phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | neural correlates of consciousness— “Finding the neural correlates of consciousness (the NCC) is a major focus of cognitive neuroscience.” | |
| claim-type | critique— “Methodological and conceptual considerations of a number of concrete studies show that both approaches are problematic: the content-based approach seems to set aside crucial aspects of consciousness; and the state-based approach seems over-inclusive in a way that is hard to rectify without losing sight of the crucial conscious–unconscious… | |
| method — evidence | — “It is shown here that, from the point of view of philosophy of science, these approaches are problematic both conceptually and methodologically.” | |
| mechanism | Relegating state consciousness to a background condition screens off any contribution the state NCC makes to constituting a content's being conscious, so the design can only speak to which content is represented— “The basic issue is that, by focusing on the first contrast, any contribution from the neural correlates of state consciousness to the constitution of a content’s being conscious is effectively screened off.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | The pre-existing conscious state, not the induced content, may be the actual difference-maker that renders the content conscious— “The preexisting conscious state could very well be the difference-maker for the content’s being conscious.” | mechanisms[1] |
| extends | Searle (2005) on the content-based NCC approach— “Searle is right that the content NCC is irrelevant to consciousness, but – crucially – only when the target is the correlate of a content’s being conscious.” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Searle (2005) on adopting the state-based approach instead— “But, contra Searle, this is not what I shall advocate here.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | NCC - FOR CONTENT CONSCIOUSNESS: the minimally sufficient neural conditions for a specific, mostly representational content being conscious rather than not being conscious— “the minimally sufficient neural conditions for a specific (mostly representational) content being conscious rather than not being conscious” | senses[0] |
| sense | NCC - FOR STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: the minimally sufficient conditions for a creature being in an overall conscious state rather than an overall unconscious state - a different contrast, and the paper's whole argument is that the two cannot stand in for each other— “NCC for states of consciousness : the minimally sufficient conditions for a creature’s being in an overall conscious state rather than an overall unconscious state” | senses[1] |
| sense | state consciousness - A TERM WHOSE SENSE THE AUTHOR CANNOT STATE SUCCINCTLY, and he gives that failure as the core motivation for writing the paper— “It is, however, difficult to express succinctly the sense in which ‘state consciousness’ should then be used – a fact which is a core motivation for writing this paper” | senses[2] |
| sense | the field's vocabulary - DECLARED NON-UNIFORM by the author, who then proceeds on the clustering of studies rather than on the terms— “The terminology in this area is unfortunately not uniform” | senses[3] |
| audit | unified conscious field —same-as→ state consciousness — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but Searle's notion is 'supposedly close' to state consciousness, and the author rejects Searle's use; attributed.— “Searle’s use of ‘unified conscious field’ is supposedly close to what I talk about as ‘state consciousness’ and what others talk about as ‘creature consciousness’ but as argued in the main text of this paper, the use that Searle makes of his notion is not plausible.” | concept_edges[0] |
| for which use | limitation — a content-NCC result as evidence about what makes a content conscious: the design presupposes the property whose instantiation is at issue, exactly as a carcinogen study would if the property were already instantiated in all the mice— “In the carcinogen case, the researcher’s study design is flawed because she is interested in the property of being a certain kind of cancer, which is the very property whose instantiation is presupposed in all the mice” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — the content-based NCC literature: at best it finds the minimally sufficient conditions for selection into consciousness, not for a content's being conscious— “At best, I now say, it will find the minimally sufficient conditions for selection into consciousness” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — a state-based design that matches content across conditions: the better the matching, the harder it becomes to uphold the very contrast the approach depends on— “as content is more carefully matched, it becomes harder to uphold the contrast between conscious and unconscious states, which is crucial for the state-based approach” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — a negative NCC finding in a patient: the researchers are explicit that absent thalamocortical or SMA activity— “The researchers in this field of study are also very clear that the absence of thalamocortical activity, or of SMA activity in response to requests to imagine tennis, cannot be taken as evidence of absence of consciousness” | limitations[5] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The argument shows the current paradigms need re-development, not that no NCC can ever be found.— “Though the present arguments by no means show that an NCC can never be found, they do show that the current paradigms are in need of re-evaluation and re-development in the light of methodological and conceptual considerations.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The paper is neutral between theories of consciousness and does not adjudicate them.— “The arguments presented here are neutral on these theories but do indeed suggest that the current NCC methodologies taken separately most likely cannot gain much direct evidence for or against them.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The design is argued to be flawed in the way a carcinogen study would be if every mouse already had the cancer: the property of interest is presupposed in every subject.— “In the carcinogen case, the researcher’s study design is flawed because she is interested in the property of being a certain kind of cancer, which is the very property whose instantiation is presupposed in all the mice” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | On the author's own account the approach can at best deliver the conditions for a content being SELECTED for consciousness, which is a different question from a content being conscious.— “At best, I now say, it will find the minimally sufficient conditions for selection into consciousness” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Tightening the experimental control defeats the aim: the better the content is matched, the harder the conscious/unconscious contrast is to sustain.— “as content is more carefully matched, it becomes harder to uphold the contrast between conscious and unconscious states, which is crucial for the state-based approach” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The field states that absence of the neural marker cannot be read as absence of the phenomenon.— “The researchers in this field of study are also very clear that the absence of thalamocortical activity, or of SMA activity in response to requests to imagine tennis, cannot be taken as evidence of absence of consciousness” | limitations[5] |
| limitation | A CONTROL GROUP ARGUED AWAY RATHER THAN OMITTED. Owen's case that the vegetative-state patient's sustained SMA response is voluntary rests on its duration and on its changing to order - and the author notes that this logic, if it works, makes a control group unnecessary, since ANY brain activity time-locked to the requests would show the same thing. He calls that consequence puzzling rather than wrong.— “it is slightly puzzling that this logic removes the need for comparison with a control group: consideration solely of the VS patient’s SMA activity is enough since any pattern of activity anywhere in the brain that is time-locked to the requests could demonstrate the voluntariness.” | limitations[6] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Because content-based NCC studies hold the subject's overall conscious state fixed rather than manipulating it, that presupposed conscious state remains an uncontrolled potential cause of the content's being conscious, i.e. a confound.— “this shows that presupposing conscious states at least potentially introduces a confounding factor in the standard content-based NCC approach.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The content-based approach's target is the neural correlate of a content being selected for conscious presentation, assuming an overall conscious state.— “The target seems to be to find the neural correlate of a content’s being selected for conscious presentation, rather than not selected, on the background assumption that the creature is already in an overall conscious state.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Researchers can stay neutral about whether the creature is conscious and still gain fruitful results with this method.— “They can be completely neutral about whether the creature is in fact in an overall conscious state or not and yet gain very fruitful results using this method.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | In state-based studies there is a trade-off: the more carefully conscious content is matched across conditions, the weaker the grounds for believing the two conditions still differ in being conscious versus unconscious rather than being two conscious conditions.— “The lesson is that the better content is matched across conditions, the less certain we become that the conditions contrast the unconscious state with the conscious state rather than merely contrasting conscious states with conscious states.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | On this criterion the mark of consciousness becomes voluntary control rather than phenomenality.— “Now the mark of consciousness is voluntary control rather than what philosophers refer to as phenomenality (e.g., what it is like to experience pain or imagine tennis or to be conscious at all).” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | The alternative route of inferring state consciousness from the presence of a content NCC also fails, because the content-based approach already assumes the subject is in a conscious state and therefore cannot independently establish it.— “Section 3 showed that the content-based approach presupposes that the subjects in question are already in an overall conscious state and it therefore follows that it cannot be used to establish independently whether a… | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | The paper concludes that neither the content-based nor the state-based paradigm, pursued on its own, can deliver the neural correlates of consciousness. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | The remedy proposed is not to conjoin the two approaches' results but to build a new paradigm that targets the causal, mechanistic interplay between content processing and overall conscious state across contents and across conscious and unconscious state types. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| definition | NCC for content consciousness | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | NCC for states of consciousness Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | total NCC Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | neural correlates of volition Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| concept | neural correlates of consciousness Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | content consciousness Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | state consciousness Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | unified conscious field Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | binocular rivalry Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824