Changes

In many cases our own introspection (knowledge of our experiences) can be used for model validation. For example, if a model predicts that you and your next-door neighbours have unified visual perception then, without significant modifications, you know the model is wrong. Such clearly erroneous models of consciousness are sometimes referred to as raspberry jam models. However, model validation may become problematic if we doubt the validity of introspective knowledge or philosophical assumptions. For example, consider the set of all models of consciousness that rule out changes to the theory and laws of physics. Such models of consciousness are said to obey the closure of the physical. But, since measurements are physical events, including human reports, all such models will give identical predictions for the result of measurements<ref name=KlinerandHartmann2021>Kleiner J.; Hartmann S. (2021), The Closure of the Physical is Unscientific. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/19609/.</ref>. Ultimately then, once all of the raspberry jam models of consciousness have been removed, we may end up with a number of equivalent models that are highly consistent with introspection. Hence, different ways of selecting between empirically indistinguishable models may have to be appealed such as, for example, internal consistency, completeness, beauty, or simplicity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Occam's razor] might then be a useful guide in the development of mathematically formulated models of consciousness.