Falsification and consciousness

Neurosurgery for mental conditions and pain: An historical perspective on the limits of biological determinism

Neurosurgical operations treat involuntary movement disorders (MvDs), spasticity, cranial neuralgias, cancer pain, and other selected disorders, and implantable neurostimulation or drug delivery devices relieve MvDs, epilepsy, cancer pain, and spasticity. In contrast, studies of surgery or device implantations to treat chronic noncancer pain or mental conditions have not shown consistent evidence of efficacy and safety in formal, randomized, controlled trials. The success of particular operations in a finite set of disorders remains at odds with disconfirming results in others. Despite expectations that surgery or device implants would benefit particular patients, the normalization of unproven procedures could jeopardize the perceived legitimacy of functional neurosurgery in general. An unacknowledged challenge in functional neurosurgery is the limitation of biological determinism, wherein network activity is presumed to exclusively or predominantly mediate nociception, affect, and behavior. That notion regards certain pain states and mental conditions as disorders or dysregulation of networks, which, by implication, make them amenable to surgery. Moreover, implantable devices can now detect and analyze neural activity for observation outside the body, described as the extrinsic or micro perspective. This fosters a belief that automated analyses of physiological and imaging data can unburden the treatment of selected mental conditions and pain states from psychological subjectivity and complexity and the inherent sematic ambiguity of self-reporting. That idea is appealing; however, it discounts all other influences. Attempts to sway public opinion and regulators to approve deep brain stimulation for unproven indications could, if successful, harm the public interest, making demands for regulatory approval beside the point.

The case for neurons: a no-go theorem for consciousness on a chip

We apply the methodology of no-go theorems as developed in physics to the question of artificial consciousness. The result is a no-go theorem which shows that under a general assumption, called dynamical relevance, Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that run on contemporary computer chips cannot be conscious. Consciousness is dynamically relevant, simply put, if, according to a theory of consciousness, it is relevant for the temporal evolution of a system's states. The no-go theorem rests on facts about semiconductor development: that AI systems run on central processing units, graphics processing units, tensor processing units, or other processors which have been designed and verified to adhere to computational dynamics that systematically preclude or suppress deviations. Whether our result resolves the question of AI consciousness on contemporary processors depends on the truth of the theorem's main assumption, dynamical relevance, which this paper does not establish.

A measure centrality index for systematic empirical comparison of consciousness theories

Consciousness science is marred by disparate constructs and methodologies, making it challenging to systematically compare theories. This foundational crisis casts doubts on the scientific character of the field itself. Addressing it, we propose a framework for systematically comparing consciousness theories by introducing a novel inter-theory classification interface, the Measure Centrality Index (MCI). Recognizing its gradient distribution, the MCI assesses the degree of importance a specific empirical measure has for a given consciousness theory. We apply the MCI to probe how the empirical measures of the Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNW), Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and Temporospatial Theory of Consciousness (TTC) would fare within the context of the other two. We demonstrate that direct comparison of IIT, GNW, and TTC is meaningful and valid for some measures like Lempel-Ziv Complexity (LZC), Autocorrelation Window (ACW), and possibly Mutual Information (MI). In contrast, it is problematic for others like the anatomical and physiological neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) due to their MCI-based differential weightings within the structure of the theories. In sum, we introduce and provide proof-of-principle of a novel systematic method for direct inter-theory empirical comparisons, thereby addressing isolated evolution of theories and confirmatory bias issues in the state-of-the-art neuroscience of consciousness.

Toward a universal theory of consciousness

While falsifiability has been broadly discussed as a desirable property of a theory of consciousness, in this paper, we introduce the meta-theoretic concept of "Universality" as an additional desirable property for a theory of consciousness. The concept of universality, often assumed in physics, posits that the fundamental laws of nature are consistent and apply equally everywhere in the universe and remain constant over time. This assumption is crucial in science, acting as a guiding principle for developing and testing theories. When applied to theories of consciousness, universality can be defined as the ability of a theory to determine whether any fully described dynamical system is conscious or non-conscious. Importantly, for a theory to be universal, the determinant of consciousness needs to be defined as an intrinsic property of a system as opposed to replying on the interpretation of the external observer. The importance of universality originates from the consideration that given that consciousness is a natural phenomenon, it could in principle manifest in any physical system that satisfies a certain set of conditions whether it is biological or non-biological. To date, apart from a few exceptions, most existing theories do not possess this property. Instead, they tend to make predictions as to the neural correlates of consciousness based on the interpretations of brain functions, which makes those theories only applicable to brain-centric systems. While current functionalist theories of consciousness tend to be heavily reliant on our interpretations of brain functions, we argue that functionalist theories could be converted to a universal theory by specifying mathematical formulations of the constituent concepts. While neurobiological and functionalist theories retain their utility in practice, we will eventually need a universal theory to fully explain why certain types of systems possess consciousness.

Towards a structural turn in consciousness science

Recent activities in virtually all fields engaged in consciousness studies indicate early signs of a structural turn, where verbal descriptions or simple formalisations of conscious experiences are replaced by structural tools, most notably mathematical spaces. My goal here is to offer three comments that, in my opinion, are essential to avoid misunderstandings in these developments early on. These comments concern metaphysical premises of structural approaches, the viability of structure-preserving mappings, and the question of what a structure of conscious experience is in the first place. I will also explain what, in my opinion, are the great promises of structural methodologies and how they might impact consciousness science at large.

When philosophical nuance matters: safeguarding consciousness research from restrictive assumptions

In this paper, we revisit the debate surrounding the Unfolding Argument (UA) against causal structure theories of consciousness (as well as the hard-criteria research program it prescribes), using it as a platform for discussing theoretical and methodological issues in consciousness research. Causal structure theories assert that consciousness depends on a particular causal structure of the brain. Our claim is that some of the assumptions fueling the UA are not warranted, and therefore we should reject the methodology for consciousness science that the UA prescribes. First, we briefly survey the most popular philosophical positions in consciousness science, namely physicalism and functionalism. We discuss the relations between these positions and the behaviorist methodology that the UA assumptions express, despite the contrary claim of its proponents. Second, we argue that the same reasoning that the UA applies against causal structure theories can be applied to functionalist approaches, thus proving too much and deeming as unscientific a whole range of (non-causal structure) theories. Since this is overly restrictive and fits poorly with common practice in cognitive neuroscience, we suggest that the reasoning of the UA must be flawed. Third, we assess its philosophical assumptions, which express a restrictive methodology, and conclude that there are reasons to reject them. Finally, we propose a more inclusive methodology for consciousness science, that includes neural, behavioral, and phenomenological evidence (provided by the first-person perspective) without which consciousness science could not even start. Then, we extend this discussion to the scope of consciousness science, and conclude that theories of consciousness should be tested and evaluated on humans, and not on systems considerably different from us. Rather than restricting the methodology of consciousness science, we should, at this point, restrict the range of systems upon which it is supposed to be built.

Accelerating scientific progress through Bayesian adversarial collaboration

Adversarial collaboration has been championed as the gold standard for resolving scientific disputes but has gained relatively limited traction in neuroscience and allied fields. In this perspective, we argue that adversarial collaborative research has been stymied by an overly restrictive concern with the falsification of scientific theories. We advocate instead for a more expansive view that frames adversarial collaboration in terms of Bayesian belief updating, model comparison, and evidence accumulation. This framework broadens the scope of adversarial collaboration to accommodate a wide range of informative (but not necessarily definitive) studies while affording the requisite formal tools to guide experimental design and data analysis in the adversarial setting. We provide worked examples that demonstrate how these tools can be deployed to score theoretical models in terms of a common metric of evidence, thereby furnishing a means of tracking the amount of empirical support garnered by competing theories over time.

A systematic approach to brain dynamics: cognitive evolution theory of consciousness

The brain integrates volition, cognition, and consciousness seamlessly over three hierarchical (scale-dependent) levels of neural activity for their emergence: a causal or 'hard' level, a computational (unconscious) or 'soft' level, and a phenomenal (conscious) or 'psyche' level respectively. The cognitive evolution theory (CET) is based on three general prerequisites: physicalism, dynamism, and emergentism, which entail five consequences about the nature of consciousness: discreteness, passivity, uniqueness, integrity, and graduation. CET starts from the assumption that brains should have primarily evolved as volitional subsystems of organisms, not as prediction machines. This emphasizes the dynamical nature of consciousness in terms of critical dynamics to account for metastability, avalanches, and self-organized criticality of brain processes, then coupling it with volition and cognition in a framework unified over the levels. Consciousness emerges near critical points, and unfolds as a discrete stream of momentary states, each volitionally driven from oldest subcortical arousal systems. The stream is the brain's way of making a difference via predictive (Bayesian) processing. Its objective observables could be complexity measures reflecting levels of consciousness and its dynamical coherency to reveal how much knowledge (information gain) the brain acquires over the stream. CET also proposes a quantitative classification of both disorders of consciousness and mental disorders within that unified framework.

ROSE: A Neurocomputational Architecture for Syntax

A comprehensive model of natural language processing in the brain must accommodate four components: representations, operations, structures and encoding. It further requires a principled account of how these different components mechanistically, and causally, relate to each another. While previous models have isolated regions of interest for structure-building and lexical access, and have utilized specific neural recording measures to expose possible signatures of syntax, many gaps remain with respect to bridging distinct scales of analysis that map onto these four components. By expanding existing accounts of how neural oscillations can index various linguistic processes, this article proposes a neurocomputational architecture for syntax, termed the ROSE model (Representation, Operation, Structure, Encoding). Under ROSE, the basic data structures of syntax are atomic features, types of mental representations (R), and are coded at the single-unit and ensemble level. Elementary computations (O) that transform these units into manipulable objects accessible to subsequent structure-building levels are coded via high frequency broadband γ activity. Low frequency synchronization and cross-frequency coupling code for recursive categorial inferences (S). Distinct forms of low frequency coupling and phase-amplitude coupling (δ-θ coupling via pSTS-IFG; θ-γ coupling via IFG to conceptual hubs in lateral and ventral temporal cortex) then encode these structures onto distinct workspaces (E). Causally connecting R to O is spike-phase/LFP coupling; connecting O to S is phase-amplitude coupling; connecting S to E is a system of frontotemporal traveling oscillations; connecting E back to lower levels is low-frequency phase resetting of spike-LFP coupling. This compositional neural code has important implications for algorithmic accounts, since it makes concrete predictions for the appropriate level of study for psycholinguistic parsing models. ROSE is reliant on neurophysiologically plausible mechanisms, is supported at all four levels by a range of recent empirical research, and provides an anatomically precise and falsifiable grounding for the basic property of natural language syntax: hierarchical, recursive structure-building.

Are we really unconscious in "unconscious" states? Common assumptions revisited

In the field of consciousness science, there is a tradition to categorize certain states such as slow-wave non-REM sleep and deep general anesthesia as "unconscious". While this categorization seems reasonable at first glance, careful investigations have revealed that it is not so simple. Given that (1) behavioral signs of (un-)consciousness can be unreliable, (2) subjective reports of (un-)consciousness can be unreliable, and, (3) states presumed to be unconscious are not always devoid of reported experience, there are reasons to reexamine our traditional assumptions about "states of unconsciousness". While these issues are not novel, and may be partly semantic, they have implications both for scientific progress and clinical practice. We suggest that focusing on approaches that provide a more pragmatic and nuanced characterization of different experimental conditions may promote clarity in the field going forward, and help us build stronger foundations for future studies.

Self-organized criticality as a framework for consciousness: A review study

Objective

No current model of consciousness is univocally accepted on either theoretical or empirical grounds, and the need for a solid unifying framework is evident. Special attention has been given to the premise that self-organized criticality (SOC) is a fundamental property of neural system. SOC provides a competitive model to describe the physical mechanisms underlying spontaneous brain activity, and thus, critical dynamics were proposed as general gauges of information processing representing a strong candidate for a surrogate measure of consciousness. As SOC could be a neurodynamical framework, which may be able to bring together existing theories and experimental evidence, the purpose of this work was to provide a comprehensive overview of progress of research on SOC in association with consciousness.

Methods

A comprehensive search of publications on consciousness and SOC published between 1998 and 2021 was conducted. The Web of Science database was searched, and annual number of publications and citations, type of articles, and applied methods were determined.

Results

A total of 71 publications were identified. The annual number of citations steadily increased over the years. Original articles comprised 50.7% and reviews/theoretical articles 43.6%. Sixteen studies reported on human data and in seven studies data were recorded in animals. Computational models were utilized in n = 12 studies. EcoG data were assessed in n = 4 articles, fMRI in n = 4 studies, and EEG/MEG in n = 10 studies. Notably, different analytical tools were applied in the EEG/MEG studies to assess a surrogate measure of criticality such as the detrended fluctuation analysis, the pair correlation function, parameters from the neuronal avalanche analysis and the spectral exponent.

Conclusion

Recent studies pointed out agreements of critical dynamics with the current most influencing theories in the field of consciousness research, the global workspace theory and the integrated information theory. Thus, the framework of SOC as a neurodynamical parameter for consciousness seems promising. However, identified experimental work was small in numbers, and a heterogeneity of applied analytical tools as a surrogate measure of criticality was observable, which limits the generalizability of findings.

The maturing science of consciousness

For most of the twentieth century, consciousness was the elephant in the living room of science - we all knew it was there, but no-one wanted to talk about it. Aspirations for a science of consciousness faced an array of formidable philosophical, theoretical and methodological challenges, thought by many to be insurmountable. In recent decades, pessimism has been replaced by increasing optimism, as scholars and researchers from many fields, including psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, AI and evolutionary biology have focused their trans-disciplinary efforts on understanding the enigma of how and why we are conscious of ourselves and the world around us.

First-person experience cannot rescue causal structure theories from the unfolding argument

We recently put forward an argument, the Unfolding Argument (UA), that integrated information theory (IIT) and other causal structure theories are either already falsified or unfalsifiable, which provoked significant criticism. It seems that we and the critics agree that the main question in this debate is whether first-person experience, independent of third-person data, is a sufficient foundation for theories of consciousness. Here, we argue that pure first-person experience cannot be a scientific foundation for IIT because science relies on taking measurements, and pure first-person experience is not measurable except through reports, brain activity, and the relationship between them. We also argue that pure first-person experience cannot be taken as ground truth because science is about backing up theories with data, not about asserting that we have ground truth independent of data. Lastly, we explain why no experiment based on third-person data can test IIT as a theory of consciousness. IIT may be a good theory of something, but not of consciousness. We conclude by exposing a deeper reason for the above conclusions: IIT's consciousness is by construction fully dissociated from any measurable thing and, for this reason, IIT implies that both the level and content of consciousness are epiphenomenal, with no causal power. IIT and other causal structure theories end up in a form of dissociative epiphenomenalism, in which we cannot even trust reports about first-person experiences. But reports about first-person experiences are taken as ground truth and the foundation for IIT's axioms. Therefore, accepting IIT leads to rejecting its own axioms. We also respond to several other criticisms against the UA.

Formalizing falsification for theories of consciousness across computational hierarchies

The scientific study of consciousness is currently undergoing a critical transition in the form of a rapidly evolving scientific debate regarding whether or not currently proposed theories can be assessed for their scientific validity. At the forefront of this debate is Integrated Information Theory (IIT), widely regarded as the preeminent theory of consciousness because it quantified subjective experience in a scalar mathematical measure called Φ that is in principle measurable. Epistemological issues in the form of the "unfolding argument" have provided a concrete refutation of IIT by demonstrating how it permits functionally identical systems to have differences in their predicted consciousness. The implication is that IIT and any other proposed theory based on a physical system's causal structure may already be falsified even in the absence of experimental refutation. However, so far many of these arguments surrounding the epistemological foundations of falsification arguments, such as the unfolding argument, are too abstract to determine the full scope of their implications. Here, we make these abstract arguments concrete, by providing a simple example of functionally equivalent machines realizable with table-top electronics that take the form of isomorphic digital circuits with and without feedback. This allows us to explicitly demonstrate the different levels of abstraction at which a theory of consciousness can be assessed. Within this computational hierarchy, we show how IIT is simultaneously falsified at the finite-state automaton level and unfalsifiable at the combinatorial-state automaton level. We use this example to illustrate a more general set of falsification criteria for theories of consciousness: to avoid being already falsified, or conversely unfalsifiable, scientific theories of consciousness must be invariant with respect to changes that leave the inference procedure fixed at a particular level in a computational hierarchy.