standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | neural correlates of visual consciousness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | theory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: theory | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The framework is deliberately restricted to primate vision and sets aside emotion and self-consciousness. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the scope of the framework: WE HAVE CONCENTRATED ON THE VISUAL SYSTEM OF PRIMATES, LEAVING ON ONE SIDE SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT ASPECTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, SUCH AS EMOTION AND SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The authors acknowledge that relevant parts of the brain are omitted from the framework. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the anatomical completeness of the framework: the authors ACKNOWLEDGE SOME RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE BRAIN THAT HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The individual ideas are not new; only their combination is claimed as original. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the originality claim, precisely: MOST OF THE IDEAS WE FAVOR HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED BEFORE, BUT THEIR COMBINATION IS ORIGINAL - the claim is on the combination, not the components | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The hard problem is declared unapproachable head-on and replaced with a different, tractable target. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: this framework as an account of qualia: the authors state it is fruitless to approach that problem head-on and substitute the search for neural correlates | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Biological frameworks are said to differ in kind from those in physics, because biology has few rules without exceptions. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: this framework as a law-like account: the authors state biological systems do not have rigid laws and that evolution produces mechanisms with exceptions | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | The structure of a democratic election — primaries, a winning party that stays in power and shapes later events, and opinion polls — is imported as an explicit working model of how transient neuronal coalitions compete and how one comes to dominate and constitute the conscious percept. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concepts | framework Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: framework | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | qualia Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: qualia | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | NCC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: NCC | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| senses | framework - explicitly NOT a hypothesis or set of hypotheses, but a suggested point of view for attacking a problem, which may suggest testable hypotheses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | neural correlate of consciousness - the minimal set of neuronal events giving rise to one specific aspect of a conscious percept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | private - a stipulated sense: accessible exclusively to the owner of the brain, so the percept itself cannot be conveyed even though information about it can Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Hebb's cell-assembly idea Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Crick & Koch's own 1990 paper, 1995 proposal and 1998 review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the authors' own earlier claim (1990 paper, ref. 11) that synchronized 40 Hz firing is sufficient for the NCC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · qualia —contrasted-with→ NCC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span was about the difficulty of explaining redness. This sentence names both and states the programme's own substitution - '…correlate(s) of consciousness (NCC), in the hope that when…'. — strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span sets the search for NCC against explaining qualia directly; contrasted-with is loose. | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The framework's central claim is that the coalition of mutually supporting neurons that wins the ongoing competition at a given moment is what the subject is conscious of. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The authors retract their earlier position that synchronized firing, in particular 40 Hz oscillations, is sufficient for the NCC. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | An explicit representation of a feature is necessary for that feature to become conscious but is not on its own sufficient to produce the NCC. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Consciousness of a visual scene is claimed to begin at the top of the hierarchy with the gist of the scene, with the details filled in afterwards as activity descends to lower levels. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The binding of an object's features is simply their membership in one coalition. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The penumbra — the neurons influenced by, but not part of, the NCC — is proposed as the substrate of unconscious priming. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | No recorded case of purely parietal damage led to a complete loss of conscious vision. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The sensory cortex's job is described as building and using highly specific but multidimensional feature detectors, for properties such as orientation, motion and faces. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | NCC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: NCC | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | framework Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: framework | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | private Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: private | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | projective field Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: projective field | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | explicit representation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explicit representation | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | essential node Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: essential node | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | zombie modes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: zombie modes | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | net-wave Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: net-wave | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | coalitions of neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: coalitions of neurons | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | snapshots Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: snapshots | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | binding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: binding | content_tags.definitions[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | penumbra Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: penumbra | content_tags.definitions[11] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 40 Hz — the synchronized-firing frequency the authors previously proposed, and now reject, as sufficient for the NCC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ten — number of headings under which the framework's ingredients are set out Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.