Cognitive Sciences Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for practitioners, researchers, and students in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am referring specifically to a very recent paper 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, reddit's r/neurophilosophy, and lesswrong, but I think they are mostly light jabs on the actual content of Tegmark's proposal.

share|improve this question
I've published in arxiv but serious papers are actually peer reviewed. – user3832 Jan 22 '14 at 19:24
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 Jan 22 '14 at 19:45
For a grant to be renewed by the government it must be based on peer reviewed scientific journal publications or other deliverables. – user3832 Jan 22 '14 at 19:51
@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 Jan 23 '14 at 8:45
Identical copy of the question is in… – pcr Jan 23 '14 at 23:15

Yes in science all things are constantly upgraded. My main concern is that Tegmark's level of specificity has not been validated through peer review so it may be faulty and not suitable to build future theories.

As Rex Kerr points out in examining Tononi's general criteria I'd consider Tegmark's criteria more specific expositions rather than purely novel information. Further specification beyond Tegmark's work seems to be necessary to define consciousness beyond primary like metacognition.

I don't see how a group of conscious individuals like a society having a collective consciousness by sharing information and integrating it into commonality like works of governance, science and art are differentiated from a conscious individual by either Tononi's or Tegmark's current level of specificity.

Edelman, G. M., Tononi, G. (2000). A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination. New York: Basic Books

share|improve this answer
Thanks, I will just put the bounty on your answer to not waste it. Have been reading stuff, I will put my comments in several days. – pcr Feb 5 '14 at 20:56

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.