What is a Pseudoscience of Consciousness? Lessons from Recent Adversarial Collaborations

Abstract

Some colleagues have questioned about our recent joint statement (Fleming et al 2023), so I try to address them here, as well as to provide some background. I also discuss what I think really went wrong with the recent adversarial collaboration on testing theories of consciousness (ARC-Cogitate), which has in part led to the statement. In a previous open review I already discussed the scientific content of their recent preprint. Here I focus on the institutional context, from my own personal perspective, as someone familiar with both the project itself and several other related (ongoing) projects in the field. There are issues that concern more than the subfield of consciousness science alone; advocates of open science, cognitive neuroscience, and theories in neurobiology in general may also benefit from some awareness of these problems, as they may end up spreading to and reflecting badly on the broader scientific community - if we do not make an effort to address them together.

Bonkerism: a NEW Science of Consciousness?

“…Here, instead of focusing on the theory, I highlight a deeper philosophical divide within the science of consciousness. *** For an outsider following the recent debates [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] , one amusing fact may be that those who defend IIT against the charge of pseudoscience are actually often willing to describe the theory in terms that may sound just as harsh, if not more so. Anil Seth, for example, openly calls IIT "bonkers".…”

“…However, as we see in recent events, this remarkable trend of growing Bonkerism in philosophy has already begun to directly influence how science is conducted in practice 5 . And this is a real problem 6 . The level of Bonkerism has just gotten way too strong.…”