Accelerating scientific progress through Bayesian adversarial collaboration

How to Live in the Moment: The Methodology and Limitations of Evolutionary Research on Consciousness

There is much interest in investigating the evolution question: How did consciousness evolve? In this paper, we evaluate the role that evolutionary considerations can play in justifying (i.e., confirming or falsifying) hypotheses about the origin, nature, and function of consciousness. Specifically, we argue against what we call evolution-first approaches to consciousness, according to which evolutionary considerations provide the primary and foundational lens through which we should assess hypotheses about the nature, function, or distribution of consciousness. Based on the example of Walter Veit's account and additional reasoning, we contend that evolution-first approaches struggle to provide compelling empirical evidence for their key claims about consciousness. In contrast with these approaches, we argue that consciousness science needs to foundationally rely on experimental and observational evidence from humans and other present-day animals. If our arguments succeed, then researchers, when investigating consciousness, are better advised to take as their primary source of evidence consciousness' present, not its past. Having said this, we acknowledge that evolutionary thinking plays an important role in consciousness science. We delineate this role by stressing several ways in which evolutionary considerations can substantially help advance consciousness research, although in a manner that avoids the evolution-first approach. Since our argument only concerns the assessment of hypotheses (the "context of justification"), it leaves it open which role evolutionary considerations play in generating hypotheses (the "context of discovery"). That is, evolutionary considerations may nevertheless play a foundational role in hypothesis generation in consciousness science.

Testing the role of spontaneous activity in visuospatial perception with patterned optogenetics

A major debate in the field of consciousness pertains to whether neuronal activity or rather the causal structure of neural circuits underlie the generation of conscious experience. The former position is held by theoretical accounts of consciousness based on the predictive processing framework (such as neurorepresentationalism and active inference), while the latter is posited by the integrated information theory. This protocol describes an experiment, part of a larger adversarial collaboration, that was designed to address this question through a combination of behavioral tests in mice, functional imaging, patterned optogenetics and electrophysiology. The experiment will directly test if optogenetic inactivation of a portion of the visual cortex not responding to behaviorally relevant stimuli will affect the perception of the spatial distribution of these stimuli, even when the neurons being inactivated display no or very low spiking activity, so low that it does not induce a significant effect on other cortical areas. The results of the experiment will be compared against theoretical predictions, and will provide a major contribution towards understanding what the neuronal substrate of consciousness is.

Positionality statements in science

The goal of this essay is to clarify positionality as an epistemological scientific concept and address related misunderstandings to help researchers assess whether statements thereof contribute to their work. Positionality statements can be useful for various research designs across scientific fields, when they are used knowingly.

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.

An integrative, multiscale view on neural theories of consciousness

How is conscious experience related to material brain processes? A variety of theories aiming to answer this age-old question have emerged from the recent surge in consciousness research, and some are now hotly debated. Although most researchers have so far focused on the development and validation of their preferred theory in relative isolation, this article, written by a group of scientists representing different theories, takes an alternative approach. Noting that various theories often try to explain different aspects or mechanistic levels of consciousness, we argue that the theories do not necessarily contradict each other. Instead, several of them may converge on fundamental neuronal mechanisms and be partly compatible and complementary, so that multiple theories can simultaneously contribute to our understanding. Here, we consider unifying, integration-oriented approaches that have so far been largely neglected, seeking to combine valuable elements from various theories.

(Dis)confirming theories of consciousness and their predictions: towards a Lakatosian consciousness science

The neuroscience of consciousness is undergoing a significant empirical acceleration thanks to several adversarial collaborations that intend to test different predictions of rival theories of consciousness. In this context, it is important to pair consciousness science with confirmation theory, the philosophical discipline that explores the interaction between evidence and hypotheses, in order to understand how exactly, and to what extent, specific experiments are challenging or validating theories of consciousness. In this paper, I examine this intricate relationship by adopting a Lakatosian lens. I propose that Lakatos' philosophy of science can aid consciousness scientists to better interpret adversarial collaborations in consciousness science and, more generally, to develop a confirmation-theoretic model of theory-appraisal in this field. I do so by suggesting that such a model be built upon three Lakatos-inspired criteria for assessing the relationship between empirical evidence and theoretical predictions: (i) the model should represent the 'distinction between prediction and accommodation'; (ii) the model should represent the 'structural relevance' of predictions; (iii) the model should represent the 'boldness' of the predictions. I argue that a Lakatosian model of theory-appraisal has both normative and descriptive virtues, and can move the debate forward by acknowledging that theory-appraisal needs to consider the diachronic development of theories, their logical structure, and their relationship with background beliefs and knowledge.

Assessing the commensurability of theories of consciousness: On the usefulness of common denominators in differentiating, integrating and testing hypotheses

How deep is the current diversity in the panoply of theories to define consciousness, and to what extent do these theories share common denominators? Here we first examine to what extent different theories are commensurable (or comparable) along particular dimensions. We posit logical (and, when applicable, empirical) commensurability as a necessary condition for identifying common denominators among different theories. By consequence, dimensions for inclusion in a set of logically and empirically commensurable theories of consciousness can be proposed. Next, we compare a limited subset of neuroscience-based theories in terms of commensurability. This analysis does not yield a denominator that might serve to define a minimally unifying model of consciousness. Theories that seem to be akin by one denominator can be remote by another. We suggest a methodology of comparing different theories via multiple probing questions, allowing to discern overall (dis)similarities between theories. Despite very different background definitions of consciousness, we conclude that, if attention is paid to the search for a common methological approach to brain-consciousness relationships, it should be possible in principle to overcome the current Babylonian confusion of tongues and eventually integrate and merge different theories.