CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 47Philosophy and Theoretical SciencePhilosophy and History of ScienceFree Will and Agency

Falsification and consciousness

Open access
Kleiner, Johannes, Hoel, Erik·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2004.03541arXiv 2004.03541PMC PMC8052953
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The search for a scientific theory of consciousness should result in theories that are falsifiable. However, here we show that falsification is especially problematic for theories of consciousness. We formally describe the standard experimental setup for testing these theories. Based on a theory's application to some physical system, such as the brain, testing requires comparing a theory's predicted experience (given some internal observables of the system like brain imaging data) with an inferred experience (using report or behavior). If there is a mismatch between inference and prediction, a theory is falsified. We show that if inference and prediction are independent, it follows that any minimally informative theory of consciousness is automatically falsified. This is deeply problematic since the field's reliance on report or behavior to infer conscious experiences implies such independence, so this fragility affects many contemporary theories of consciousness. Furthermore, we show that if inference and prediction are strictly dependent, it follows that a theory is unfalsifiable. This affects theories which claim consciousness to be determined by report or behavior. Finally, we explore possible ways out of this dilemma.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2004.03541

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Global Workspace Theory is not subject to the unfolding argument because broadcasting is a general concept that can be implemented in many different ways.

    “GWT is not subject to the unfolding argument because broadcasting is a general concept, which can be implemented in many di ff erent ways (even though GWT is usually framed in recurrent terms, recurrence is not essential, Doerig, Schurger, et al., 2019; but see Kleiner, 2019; Kleiner & Hoel, 2020).”

    From Hard criteria for empirical theories of consciousness (2021) · cites this paper as Kleiner & Hoel, 2020

    The Introduction (page unavailable) calls the unfolding argument against IIT a subset of a broader problem affecting theories that predict experience from internal observables; the paper treats Global Neuronal Workspace as an example. It also says that interpretations of Global Workspace Theory based on report accessibility face a different problem, empirical unfalsifiability. It does not present flexible implementations of broadcasting as an exemption. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The unfolding argument does not apply to PPT because predictive processing can be unfolded.

    “The unfolding argument does not apply, because predictive processing can be unfolded (Doerig, Schurger, et al. (2019); but see Kleiner (2019) and Kleiner and Hoel (2020)).”

    From Hard criteria for empirical theories of consciousness (2021) · cites this paper as Kleiner and Hoel (2020)

    In Formal Description of Testing Theories (page unavailable), the paper explicitly includes predictive processing among the theories it considers. In The Substitution Argument (page unavailable), it says the flaw illustrated by unfolding is not limited to IIT but affects almost all contemporary theories; it does not present predictive processing as exempt. The citing sentence’s “but see” therefore fits this paper as a counterpoint, not as support for the stated claim. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Block N. How can we find the neural correlate of consciousness? Trends Neurosci 1996; 19: 456– 9. 8931266
  2. Hutter M. Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based on Algorithmic Probability. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kleiner, J., & Hoel, E.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Hoel, Erik
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
2021
Issue
1
Pages
niab001-niab001
ISSN
2057-2107 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2004.03541
arXiv
2004.03541
PMC
PMC8052953
OpenAlex
W3015208662
Cited by
46
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
7.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Neuroscience of Consciousness (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
falsifiability, theory of consciousness, subjective experience, neuroimaging, philosophy of science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review