The authors in their paper provide an effective criticism to the integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness introduced by Giulio Tononi and colleagues (Mayner et al., Reference Mayner, Marshall, Albantakis, Findlay, Marchman and Tononi2018; Tononi, Reference Tononi2008; Tononi, Boly, Massimini, & Koch, Reference Tononi, Boly, Massimini and Koch2016). Furthermore, they underline of importance of the point of view and its perspective for the phenomenology of consciousness. In their words: “IIT, by fiat, trivializes the concept of perspective or point of view by reducing it to the notion of individuation in terms of Φ.” In my commentary, I want to deepen this point by showing that according to the laws of physics (special relativity), the physical substrate of integrated information is dependent on the reference frame used to observe it. Finally, I will use a thought experiment to underline the problems that neglecting reference frames may cause to consciousness research.
Reference frames and their role in physics
In physics, the concept of reference frame – where an observer is standing – plays a critical role (Hamilton, Reference Hamilton1978): On one hand, it provides an abstract coordinate system that standardize measurements within that frame; on the other hand, it allows study of the effect of motion upon an entire family of coordinate systems that could be attached to this frame. In other words, two observers of the same phenomenon (i.e., the movement of a ball), located in different frames of reference (i.e., on the ball and looking at the ball) see a different movement.
In particular, reference frames play a central role in Einstein's special theory of relativity (Bohm, Reference Bohm1996): According to it, there is not an absolute frame of reference in our universe. In other words, all motion is relative to the reference frame used. An example can help. Probably, you are now reading this paper sitting on a chair in your office. Therefore, using as your reference frame the floor of your office you consider yourself as stationary. However, at the same time our earth is rotating at a speed of 460 m/s around the sun. In this view, using as reference frame the center of the sun, we are actually moving very, very fast. In conclusions, according to the law of physics, the decision if an object is moving or not is not absolute but always dependent on the reference frame used to observe it.
Information and physics
Is this law relevant for information, too? The answer to this question is strictly related to another question: Is information dependent on the laws of physics? In the past, different attempts to incorporate information into physics have regarded information itself as an a priori mathematical or logical concept. However, David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto introduced the “constructor theory of information” suggesting that information can be incorporated into physics (Deutsch & Marletto, Reference Deutsch and Marletto2015). In their own words: “Our theory of information consists of proposed principles of physics that explain the regularities in physical systems that are associated with information, including quantum information… So, the laws governing information, like those governing computation – but unlike those governing prime numbers – are laws of physics” (p. 2).
Following this point, a theory of integrated information cannot be independent from the reference frame used to define the physical substrate of consciousness. To explain this claim, I will use a simple thought experiment, that can be considered a technological version of the Plato allegory of the cave: Can a neuroscientist, locked in a closed room with a notebook connected through Zoom with his grandmother – a setting very common in these days – and not aware that she is not in the PC, to use the IIT model to demonstrate that the consciousness of his grannie is NOT in the PC?
Apparently not. As stated in the paper, the core of IIT is integrated information, or “…the amount of information generated by a complex of elements, above and beyond the information generated by its parts” (Tononi, Reference Tononi2008, p. 216). Well, using as reference frame the closed room, this definition fits well the experience of the neuroscientist speaking with his grandmother through the PC. Put it simply, the amount of information generated by the notebook is able to provide the neuroscientist the experience of a conscious grandmother. Furthermore, the analysis of the information provided by the notebook meets the different axioms of IIT: intrinsic existence, composition, information, integration, and exclusion (Tononi et al., Reference Tononi, Boly, Massimini and Koch2016).
However, without exiting from the closed room – changing the reference frame – the study of the integrated information generated by the notebook and its physical substrate will never allow the neuroscientist to really understand the consciousness of his grandmother.
Conclusions
Can our brain be really equivalent to the notebook used in the thought experiment? Well, according to Plato and Cartesio, yes. However, moving from philosophy to science, there is a popular theory of consciousness – the “Orchestrated Objective Reduction” (Orch OR) theory – suggesting that consciousness originates at the quantum level in microtubules inside brain neurons (Hameroff & Penrose, Reference Hameroff and Penrose2014). Specifically, according to Hameroff (Reference Hameroff2021): “microtubules ‘orchestrated’ quantum superpositions, encoding inputs, and memory as entangled qubits of collective quantum dipole oscillations (‘Orch’). These then compute and terminate by ‘orchestrated OR’ (‘Orch OR’), producing conscious moments, and selecting microtubule states which regulate neurons” (p. 74). A critical feature of the quantum computations in microtubules is quantum entanglement (Horodecki, Horodecki, Horodecki, & Horodecki, Reference Horodecki, Horodecki, Horodecki and Horodecki2009): Entangled particles are connected (in some sense) so that they cannot be described independently of the state of the others, no matter the distance between them. In other words, the computations in the microtubules involve entangled particles that may be not located inside the brain. As discussed above, the only way to see if this is true, is exiting from the neuroscientist's closed room. Unfortunately, we haven't find the key, yet.
You have
Access
The authors in their paper provide an effective criticism to the integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness introduced by Giulio Tononi and colleagues (Mayner et al., Reference Mayner, Marshall, Albantakis, Findlay, Marchman and Tononi2018; Tononi, Reference Tononi2008; Tononi, Boly, Massimini, & Koch, Reference Tononi, Boly, Massimini and Koch2016). Furthermore, they underline of importance of the point of view and its perspective for the phenomenology of consciousness. In their words: “IIT, by fiat, trivializes the concept of perspective or point of view by reducing it to the notion of individuation in terms of Φ.” In my commentary, I want to deepen this point by showing that according to the laws of physics (special relativity), the physical substrate of integrated information is dependent on the reference frame used to observe it. Finally, I will use a thought experiment to underline the problems that neglecting reference frames may cause to consciousness research.
Reference frames and their role in physics
In physics, the concept of reference frame – where an observer is standing – plays a critical role (Hamilton, Reference Hamilton1978): On one hand, it provides an abstract coordinate system that standardize measurements within that frame; on the other hand, it allows study of the effect of motion upon an entire family of coordinate systems that could be attached to this frame. In other words, two observers of the same phenomenon (i.e., the movement of a ball), located in different frames of reference (i.e., on the ball and looking at the ball) see a different movement.
In particular, reference frames play a central role in Einstein's special theory of relativity (Bohm, Reference Bohm1996): According to it, there is not an absolute frame of reference in our universe. In other words, all motion is relative to the reference frame used. An example can help. Probably, you are now reading this paper sitting on a chair in your office. Therefore, using as your reference frame the floor of your office you consider yourself as stationary. However, at the same time our earth is rotating at a speed of 460 m/s around the sun. In this view, using as reference frame the center of the sun, we are actually moving very, very fast. In conclusions, according to the law of physics, the decision if an object is moving or not is not absolute but always dependent on the reference frame used to observe it.
Information and physics
Is this law relevant for information, too? The answer to this question is strictly related to another question: Is information dependent on the laws of physics? In the past, different attempts to incorporate information into physics have regarded information itself as an a priori mathematical or logical concept. However, David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto introduced the “constructor theory of information” suggesting that information can be incorporated into physics (Deutsch & Marletto, Reference Deutsch and Marletto2015). In their own words: “Our theory of information consists of proposed principles of physics that explain the regularities in physical systems that are associated with information, including quantum information… So, the laws governing information, like those governing computation – but unlike those governing prime numbers – are laws of physics” (p. 2).
Following this point, a theory of integrated information cannot be independent from the reference frame used to define the physical substrate of consciousness. To explain this claim, I will use a simple thought experiment, that can be considered a technological version of the Plato allegory of the cave: Can a neuroscientist, locked in a closed room with a notebook connected through Zoom with his grandmother – a setting very common in these days – and not aware that she is not in the PC, to use the IIT model to demonstrate that the consciousness of his grannie is NOT in the PC?
Apparently not. As stated in the paper, the core of IIT is integrated information, or “…the amount of information generated by a complex of elements, above and beyond the information generated by its parts” (Tononi, Reference Tononi2008, p. 216). Well, using as reference frame the closed room, this definition fits well the experience of the neuroscientist speaking with his grandmother through the PC. Put it simply, the amount of information generated by the notebook is able to provide the neuroscientist the experience of a conscious grandmother. Furthermore, the analysis of the information provided by the notebook meets the different axioms of IIT: intrinsic existence, composition, information, integration, and exclusion (Tononi et al., Reference Tononi, Boly, Massimini and Koch2016).
However, without exiting from the closed room – changing the reference frame – the study of the integrated information generated by the notebook and its physical substrate will never allow the neuroscientist to really understand the consciousness of his grandmother.
Conclusions
Can our brain be really equivalent to the notebook used in the thought experiment? Well, according to Plato and Cartesio, yes. However, moving from philosophy to science, there is a popular theory of consciousness – the “Orchestrated Objective Reduction” (Orch OR) theory – suggesting that consciousness originates at the quantum level in microtubules inside brain neurons (Hameroff & Penrose, Reference Hameroff and Penrose2014). Specifically, according to Hameroff (Reference Hameroff2021): “microtubules ‘orchestrated’ quantum superpositions, encoding inputs, and memory as entangled qubits of collective quantum dipole oscillations (‘Orch’). These then compute and terminate by ‘orchestrated OR’ (‘Orch OR’), producing conscious moments, and selecting microtubule states which regulate neurons” (p. 74). A critical feature of the quantum computations in microtubules is quantum entanglement (Horodecki, Horodecki, Horodecki, & Horodecki, Reference Horodecki, Horodecki, Horodecki and Horodecki2009): Entangled particles are connected (in some sense) so that they cannot be described independently of the state of the others, no matter the distance between them. In other words, the computations in the microtubules involve entangled particles that may be not located inside the brain. As discussed above, the only way to see if this is true, is exiting from the neuroscientist's closed room. Unfortunately, we haven't find the key, yet.
Conflict of interest
None.