<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Indicators and Criteria of Consciousness in Animals and Intelligent Machines: An Inside-Out Approach</title>
        <author>Pennartz</author>
        <author>Farisco</author>
        <author>Evers</author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <p>Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the
           staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in
           standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.</p>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <title>Indicators and Criteria of Consciousness in Animals and Intelligent Machines: An Inside-Out Approach</title>
          <date>2019</date>
          <publisher>Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience</publisher>
          
          
          <idno type="record">Pennartz2019-indicators-and-criteria-of-consciousness-in</idno>
          <note type="staged-file">Pennartz2019-indicators-and-criteria-of-consciousness-in.txt, the project's staged copy</note>
          <note type="text-sha1">9ac9c5a3a77f7b75169fdbdfce887ae1a35d66fe</note>
          <note type="rights">not-redistributable</note>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <textClass><keywords><term>neuroscience</term></keywords></textClass>
      <particDesc>
        <person xml:id="paper"><p>the paper's own words</p></person>
        <person xml:id="tagger"><p>the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the
          paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation</p></person>
      </particDesc>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change when="2026-10-06"
              who="build_paper_edition.py">0 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them</change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <standOff>
    <spanGrp type="tags">
      <span xml:id="t0" type="object_of_study" ana="#object_of_study" resp="#paper">
        <label>how to decide which non-human and non-verbal beings possess a property that they cannot report, when no single measurement settles it</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t1" type="research_question" ana="#research_question" resp="#paper">
        <label>whether features of conscious experience, which correlate to mechanisms inside the brain, can be logically coupled to externally observable properties</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t2" type="contribution" ana="#contribution" resp="#paper">
        <label>six indicators whose CONSISTENCY, rather than any one of which, is used to assess consciousness, integrated into a graded criterion</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t3" type="claim_type" ana="#claim_type" resp="#paper">
        <label>method</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t4" type="phenomenon" ana="#phenomenon" resp="#paper">
        <label>consciousness in non-verbal animals and machines</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t5" type="method" ana="#method" resp="#paper">
        <label>review</label>
        <term>review</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t6" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>Complex decisions require many variables to be weighed at once, which single-stimulus reflex and habit circuits cannot do; evolution answered this by building brain systems that actively generate rapidly updatable world surveys, and having such a survey is what conscious experience is</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t7" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>Being fooled by an illusion is possible only if the brain runs an internal model of the causes of sensory input that can, under ambiguity, make perception deviate from the actual generating process - which is why illusion susceptibility indicates conscious, inferential processing</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t8" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>mechanisms</label>
        <term>Events must be consciously experienced before they can be stored in declarative memory, so a retrievable episodic trace works backwards as evidence that the original event was experienced consciously</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t9" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>consciousness HAS A BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION, which is to PRESENT THE SUBJECT WITH A MULTIMODAL, SITUATIONAL SURVEY of the surrounding world and body, subserving complex decision-making - and this survey REFLECTS THE BRAIN&#x27;S CAPACITY FOR INTERNAL MODELING of external events</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t10" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>and the choice of construct is justified by what can be measured - volition and voluntary decision-making HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT TO TEST OR QUANTIFY IN PRACTICE, WHEREAS GOAL-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR IS A WELL-DEFINED CONCEPT THAT HAS BEEN OPERATIONALIZED in studies on animal behavior</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t11" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The article deliberately adopts a narrow, sensory notion of experience and does not defend it against more inclusive views.</label>
        <note>what this limits: the scope of the whole framework: WE DO NOT THEORETICALLY DENY THE POSSIBILITY OF ADOPTING A MORE INCLUSIVE VIEW ON SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE - the narrow sensory notion is adopted, not defended</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t12" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>No proposed indicator constitutes proof of consciousness.</label>
        <note>what this limits: every indicator in the scheme: NONE OF THE PROPOSED INDICATORS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS HARD IN THE SENSE THAT ITS SATISFACTION WOULD OFFER PROOF OF CONSCIOUSNESS</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t13" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Entire taxa are left out of the review because the required evidence is missing.</label>
        <note>what this limits: the taxonomic reach of the review: SPACE IS LACKING TO REVIEW INDICATORS ... FOR AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES AND INVERTEBRATE SPECIES, SUCH AS CEPHALOPODS AND INSECTS</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t14" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The scheme is still a general heuristic rather than a quantified scale.</label>
        <note>what this limits: any quantitative use of the scheme: IT OFFERS AS YET A FAIRLY GENERAL HEURISTIC, not a scale</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t15" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>AN ENTITY MIGHT BE CONSCIOUS EVEN IF IT FAILS TO SATISFY THEM - absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, and at the same time ONE MUST BE CAUTIOUS NOT TO ATTRIBUTE CONSCIOUSNESS TO ANY ARBITRARY OBJECT without further argumentation</label>
        <note>what this limits: determining who or what may be conscious, where the indicators can fail in both directions</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t16" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>the approach IS NECESSARILY INDIRECT AND DOES NOT YIELD DEFINITIVE PROOF, BUT RATHER INDICATIONS - an unavoidable consequence of the position that another being&#x27;s experience is subjective and that knowledge of it IS ALWAYS INFERENTIAL</label>
        <note>what this limits: the epistemic status of every conclusion drawn with it: THIS APPROACH IS NECESSARILY INDIRECT AND DOES NOT YIELD DEFINITIVE PROOF, BUT RATHER INDICATIONS</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t17" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>EACH DEFINITION of a criterion or indicator DEPENDS ON ASSUMPTIONS BEING MADE about what a conscious experience is, how it arises, and what its function may be</label>
        <note>what this limits: the criteria themselves, and this bounds the entire enterprise: EACH DEFINITION OF A CRITERION OR INDICATOR OF CONSCIOUSNESS DEPENDS ON ASSUMPTIONS BEING MADE ON WHAT A CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE IS - the criterion presupposes the definition it is meant to operationalise</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t18" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>clinical indices have two disadvantages - they MAY BE SPECIFIC TO THE HUMAN BRAIN and may not apply to nervous systems that differ substantially, and THE RANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY ARE VALID IS INCOMPLETELY KNOWN as they are not derived from a fundamental theory</label>
        <note>what this limits: nervous systems that differ substantially in structure or function, such as cephalopods</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t19" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>COGNITION DOES NOT ENTAIL CONSCIOUSNESS - cognitive activity inferred via brain activity correlates DOES NOT NECESSARILY CORRESPOND TO CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE</label>
        <note>what this limits: any inference from cognitive measures to consciousness: COGNITION DOES NOT ENTAIL CONSCIOUSNESS; COGNITIVE ACTIVITY (INFERRED VIA BRAIN ACTIVITY CORRELATES) DOES NOT NECESSARILY CORRESPOND TO conscious experience</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t20" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[9]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>for behaviorally unresponsive patients, CURRENTLY NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED CRITERIA ARE AVAILABLE</label>
        <note>what this limits: the clinical case specifically: for behaviourally unresponsive patients, CURRENTLY NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED CRITERIA ARE AVAILABLE</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t21" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[10]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>and the animal verdict is hedged in the sentence that states it - THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT COMPLETELY UNAMBIGUOUS AND IS CERTAINLY FAR FROM COMPLETE</label>
        <note>what this limits: the animal verdict itself, hedged in the sentence that states it: THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT COMPLETELY UNAMBIGUOUS (AND IS CERTAINLY FAR FROM COMPLETE)</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t22" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>the summed multi-test scoring logic of the Glasgow Coma Scale, imported to grade consciousness across animal species</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t23" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) adopted as the method for choosing between competing consciousness theories</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t24" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>the Glasgow Coma Scale as the model for an integrated, graded score built from several observations rather than one test</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t25" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>the rule that a phenomenon may be attributed to a system only where the system displays manifest properties of it, argued through magnetism in iron against plastic</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t26" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>goal-directed behavior as an operationalised construct, imported because volition could not be quantified</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t27" type="transfers" ana="#transfers[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>prolonged observation across varying circumstances, proposed as the test for machines in place of a single interrogation</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t28" type="controls" ana="#controls[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>the requirement that a theoretical measure be tested against phenomena researchers can independently agree on</label>
        <note>eliminates: a measure that cannot be checked - THE VALIDITY of theoretically derived measures CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY TESTING THEM AGAINST OTHER, USUALLY EXTERNALLY OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t29" type="controls" ana="#controls[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>asking of a theory what would count as disproving it</label>
        <note>eliminates: an untestable framework - A PROBLEM FOR IIT IS THAT NO CRITERIA ARE OFFERED TO ALLOW TO TEST WHETHER IT IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT, and the reply that it needs no cross-validation WOULD MAKE THE THEORY IMMUNE against cross-examination · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): failed</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t30" type="controls" ana="#controls[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>requiring that indicators be compatible with more than one theory of the thing they indicate</label>
        <note>eliminates: indicators that only work inside the framework that proposed them - they are linked to this framework but ARE COMPATIBLE WITH MORE THAN ONE THEORY AND COULD THUS SERVE AS A MORE GENERAL TESTBED · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t31" type="controls" ana="#controls[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>prolonged ethological observation instead of a single interrogation</label>
        <note>eliminates: pre-programmed solutions passing as the real thing - the evidence WILL OPTIMALLY ACCUMULATE ACROSS THE STUDY OF MULTIPLE BEHAVIORS maintained under varying circumstances under which STEREOTYPICAL, PRE-PROGRAMMED SOLUTIONS CAN BE EXCLUDED · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t32" type="senses" ana="#senses[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>NO HARD THRESHOLD, SIX INDICATORS, AND THE VERDICT COMES FROM THEIR CONSISTENCY: INSTEAD OF PROPOSING CRITERIA THAT WOULD EACH DEFINE A HARD THRESHOLD, we outline six indicators - and RATHER THAN EMPHASIZING A PARTICULAR INDICATOR AS BEING DECISIVE, THE CONSISTENCY AMONGST THESE INDICATORS CAN SERVE TO ASSESS consciousness</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t33" type="senses" ana="#senses[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>with the output a SCORE rather than a verdict: THE INTEGRATION OF SCORES ON THE VARIOUS INDICATORS YIELDS AN OVERALL, GRADED CRITERION, SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE TO THE GLASGOW COMA SCALE for unresponsive patients</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t34" type="senses" ana="#senses[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>AND A SINGLE NUMBER IS EXPLICITLY REFUSED AS EVIDENCE: the validity of theoretically derived measures SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE QUANTIFIABLE MEASURE, BUT REQUIRES CROSS-EXAMINATION ACROSS MULTIPLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t35" type="senses" ana="#senses[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>THE WORD IS CHOSEN TO AVOID A CONNOTATION, AND THE REASON IS GIVEN: many criteria can be best circumscribed as INDICATORS of consciousness, A TERM WHICH AVOIDS THE CONNOTATION OF CRITERION WITH A HARD THRESHOLD in judging whether someone or something is conscious - and OPERATIONAL means SUFFICIENTLY CONCRETE TO APPLY THEM IN THE PRACTICE OF OBSERVING</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t36" type="senses" ana="#senses[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>and a synonym is declared WITH the dissent attached: we will use CONSCIOUSNESS INTERCHANGEABLY WITH AWARENESS, WITHOUT DENYING THAT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM HAS BEEN DRAWN in some previously proposed frameworks</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t37" type="senses" ana="#senses[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>THE CRITERIA CAN FAIL IN BOTH DIRECTIONS AND THE PAPER SAYS SO IN ITS INTRODUCTION: AN ENTITY MIGHT BE CONSCIOUS EVEN IF IT FAILS TO SATISFY THEM, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE - and equally, ONE MUST BE CAUTIOUS NOT TO ATTRIBUTE CONSCIOUSNESS TO ANY ARBITRARY OBJECT IN NATURE WITHOUT FURTHER ARGUMENTATION</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t38" type="senses" ana="#senses[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>with the epistemic ceiling stated as a consequence rather than a caveat: the approach IS NECESSARILY INDIRECT AND DOES NOT YIELD DEFINITIVE PROOF, BUT RATHER INDICATIONS, because knowledge about another subject&#x27;s experience IS ALWAYS INFERENTIAL</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t39" type="senses" ana="#senses[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>and every definition is made to declare its own priors: EACH DEFINITION OF A CRITERION OR INDICATOR DEPENDS ON ASSUMPTIONS BEING MADE ON WHAT A CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE IS, if and how it arises, WHAT ITS BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION MAY BE, and how it relates to basic computational operations</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t40" type="senses" ana="#senses[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>A MEASURE THAT CANNOT BE CROSS-VALIDATED IS REFUSED: A PROBLEM FOR IIT IS THAT NO CRITERIA ARE OFFERED TO ALLOW TO TEST WHETHER IT IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT - and the defense that it needs no cross-validation IS FLAWED BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE THE THEORY IMMUNE AGAINST ANY FORM OF CROSS-EXAMINATION</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t41" type="senses" ana="#senses[9]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>with the general principle stated in one sentence, about magnetism: A PARTICULAR PHENOMENON X CAN ONLY BE CLAIMED TO OCCUR IN A SYSTEM IF THE SYSTEM EXHIBITS MANIFEST PROPERTIES INDICATING THAT X IS OCCURRING IN THAT SYSTEM - iron but not plastic can be said to have magnetic properties BECAUSE IT DISPLAYS properties of attraction and repulsion</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t42" type="senses" ana="#senses[10]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>AND A CATEGORY THAT APPLIES TO EVERYTHING CARRIES NO INFORMATION: the term UNAWARENESS ONLY FINDS LINGUISTIC USE IF IT ARBITRATES BETWEEN CONTRASTING STATES - IF EVERYTHING IN OUR ENVIRONMENT WOULD ALWAYS BE CONSCIOUS, THE CONCEPT WOULD LOSE ITS USEFULNESS IN DAILY OR SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t43" type="senses" ana="#senses[11]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>and a measure is faulted for having no referent: the quantity DOES NOT REFER TO ANYTHING BEYOND THE SYSTEM&#x27;S STATE IT DESCRIBES, it LEAVES THE KEY FEATURE OF INTENTIONALITY UNRESOLVED, and DOES NOT QUANTIFY TO WHAT EXTENT a system GENERATES BELIEFS ABOUT, OR REPRESENTATIONS OF, SOMETHING</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t44" type="senses" ana="#senses[12]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>with the indicators deliberately built to outlive the theory that proposed them: they are linked to this framework but ARE COMPATIBLE WITH MORE THAN ONE THEORY AND COULD THUS SERVE AS A MORE GENERAL TESTBED</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t45" type="senses" ana="#senses[13]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>AN EXISTING CLINICAL INDEX FAULTED ON TWO GROUNDS: it MAY BE SPECIFIC TO THE HUMAN BRAIN AND MAY NOT APPLY to nervous systems that differ substantially, and THE RANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT IS VALID IS INCOMPLETELY KNOWN AS IT IS NOT DERIVED FROM A FUNDAMENTAL THEORY</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t46" type="senses" ana="#senses[14]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>and a correlate that does not carry the thing: COGNITION DOES NOT ENTAIL CONSCIOUSNESS - cognitive activity, INFERRED VIA BRAIN ACTIVITY CORRELATES, DOES NOT NECESSARILY CORRESPOND TO CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t47" type="senses" ana="#senses[15]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>with the state of the art stated plainly for the hardest case: CURRENTLY NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED CRITERIA ARE AVAILABLE for behaviorally unresponsive patients</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t48" type="senses" ana="#senses[16]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>A behavior CAN SATISFY AN INDICATOR WITHOUT THE THING BEING THERE: THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DEFINITION OF GOAL-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR THAT PRECLUDES PRE-PROGRAMMED BEHAVIORS FROM SATISFYING IT - a robot kicks a ball into a goal IN A PRE-PROGRAMMED FASHION AND WILL STEREOTYPICALLY REPEAT ITS ACTION PATTERN</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t49" type="senses" ana="#senses[17]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>and the same indicator may be met by a different route entirely: artificial systems MAY DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO SATISFY BEHAVIORAL INDICATORS by computing solutions IN DIFFERENT WAYS THAN THOSE EVOLVED THROUGH BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, so machines COULD DISPLAY SUCH INTELLIGENT, NON-AUTOMATED BEHAVIORS WITHOUT NECESSARILY BEING CONSCIOUS</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t50" type="senses" ana="#senses[18]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>so the test must be longitudinal rather than a snapshot: a different approach is needed THAN A BRIEF TURING-TYPE OF TEST WHICH ONLY PROVIDES A SNAPSHOT of a machine&#x27;s cognitive capacities OBTAINED BY INTERROGATION, and ADDITIONAL CRITERIA MAY WELL BE NEEDED</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t51" type="senses" ana="#senses[19]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>with the rationale for accumulation stated: the evidence WILL OPTIMALLY ACCUMULATE ACROSS THE STUDY OF MULTIPLE BEHAVIORS, MAINTAINED UNDER VARYING ENVIRONMENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH STEREOTYPICAL, PRE-PROGRAMMED SOLUTIONS CAN BE EXCLUDED</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t52" type="senses" ana="#senses[20]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>and the current verdict on machines given as a status, not a conclusion: CURRENT INTELLIGENT MACHINES, INCLUDING DEEP LEARNING NEURAL NETWORKS AND AGILE ROBOTS, ARE NOT INDICATED TO BE CONSCIOUS YET</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t53" type="senses" ana="#senses[21]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>THE ANIMAL VERDICT CARRIES ITS OWN HEDGE IN THE SAME SENTENCE: although THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT COMPLETELY UNAMBIGUOUS AND IS CERTAINLY FAR FROM COMPLETE, THE FORCE OF THE COMBINED ANATOMIC, PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL-COGNITIVE ARGUMENTS MAKES A FAIRLY STRONG CASE that rodents and birds do have consciousness</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t54" type="senses" ana="#senses[22]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>and the method is declared plural on purpose: THIS APPROACH IS PLURALISTIC IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS OPEN TO RECOGNIZING THE VALIDITY OF MULTIPLE SOURCES OF POTENTIAL EVIDENCE - PHYSIOLOGICAL, BEHAVIORAL, ANATOMICAL</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t55" type="senses" ana="#senses[23]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>with the construct chosen for its measurability rather than its centrality: volition and voluntary decision-making HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT TO TEST OR QUANTIFY IN PRACTICE, WHEREAS GOAL-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR IS A WELL-DEFINED CONCEPT THAT HAS BEEN OPERATIONALIZED in studies on animal behavior</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t56" type="alternatives" ana="#alternatives.claim_type" resp="#tagger">
        <label>claim_type: method</label>
        <note>a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: method — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t57" type="alternatives" ana="#alternatives.method" resp="#tagger">
        <label>method: an inside-out approach - start from features attributed to subjective experience and infer externally observable properties, recognising multiple kinds of evidence as valid</label>
        <note>a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: review — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t58" type="alternatives" ana="#alternatives.phenomenon" resp="#tagger">
        <label>phenomenon: a multimodal, situational survey of the surrounding world and body, which the paper argues is what consciousness is for</label>
        <note>a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: consciousness in non-verbal animals and machines — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t59" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>contradicts → Integrated Information Theory (Tononi, 2004; Tononi et al., 2016)</label>
        <note>differs in: whether one component suffices: IIT&#x27;S CRITERION FOR ASCRIBING CONSCIOUSNESS TO A SYSTEM IS INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE INTEGRATED INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSTITUTES ONLY ONE COMPONENT OF THE TYPE OF WORLD-MODELING ACTIVITY WE CALL CONSCIOUSNESS</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t60" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>contradicts → Ressler (2004), who proposed learning per se as a criterion for consciousness</label>
        <note>differs in: whether learning is enough on its own: OUR POSITION DIVERGES FROM (RESSLER, 2004) WHO ARGUED THAT LEARNING PER SE MAY BE USED AS CRITERION FOR CONSCIOUSNESS, AS ILLUSTRATED BY CONDITIONING IN HONEYBEES</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t61" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>contradicts → Gutfreund (2017)</label>
        <note>differs in: whether computation and consciousness compete: COMPUTATION AND CONSCIOUSNESS ARE NOT TWO PHENOMENA STANDING IN OPPOSITION TO EACH OTHER, so AN INCREASED UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPUTATIONAL MECHANISMS... DOES NOT MAKE IT LESS LIKELY THAT THIS SPECIES IS CONSCIOUS</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t62" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>builds-on → Seth et al. (2005) on functional analogs of cortex and thalamus</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t63" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>critiques → criteria that define a hard threshold, in favour of indicators whose consistency is read together</label>
        <note>differs in: whether any single indicator is treated as decisive</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t64" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>critiques → Information Integration Theory, which offers no criteria by which it could be shown incorrect</label>
        <note>differs in: whether the measure is cross-validated against</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t65" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>contradicts → the position that a fundamental theory of consciousness requires no cross-validation against conventional criteria</label>
        <note>differs in: whether the theory owes anything to the conventional criteria: A PROBLEM FOR IIT IS THAT NO CRITERIA ARE OFFERED TO ALLOW TO TEST WHETHER IT IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT, against the reply that IIT OFFERS A FUNDAMENTAL, NEW LAW THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE CROSS-VALIDATION AGAINST MORE CONVENTIONAL WAYS OF CONCEPTUALIZING CONSCIOUSNESS</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t66" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[7]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>critiques → a brief Turing-type test as a way of assessing machine consciousness, since it is a snapshot obtained by interrogation</label>
        <note>differs in: what the test observes and for how long: A BRIEF TURING-TYPE OF TEST WHICH ONLY PROVIDES A SNAPSHOT OF A MACHINE&#x27;S COGNITIVE CAPACITIES OBTAINED BY INTERROGATION - and MACHINES, HAVING MUCH FASTER PROCESSING UNITS AT THEIR DISPOSAL, MAY USE OTHER STRATEGIES FOR SOLVING COMPLEX PROBLEMS, so the same behaviour need not indicate the same thing</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t67" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[8]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>supports → goal-directed behavior as an indicator, chosen because it has been operationalised where volition has not</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t68" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[9]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>qualifies → its own verdict on animals, which the same sentence calls not completely unambiguous and far from complete</label>
        <note>differs in: THE AXIS IS THE STRENGTH OF THE CASE, STATED IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS THE CONCLUSION. &#x27;We have reviewed evidence for consciousness in several mammalian and avian species and - although this evidence is not completely unambiguous (and is certainly far from complete) - the force of the combined anatomic, physiological and behavioral-cognitive arguments makes A FAIRLY STRONG CASE.&#x27; The qualifier is inside the parenthesis and the conclusion is outside it: a citation keeps the clause after the dash.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t69" type="claim_relations" ana="#claim_relations[10]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>predicts → that evidence for machine consciousness would accumulate only through prolonged study across multiple behaviors</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t70" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>indicator —contrasted-with→ threshold</label>
        <term>indicator</term>
        <term>threshold</term>
        <note>differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER ONE INDICATOR CAN BE DECISIVE. &#x27;Quotation withheld&#x27; The proposal replaces a threshold on one measure with agreement across many - which means no single experiment can settle the question and no single negative result can rule it out. Note this record&#x27;s [6] says a rival theory offers no criteria to test it at all: the same paper distinguishing a weak criterion from an absent one. · strength of the relation: 1 · note: INSTEAD OF PROPOSING CRITERIA THAT WOULD EACH DEFINE A HARD THRESHOLD, we outline six indicators - and RATHER THAN EMPHASIZING A PARTICULAR INDICATOR AS BEING DECISIVE, THE CONSISTENCY AMONGST THESE INDICATORS CAN SERVE TO ASSESS consciousness</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t71" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>indicator —operationalised-as→ consciousness</label>
        <term>indicator</term>
        <term>consciousness</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span outlines indicators of consciousness; operationalised-as is loose.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t72" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>indicator —distinct-from→ criteria</label>
        <term>indicator</term>
        <term>criteria</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: THE WORD IS CHOSEN TO AVOID A CONNOTATION - INDICATORS is A TERM WHICH AVOIDS THE CONNOTATION OF CRITERION WITH A HARD THRESHOLD</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t73" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>consciousness —same-as→ awareness</label>
        <term>consciousness</term>
        <term>awareness</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: declared interchangeable WITHOUT DENYING THAT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM HAS BEEN DRAWN IN SOME PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED FRAMEWORKS - a same-as edge with its dissent attached</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t74" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[10]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>IIT —contrasted-with→ intentionality</label>
        <term>IIT</term>
        <term>intentionality</term>
        <note>strength of the relation: 1 · note: a measure with no referent - it DOES NOT REFER TO ANYTHING BEYOND THE SYSTEM&#x27;S STATE IT DESCRIBES and LEAVES THE KEY FEATURE OF INTENTIONALITY UNRESOLVED
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but IIT &#x27;leaves the key feature of intentionality UNRESOLVED&#x27;; contrasted-with is loose.</note>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t75" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The paper proposes six indicators of consciousness: goal-directed behavior and model-based learning; anatomical and physiological substrates for integrative multimodal representation; psychometrics and meta-cognition; episodic memory; susceptibility to illusions and multistable perception; and specific visuospatial behaviors.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t76" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[1]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Consciousness is argued to have the biological function of giving the subject a multimodal, situational survey of world and body that supports complex decision-making and goal-directed behavior.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t77" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>No single indicator is decisive; it is the consistency of scores across the whole set of indicators that raises or lowers the case for consciousness in a species.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t78" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Integrating scores across indicators gives an overall, graded criterion for consciousness, somewhat comparable to the Glasgow Coma Scale for unresponsive patients.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t79" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[4]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Rodents and birds score positively on every one of the six indicators - goal-directed behavior and model-based learning, anatomy and physiology, psychometrics and metacognitive judgment, episodic memory, illusion induction, and visuospatial behavior - although much of the supporting evidence remains incomplete.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t80" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[5]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Present-day deep learning networks and agile robots are not yet indicated to be conscious.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t81" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[6]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>The feed-forward scheme of deep convolutional networks leaves no place to incorporate the genesis of an internal model.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t82" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[7]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Integrated Information Theory would be forced to attribute some consciousness to too many systems, including non-living ones such as weather systems.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t83" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[8]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Integrated Information Theory leaves intentionality unresolved: it does not explain how neural systems generate contents about something other than themselves.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t84" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[9]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Rather than a brief Turing-style test, evidence of machine consciousness may accumulate from prolonged ethological study of many behaviors demanding flexibility, improvisation and spontaneous problem-solving.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t85" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[10]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>A pre-programmed robot that opens a door may be argued to exhibit goal-directed behavior.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t86" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[11]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>Failing the proposed indicators does not establish that a subject is unconscious, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t87" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[12]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>INSTEAD OF PROPOSING CRITERIA THAT WOULD EACH DEFINE A HARD THRESHOLD FOR CONSCIOUSNESS, WE OUTLINE SIX INDICATORS, and THE CONSISTENCY AMONGST THESE INDICATORS CAN SERVE TO ASSESS CONSCIOUSNESS</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t88" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[13]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>THE INTEGRATION OF SCORES ON THE VARIOUS INDICATORS YIELDS AN OVERALL, GRADED CRITERION FOR CONSCIOUSNESS, SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE TO THE GLASGOW COMA SCALE</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t89" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[14]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>their validity SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE QUANTIFIABLE MEASURE, BUT REQUIRES CROSS-EXAMINATION ACROSS MULTIPLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t90" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[15]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>INDICATORS OF CONSCIOUSNESS is A TERM WHICH AVOIDS THE CONNOTATION OF CRITERION WITH A HARD THRESHOLD</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t91" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[16]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>we will use the term CONSCIOUSNESS INTERCHANGEABLY WITH AWARENESS, WITHOUT DENYING THAT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM HAS BEEN DRAWN in some previously proposed frameworks</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t92" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[17]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>AN ENTITY MIGHT BE CONSCIOUS EVEN IF IT FAILS TO SATISFY THEM, and ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t93" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[18]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>the approach IS NECESSARILY INDIRECT AND DOES NOT YIELD DEFINITIVE PROOF, BUT RATHER INDICATIONS, since knowledge about another subject&#x27;s experience IS ALWAYS INFERENTIAL</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t94" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[19]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>EACH DEFINITION OF A CRITERION OR INDICATOR OF CONSCIOUSNESS DEPENDS ON ASSUMPTIONS BEING MADE ON WHAT A CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE IS</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t95" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[20]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>A PROBLEM FOR IIT IS THAT NO CRITERIA ARE OFFERED TO ALLOW TO TEST WHETHER IT IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT, and the alternative position WOULD MAKE THE THEORY IMMUNE AGAINST ANY FORM OF CROSS-EXAMINATION AND CROSS-VALIDATION</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t96" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[21]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>A PARTICULAR PHENOMENON X CAN ONLY BE CLAIMED TO OCCUR IN A SYSTEM IF THE SYSTEM EXHIBITS MANIFEST PROPERTIES INDICATING THAT X IS OCCURRING IN THAT SYSTEM</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t97" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[22]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>IF EVERYTHING IN OUR ENVIRONMENT WOULD ALWAYS BE CONSCIOUS, THE CONCEPT WOULD LOSE ITS USEFULNESS IN DAILY OR SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t98" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[23]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>the quantity used to assess consciousness DOES NOT REFER TO ANYTHING BEYOND THE SYSTEM&#x27;S STATE IT DESCRIBES, and LEAVES THE KEY FEATURE OF INTENTIONALITY UNRESOLVED</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t99" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[24]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>the indicators are COMPATIBLE WITH MORE THAN ONE THEORY AND COULD THUS SERVE AS A MORE GENERAL TESTBED</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t100" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[25]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>clinical indices MAY BE SPECIFIC TO THE HUMAN BRAIN, and THE RANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY ARE VALID IS INCOMPLETELY KNOWN AS THEY ARE NOT DERIVED FROM A FUNDAMENTAL THEORY</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t101" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[26]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>COGNITION DOES NOT ENTAIL CONSCIOUSNESS - cognitive activity DOES NOT NECESSARILY CORRESPOND TO CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t102" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[27]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>CURRENTLY, NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED CRITERIA ARE AVAILABLE for assessing behaviorally unresponsive patients</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t103" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[28]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DEFINITION OF GOAL-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR THAT PRECLUDES PRE-PROGRAMMED BEHAVIORS FROM SATISFYING IT</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t104" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[29]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>intelligent machines COULD DISPLAY SUCH INTELLIGENT, NON-AUTOMATED BEHAVIORS WITHOUT NECESSARILY BEING CONSCIOUS</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t105" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[30]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>a different approach is needed THAN A BRIEF TURING-TYPE OF TEST WHICH ONLY PROVIDES A SNAPSHOT of a machine&#x27;s cognitive capacities</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t106" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[31]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>CURRENT INTELLIGENT MACHINES, INCLUDING DEEP LEARNING NEURAL NETWORKS AND AGILE ROBOTS, ARE NOT INDICATED TO BE CONSCIOUS YET</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t107" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[32]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>although THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT COMPLETELY UNAMBIGUOUS AND IS CERTAINLY FAR FROM COMPLETE, the combined arguments MAKE A FAIRLY STRONG CASE THAT RODENTS AND BIRDS DO HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t108" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>indicators of consciousness</label>
        <term>indicators of consciousness</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t109" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[2]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>inside-out approach</label>
        <term>inside-out approach</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t110" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[3]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>qualitative richness</label>
        <term>qualitative richness</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t111" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[4]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>situatedness</label>
        <term>situatedness</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t112" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[5]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>intentionality</label>
        <term>intentionality</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t113" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[6]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>integration</label>
        <term>integration</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t114" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[7]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>dynamics and stability</label>
        <term>dynamics and stability</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t115" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[8]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>goal-directed behavior</label>
        <term>goal-directed behavior</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t116" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[9]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>model-based learning</label>
        <term>model-based learning</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t117" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[10]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>episodic memory</label>
        <term>episodic memory</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t118" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[11]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>conscious-like behavior</label>
        <term>conscious-like behavior</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t119" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[12]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>indicator</label>
        <term>indicator</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t120" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[13]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>consciousness</label>
        <term>consciousness</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t121" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[14]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>awareness</label>
        <term>awareness</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t122" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[0]" resp="#tagger">
        <label>six — number of indicators of consciousness the authors propose in place of hard-threshold criteria</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t123" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>six indicators — the number of separate observable properties whose CONSISTENCY, not any one of which, is read as evidence</label>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t124" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>indicator</label>
        <term>indicator</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
      <span xml:id="t125" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.variables[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">
        <label>measure</label>
        <term>measure</term>
        <note type="quotation-withheld">Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.</note>
      </span>
    </spanGrp>
  </standOff>
  <text>
    <body>
      <p><note type="rights">The full text of this article is not redistributable, so it is
      not included here. The evidence sentences are withheld with it; the tag layer and its
      grounding status remain. The article itself is at .</note></p>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
