...
5
3
Relationship
0
8
Authors
Journals
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
References 25 publications
0
7
0
0
“…Furthermore, a common problem of theories of consciousness, which pervades this topic as well, is the significant intangibility of most proposals and the resulting distance of theoretical concepts from existing psychological and neuroscientific methods or data. This distance allows very disparate predictions to be drawn from the same hypotheses, undermining the requirement of falsifiability that is necessary for any theory to be considered scientific ( Fleming et al, 2023 ; Lau, 2023 ). Claims concerning dimensions of consciousness therefore need to be more specific and testable using currently available methods to make a difference in the broader discussion about the nature of consciousness.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, a common problem of theories of consciousness, which pervades this topic as well, is the significant intangibility of most proposals and the resulting distance of theoretical concepts from existing psychological and neuroscientific methods or data. This distance allows very disparate predictions to be drawn from the same hypotheses, undermining the requirement of falsifiability that is necessary for any theory to be considered scientific ( Fleming et al, 2023 ; Lau, 2023 ). Claims concerning dimensions of consciousness therefore need to be more specific and testable using currently available methods to make a difference in the broader discussion about the nature of consciousness.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But in a way, perhaps it makes sense for some philosophers to explore wild ideas now and then; arguably this is also part of what the discipline is about. However, as we see in recent events, this remarkable trend of growing Bonkerism in philosophy has already begun to directly influence how science is conducted in practice 5 . And this is a real problem 6 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, instead of focusing on the theory, I highlight a deeper philosophical divide within the science of consciousness. *** For an outsider following the recent debates [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] , one amusing fact may be that those who defend IIT against the charge of pseudoscience are actually often willing to describe the theory in terms that may sound just as harsh, if not more so. Anil Seth, for example, openly calls IIT "bonkers".…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The experiments seem very skillfully executed by a large group of trainees across different labs. However, by design the studies only tested some idiosyncratic predictions made by certain theorists, which are not really logically related to the core ideas of IIT 3,6,7 , as one of the authors himself also acknowledges 8 . The findings therefore do not support the claims that the theory itself was actually meaningfully tested, or that it holds a 'dominant', 'well-established', or 'leading' status [1][2][3][4][5]8 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
