Talk:Neural correlates of consciousness

Copied from Scholarpedia?

This article from Scholarpedia is almost identical, and does not appear to be freely licensed. Do we have permission to use it? I suppose it is possible that Fmorm (talk · contribs) is Florian Mormann, who coauthored the Scholarpedia article. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

license is unclear

This is the license that applies to the Scholarpedia article. (Unfortunately, we cannot tell by the name alone whether the author of the Wikipedia article is also the author of the Scholarpedia article. Somebody with checkuser access would have to make this determination.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have written to the Editor in Chief of Scholarpedia seeking clarification of the licensing of this article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an update, for those who may monitor copyvios, but not through WP:CP—the general editor of Scholarpedia is checking with the contributors at his source for licensing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I now have confirmation of permission from the general editor and from the contributors at Scholarpedia. I have requested permission in the boilerplate form which I may send to the communications committee. The article has been restored, though it remains blanked pending final resolution of this. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Boulerplate permissions received and duly forwarded. Here's hoping this successfully dots all i's and crosses all t's. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

/me envies whoever got to email Dr. Koch :D  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm quite surprised to find this article rated as only of "Mid" importance. There are few topics that readers see as more important. I have changed it to "Top", the highest level of importance for neuroscience articles. Looie496 (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

   :I'm curious to know what you think is important. What topics were you specifically referring to and why do you think they are important? Unoriginal username123 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I translate this article?

I want to translate this article for japanese wikipedia. Is this licensically OK? And if possible, I want to use figures in this article for japanese wikipedia. Can I upload those figures to wikimedia commons?--Choms (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Any text on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which means you can use it so long as you release the modified form under the same license. The pictures are released under a "Creative Commons Share Alike" license, which means that you can use them and modify them, but you need to attribute the result to the copyright holder (click on the image to see), and you need to release your version under the same license. Looie496 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response!--Choms (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong reference for the definition

The reference given for the definition is wrong. The article mentioned (Crick & Koch, 1990) does not contain this definition. This can be easily verified, as the article can be found here. The link directs to the "Koch Lab publications" site.

Some of the wording of the given definition does appear in Koch 2004, but not quite in the same way. I'm quoting from page 16:

"Whenever information is represented in the NCC you are conscious of it. The goal is to discover the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms jointly sufficient for a specific conscious percept."

Michaliss (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. It isn't presented as a verbatim quote, and it is a reasonable paraphrase of the source. What is a (big!) problem is the way the page lacks inline citations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the original version of this article (which includes that definition) was a direct copy of the Scholarpedia article with the same title, which was largely written by Christof Koch. (The copying was legitimate -- the license for the Scholarpedia article permits it, and the copying was done by F. Mormann, who co-authored the Scholarpedia article. To be clear, I'm not claiming that no improvements are possible, just explaining the background. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I do realize that Koch is a curator for the specific article in the scholarpedia. I have no problem with the definition - but I do think it has been misattributed as it does not appear in the cited article.

I agree, the definition is not presented as a verbatim quote - but is it a reasonable paraphrase of the source? The source cited (Crick & Koch, 1990, an article by Crick & Koch titled Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness, does not contain a definition that looks anything like the one currently in the Wikipedia article. If anything, the definition in the wikipedia article is a paraphrase of the excerpt I have quoted above - but that excerpt comes from the book by Koch "The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach".

So, as the article cited does not contain a definition similar to the one in the wikipedia article, and another source - the book - does contain a similar excerpt, I think it stands to reason that the reference be corrected.

MichalisS (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood your original post. I thought your quote was from the source cited. I would now agree with you that it should be changed to the book, and I'd encourage you to go ahead and do so, since you have the source. It's difficult to be clear about these things, with the page formatted in such a non-standard way. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now adapted the definition and the citation as per this discussion. I have also made a few minor cosmetic changes. Please note: The "brain" picture in this article does not appear in the book. However, an almost identical picture can be found on page 90. That is why I changed the original text (From Koch 2004) to a reference to the specific page 90. Does anyone know if that picture has actually been published in print? If not, then perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the reference. D15724C710N (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to Tryptofish for fixing my punctuation mistakes. I promise to be more careful next time! -- D15724C710N (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! :-) (I don't know the answer to your question about the picture.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics and consciousness

I think the section on "quantum mechanics and consciousness" should be removed from the article. I think this section can only be seen as relevant as a "defense" against an unrealistic eventuality of a quantum theory of consciousness trying to inject itself into the NCC research programme, or as an attempt to define the NCC concept by what it is not. From an encyclopedic point of view, I think neither is necessary or advantegeous. -- D15724C710N (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree; it's pretty bad. However, I think it would be OK to reduce it to just a sentence or two at the end of the section before it, just a brief mention without a section devoted to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right, that is a better idea. The topic would become less prominent but people would still be able to read more about it if they wanted. D15724C710N (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose we replace the section with the following lines:

"Most neurobiologists agree that the relevant variables giving rise to consciousness are to be found at the neuronal level, where the interaction of neurons is governed by classical physics.

A few scholars have proposed that quantum behaviors underlie consciousness. However, there is no evidence that any components of the nervous system display quantum entanglement. Also, even if quantum entanglement were to occur, diffusion and action potential generation and propagation, the principal mechanism for getting information into and out of neurons, would destroy superposition (Koch and Hepp 2006)."

Please let me know what you think. D15724C710N (talk • contribs) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was very helpful. I've boldly gone ahead and made the edit, actually shortening it a bit more. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Even better :-) D15724C710N (talk • contribs) 08:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Definition begs the question of the uniqueness of the minimal set and the precise recognisability of the percept.

The formulation “the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for a specific conscious percept” begs the question whether there is a single such minimal set. Maybe “for a specific conscious percept” is meant to narrow it down to a single instance of a percept, though that is not unambiguous, as it might be taken to mean “for a conscious percept of a specific concept”. However that is interpreted, is it not theoretically possible that two distinct subsets suffice, but that their intersection does not? (Mathematically their could also of course be an infinite descending series of sets whose intersection is insufficient, but that sounds quite inappropriate at the neuronal level.)
It also presumes that the percept is something which can be unambiguously recognised as existing/occurring or not, rather than something which would slowly fade to a vaguer, less specific experience as the set is reduced, without one being able to identify the point at which the percept no longer exists/occurs. PJTraill (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What about { {Neuropsychology} }?

Is it worth adding the template {{Neuropsychology}} to this page? And doesn’t it fit better in Category:Neuropsychology than Category:Neuroscience? PJTraill (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sentence

I don't have special knowledge in this field, but in reading the page the following sentence in the levels of arousal section leapt out as dubious: "In brain death there is no arousal but to assume that the core continuous subjectivity of experience has been interrupted, rather than its link with the organism, is to beg the question." Is it not also begging the question to suggest the opposite, that continuous subjectivity of experience could exist with all links to the organism severed? Am I misreading this sentence (in which case it may be written poorly), or is it suggesting life after death is possible? Is this an appropriate speculation in an article about neuroscience? Is there any mainstream neuroscience that entertains the notion that our consciousness could continue "out of body" with links to the organism interrupted? Could someone with more confident knowledge than I have review this please? Jeffj900 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how one defines "mainstream", but I'd say the short answer is "no". There are all kinds of anecdotal reports, but there obviously are no controlled studies. You are right that the sentence is poorly written, and I'm going to rewrite it. Thanks for pointing this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it also depends on how one defines "brain death". There is some very high quality recent research demonstrating that some patients clinically diagnosed as unresponsive (but not brain dead, just deeply comatose) can actually carry on discussions with other people, if one measures their answers to questions by measuring certain brain wave activity; other similar patients cannot do this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

to much jargon

respectfully, this is full of un needed jagon; percept in the intro; "modality" for method, etc using small words in an encylopedia for the common man is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength, that you know your subjct well enough, and are confident enough, not to resort to 2$ words when a 5cent anglo saxonism will do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the original version of this article, in 2007, was copied directly from a Scholarpedia article written by Christof Koch. (The copying was documented and legitimate; it is not a problem.) The article has been modified since then, but "percept" and "modality" were already present in the original. Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. If I had infinite time, there is so much on Wikipedia where I'd like to go through line-by-line and polish the writing, but of course that's just not in the cards. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Neuronal Basis of Perception

I believe that the section referring to the neuronal basis of perception should be elaborated upon when looking into the other sources. The section refers to the sense of sight more than any other senses. The addition of the senses of audition or olfaction could also added to the section to create a more rounded section when referring to the basis of perception in the brain.Nigist1921 (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neural correlates of consciousness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313192029/http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/glossary.html to http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/glossary.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

'zombie' confusion

Section "Forward versus feedback projections" is mostly about how unconscious "zombie behaviors" relate to conscious behaviors.

- However, the discussion abruptly jumps to "philosophical zombie" in the third through last sentence of paragraph 3 in this section.

- Also note that, with the exception of these sentences, the rest of this section is virtually identical to the same section in the original Scholarpedia article

Here two issues:

1. The third sentence starts with "Other philosophers ..." (referring to notes 34 and 35). However, no specific philosophers are mentioned before this sentence.

-- Any easy fix would be to start the sentence with "Some philosophers ...".

2. A more serious issue is that the "philosophical zombie" arguments discussed in the remainder of the third paragraph seem out of place in this section (and may not even belong in this article about NCC).

-- Note that a "philosophical zombie ... is a hypothetical being that from the outside is indistinguishable from a normal human being but lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience."

-- Therefore a "philosophical zombie" would exhibit both "zombie behaviors" as well as "conscious behaviors" as discussed in the rest of this section.

-- Introducing "philosophical zombie" at this point is potentially confusing, and seems out of place in this section.

-- It is also not clear to me whether the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph ("Several scholars ... human language ... development of higher-order consciousness.") belongs in this section.

-- I suggest removing the 3rd trough last sentence of this paragraph from this section.

-- If you want to retain elements of the 3rd trough last sentence, perhaps they should go near the end of the article.

Gene.S.Miller (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Correlation is not causation

I believe there is a mistake in the following paragraph: "Where the NCC can be induced artificially the subject will experience the associated percept, while perturbing or inactivating the region of correlation for a specific percept will affect the percept or cause it to disappear, giving a cause-effect relationship from the neural region to the nature of the percept."

The proposed examples demonstrate only correlation, if causation could be proven, there would be no debate Brunolan (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hogan twins thalamic connection

There is the very unique case of Krista and Tatiana Hogan twins, their brain are connected by the thalamus and it raises many insights on consciousness and identity.

• Cochrane, Tom (2021). "A case of shared consciousness" (PDF). Synthese. 199 (1–2): 1019–1037. doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02753-6. ISSN 0039-7857.

I'm providing it here as I think it could help improve the article, but it's still quite complex, and others might have better knowledge and understanding to make edits based on those insights. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Refers to" is usually an inane phrase.

"The neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) refer to the relationships between . . ."

That is how this article began.

A word or a phrase may refer to something. Neural correlates themselves do no refer to anything; rather it is the whole four-word phrase "neural correlates of consciousness" that refers to something, and here I say "refers" rather than "refer". The phrase refers. The correlates themselves do not refer.

"A giraffe is an animal with a long neck."

"A giraffe refers to an animal with a long neck."

"The word giraffe refers to an animal with a long neck."

The second sentence above is wrong unless the giraffe speaks about another animal with a long neck. In fact, very few giraffes ever speak.

The third sentence makes the matter more complicated than it really is, unlike the first sentence, and if the article is to be about the animal rather than about the name by which the animal is called, then those complications distract from the topic.

That is the occasion for my recent edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)