I agree that the recent media coverage on consciousness research has done considerable damage to it. If we want consciousness research to be taken seriously, scientific rigor (e.g., good and timely peer review) should not be neglected at the cost of public attention (e.g., emotionally charged public events). Concerning IIT, while I respect and appreciate its theoretical ideas, I agree that especially its physiological hypotheses (e.g., anatomical NCC in a "posterior cortical hot zone") are too vague for truly meaningful tests. However, I do not think that the derogative term "pseudoscience" is justified.
I share the feeling that current consciousness research is too political and too much focused on people rather than their science. While public attention and interest in the topic is a good thing, overly dramatic media coverage should be avoided (and not encouraged).
I agree that IIT would benefit from more specific, testable physiological predictions (unlike, e.g., neural activity in a "posterior cortical hot zone").
null
null
null
