🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

My guess is >50% of these authors don’t actually understand (or actively misunderstand) IIT (perhaps part of why they don’t like it). But at least they now get to say they’ve co-authored with Chris Frith, Jospeh LeDoux, and Daniel Dennett. The Century of the Stamping Feet.

IIT is pseudoscience, sure, but that is a good question. IMO many psychologists and "cognitive scientists" often rely on perceived authority and this seems to be an example of exactly that - an appeal to the authority of a vote.

I wonder whether all the signatories of the letter actually bothered to read published IIT papers and thought about them and then decided to support the claim that IIT is pseudoscience. Since it’s such a strong claim, I believe some level of understanding is necessary.

Fortunately, what counts as pseudoscience can be settled by a vote, so the large number of signatories on this letter should bring the whole matter to a close.

Turns out this IIT letter was sent around asking for cosigners with the offer that signing up would get you a nature or science paper. 100+ people with no knowledge of IIT put their credibility on the line for promise of some job tokens.

I admit, with our broken system science and nature paper are big job tokens. Little wonder culture is shifting to be anti-"expert". Thanks everyone. Keep up the good work. Keep trading what little credibility you have for appearance of prestige at every chance

Yesterday a letter from 100 scientists declared the popular theory of consciousness - Integrated Information Theory - is "pseudoscience." And that media about it is "scientific misinformation." The letter is bad. Here's my reply why: theintrinsicperspective.com/p/ambitious-th…

Unai Aso | Psicólogo Sanitario Yeah but they have to give relevant arguments. They can’t just lean on their expertise. And the letter contains - and I’m being generous - *sparse* justification

The current drama in the consciousness field re. the hyperauthored paper attempting to falsifiability-shame IIT is less about scientific standards than it is about imposing costs on those who dare bypass the gatekeeping function of peer review. More crabs-in-a-bucket than an

Congrats to our Teaching to Disrupt Award winners! 📖✨ [cont.]: 🏆 Lucila Newell, Sussex Global🏳️‍🌈✊🏽✊🏾✊🏿 🏆 Nat Arias, Sussex Global🏳️‍🌈✊🏽✊🏾✊🏿 🏆 Pablo Iglesias-Rodriguez Pablo Iglesias-Rodríguez, Sussex Law 🏆 Warrick Roseboom, Engineering and Informatics at Sussex #SussexEducationAwards (2/2)

Seriously tho, wtf is wrong with academics?

3/ People interested in their findings may also be interested in prior work led by Warrick Roseboom (not cited), which takes a similar approach, but which extends to dynamic images (since the world is not static). So the aspect wasn't entirely missing ...

4/ A first paper (2019, Nature Communications) combines psychophysics and neural network (CNN) models to explain duration perception in terms of accumlated salient activity in perceptual hierarchies #OpenAccess nature.com/articles/s4146…

5/ A second paper, (2022, PLOS Comp Biol, led by @maxine_sherman) extends this to neuroimaging, showing that human visual cortical activity provides a sufficient basis for reconstructing subjective duration - again of dynamic scenes, with varying content journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/a…

6/ A third paper (2022, Neural Computation, led by Zafeirios Fountas) extends the approach to a predictive processing model including episodic memory, accounting for duration perception of past and present events direct.mit.edu/neco/article-a…

7/ These papers are summarised in this easy-to-read preprint (to be a book chapter): "The perception of time in humans, brains, and machines" (subject of a BIAL Foundation lecture I gave in 2022). osf.io/preprints/psya…