"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality" -Carl Sagan

"It appears that we are approaching a unique time in the history of man and science where empirical measures and deductive reasoning can actually inform us spiritually. Integrated Information Theory (IIT)--put forth by neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch--is a new framework that describes a way to experimentally measure the extent to which a system is conscious."

http://www.huffingtonpos...ost_10079_b_8160914.html

I *LOVE* integrated information theory. It's far and away the most satisfying attempt to scientifically study the phenomenon of consciousness I've ever come across. The best part is, it's testable (at least, hypothetically), which means it's real science, not the usual philosophical jibber jabber that comes out when most people propose theories about consciousness.

The original theorist, Tononi, wrote a fascinating, but deeply impenetrable, book called 'Phi,' which I highly recommend anyone with any interest in consciousness read. The original papers in which he proposed ITT are available for free online, and those are also fun way to spend a few hours.

Blessings
~ND

Having read up on it a bit, it is certainly intriguing! It seems like if there is something to this and evidence can be obtained, that it would provide a scientific validation for panpsychism...I kinda like this, consciousness being on a sliding scale, a continuum throughout nature, rather than just being the property of a few beings deemed sentient. I do sometimes think we are still getting over the hangover of Abrahamic religions which declare Man as the only beings as possessing soul, and true conscious awareness.

This is a challenge to the integrated information theory by Susan Pockett.

"Problems with theories that equate consciousness with information or information processing"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih....pmc/articles/PMC4243501/

Certainly interesting ideas here, but AFAICS it is only the blog author who applies the epithet "spiritual". I could not find any mention of the word "spiritual" while cursorily searching Tononi and Koch and their theories. All I could find was other people using them or their ideas as strawmen for "spirituality", whatever that may mean.

Yeah, the title of this particular article is terrible.

Blessings
~ND

Yeah I think that was a textbook example of journalistic click baitery in action! Interesting stuff though, good to see attempted progress at studying consciousness in a scientific context.

I've only read the OP article, thanks for referring.

More counted data flow = more consciousness, as a "given fact"?

If one constrains / re-defines consciousness to the potential levels of science (counting activity), off course you get the idea that science approaches consciousness. Did IIT really come closer to consciousness, or did it tailored "consciousness" toward science?

Can consciousness really not exist without an activity in matter-realm?
The IIT definitions blocks that possibility IMO.

Here's a little thing to nerd-out over.
http://journals.plos.org...71/journal.pcbi.1003588

I love the way it is laid out like the rules of a game, makes for visualising the abstract concepts a little easier.

Also I'm sure you've heard of this, but another invaluable resource for those interested in this thing.

http://integratedinformationtheory.org/