Context:

In a groundbreaking study, the Cogitate Consortium attempted to test two leading theories of consciousness, Global Neuronal Workspace Theory and Integrated Information Theory, through adversarial collaboration. Despite initial hopes, the experiment, which involved measuring brain activity of 267 volunteers, faced criticism for its methodology and conclusions, particularly from critics of Integrated Information Theory who labeled it pseudoscience. The study found that although both theories made some accurate predictions, they also failed in parts, leading to the conclusion that both are incomplete. The results sparked significant debate among scientists, with some praising the scale of the study while others criticized its effectiveness in narrowing down consciousness theories. Ultimately, the study highlighted the challenges in resolving scientific disputes over consciousness, emphasizing the complexity and ongoing nature of the discourse in the field.

Dive Deeper:

• The Cogitate Consortium's study aimed to resolve disputes between Global Neuronal Workspace Theory, which suggests conscious experience arises when key brain regions broadcast sensory information, and Integrated Information Theory, which attributes consciousness to networks processing information in an integrated manner.

• The experiment involved 267 volunteers across eight labs in the US, Europe, and China, employing video games to measure conscious awareness and using three methods to track brain activity: electrode insertion, fMRI scans, and magnetoencephalography.

• Despite aspirations for adversarial collaboration, the study faced criticism, particularly from neuroscientist Hakwan Lau and a group named IIT-Concerned, who argued the experiment did not clearly outline the brain regions where predictions would be tested, impacting the validity of its conclusions.

• The criticism was primarily directed at Integrated Information Theory, which some scientists argued extends beyond brain functions to suggest any system capable of integrating information, like plants, could possess consciousness, leading to accusations of pseudoscience.

• Although the study revealed that both theories made accurate but incomplete predictions, it did not successfully reduce the number of competing theories on consciousness, instead highlighting the complexity and depth of the debate.

• The publication of the results in Nature and the subsequent debates on social media and academic circles underscored the contentious nature of consciousness research, with some experts seeing value in the discussions generated by the study.

• The study's outcomes and the surrounding discourse illustrate the challenges of scientific collaboration in the field of consciousness, where entrenched theories and the lack of incentive to disprove one's ideas make progress difficult.