<p>I am referring specifically to a <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219" rel="nofollow">very recent paper</a> by Max Tegmark.
In this paper he proposes 3 more criteria (independence, dynamics, and utility principle) in addition to Tononi's original criteria (information and integration).</p>

<p>I have seen the paper being discussed in <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7024651" rel="nofollow">Hacker News</a>, <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/neurophilosophy/comments/1uq3c0/14011219_consciousness_as_a_state_of_matter/" rel="nofollow">reddit's r/neurophilosophy</a>, and <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/jgd/link_consciousness_as_a_state_of_matter_max/" rel="nofollow">lesswrong</a>, but I think they are mostly light jabs on the actual content of Tegmark's proposal.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T19:30:12.503Z
I agree. But at the very least, the paper was supported (or rather, funded) by NSF.
pcr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T19:45:15.017Z
How can you tell if the paper won't help him renew his nsf? At least, in physics, it is very common to simply publish your work to arxiv.
pcr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T19:58:10.627Z
Sure, valid point. I get that you are reasonably skeptical to spend your time in reading the "mere arxiv" paper. But I think the paper is just interesting regardless!
pcr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T20:22:22.900Z
Yes, he is a well-known cosmologist. I think the sharp criticism he had, can only mean he is well-received!
pcr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T08:45:34.880Z
@caseyr547 putting pre-prints on the arXiv is not for attention, but a standard practice in physics, theoretical computer science, and most of mathematics. Now, I am not saying you should treat Tegmark's work seriously (I am not yet familiar with this preprint), but you should not misrepresent the arXiv. The preprint in question came out less than a month ago and could easily be under review somewhere. Not that this even matters, since it is just as easy to publish in 3rd rate journals as upload to the arXiv; papers should be judged on their own quality not based on where they appear.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T17:19:53.957Z
@caseyr547 Regarding to the pole positioning case, it should be "Peter Woit said that Tegmark said" (at least he admitted himself, and it was a reasonably thing to do if one had a controversial view while knowing well he could be kicked out of his position, even if he was ready to defend his claim through valid arguments). Isn't it too hasty to conclude that the paper is "yet another Tegmark's 'grandiose nonsense'" before actually reading the content? (or he will just sell books again) I think this paper is more falsifiable in the near future than his level IV claim.
pcr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T23:15:01.460Z
Identical copy of the question is in http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/9553/is-it-truly-necessary-to-upgrade-tononis-criteria-of-consciousness-in-the-integ
pcr
<consciousness><neural-network>
Is it truly necessary to upgrade Tononi's criteria of consciousness in the Integrated Information theory?
pcr
# Is it truly necessary to upgrade Tononi's criteria of consciousness in the Integrated Information theory?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-01-22)

I am referring specifically to a [very recent paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219) by Max Tegmark.
In this paper he proposes 3 more criteria (independence, dynamics, and utility principle) in addition to Tononi's original criteria (information and integration).

I have seen the paper being discussed in [Hacker News](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7024651), [reddit's r/neurophilosophy](http://www.reddit.com/r/neurophilosophy/comments/1uq3c0/14011219_consciousness_as_a_state_of_matter/), and [lesswrong](http://lesswrong.com/lw/jgd/link_consciousness_as_a_state_of_matter_max/), but I think they are mostly light jabs on the actual content of Tegmark's proposal.

**Tags:** consciousness, neural-network

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I agree. But at the very least, the paper was supported (or rather, funded) by NSF.  
> **username_0**: How can you tell if the paper won't help him renew his nsf? At least, in physics, it is very common to simply publish your work to arxiv.  
> **username_0**: Sure, valid point. I get that you are reasonably skeptical to spend your time in reading the "mere arxiv" paper. But I think the paper is just interesting regardless!  
> **username_0**: Yes, he is a well-known cosmologist. I think the sharp criticism he had, can only mean he is well-received!  
> **username_1**: @caseyr547 putting pre-prints on the arXiv is not for attention, but a standard practice in physics, theoretical computer science, and most of mathematics. Now, I am not saying you should treat Tegmark's work seriously (I am not yet familiar with this preprint), but you should not misrepresent the arXiv. The preprint in question came out less than a month ago and could easily be under review somewhere. Not that this even matters, since it is just as easy to publish in 3rd rate journals as upload to the arXiv; papers should be judged on their own quality not based on where they appear.  
> **username_0**: @caseyr547 Regarding to the pole positioning case, it should be "Peter Woit said that Tegmark said" (at least he admitted himself, and it was a reasonably thing to do if one had a controversial view while knowing well he could be kicked out of his position, even if he was ready to defend his claim through valid arguments). Isn't it too hasty to conclude that the paper is "yet another Tegmark's 'grandiose nonsense'" before actually reading the content? (or he will just sell books again) I think this paper is more falsifiable in the near future than his level IV claim.  
> **username_0**: Identical copy of the question is in http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/9553/is-it-truly-necessary-to-upgrade-tononis-criteria-of-consciousness-in-the-integ  

---

## 0 answers

