Thoughts on the “ integrated information theory”

The integrated information theory (IIT) of the origin of consciousness has been labeled as a pseudoscience by some for reasons unclear, though the suspicion is that the theory is wildly popular in excess of its scientific merits. The writer makes clear that IIT still insists “that consciousness has a physical basis and can be mathematically measured.”  Still, I sense between the lines that the real scientists are afraid that the IIT folks are turning mystical.

So, how should mystics, meta-physicists, and genuine pseudoscientists react to being insulted by proxy? (For now, I’ll leave UFO researchers out of this.)

During near-death experiences, where consciousness literally separates from the physical body, experiencers often notice that there is a definite demarcation between physical and non-physical consciousness. Physical consciousness is centered in time and space, while consciousness out of the body does not track time or distance. There are two almost contradictory perspectives on consciousness: Physically-oriented consciousness is self-contained, reliant on the physical body for existence, and while there is no proof that it is physically generated, it is definitely influenced by the physical. On the other hand, when the “I” vacates the body completely, the body dies. The physical body cannot be animated unless something—however you define the “I”—is installed. Science would have to measure the non-physical to discover the true root of consciousness, and I don’t know this is doable by physical people using physical instruments.