  The scientific study of consciousness is currently undergoing a critical
transition in the form of a rapidly evolving scientific debate regarding
whether or not currently proposed theories can be assessed for their scientific
validity. At the forefront of this debate is Integrated Information Theory
(IIT), widely regarded as the preeminent theory of consciousness because of its
quantification of consciousness in terms a scalar mathematical measure called
$\Phi$ that is, in principle, measurable. Epistemological issues in the form of
the "unfolding argument" have provided a refutation of IIT by demonstrating how
it permits functionally identical systems to have differences in their
predicted consciousness. The implication is that IIT and any other proposed
theory based on a system's causal structure may already be falsified even in
the absence of experimental refutation. However, so far the arguments
surrounding the issue of falsification of theories of consciousness are too
abstract to readily determine the scope of their validity. Here, we make these
abstract arguments concrete by providing a simple example of functionally
equivalent machines realizable with table-top electronics that take the form of
isomorphic digital circuits with and without feedback. This allows us to
explicitly demonstrate the different levels of abstraction at which a theory of
consciousness can be assessed. Within this computational hierarchy, we show how
IIT is simultaneously falsified at the finite-state automaton (FSA) level and
unfalsifiable at the combinatorial state automaton (CSA) level. We use this
example to illustrate a more general set of criteria for theories of
consciousness: to avoid being unfalsifiable or already falsified scientific
theories of consciousness must be invariant with respect to changes that leave
the inference procedure fixed at a given level in a computational hierarchy.
