Main.NeuralCorrelatesOfConsciousness History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output

November 21, 2005, at 11:47 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Deleted line 14:
* Tong, Nakayama, Vaughn, and Kanwisher (1998) - fMRI fusiform face area (FFA) responds twice as strongly to faces than non-face objects (But de Gelder & Kanwisher (1999) - patient without FFA can perceive faces as faces but impaired at identifying individual faces)
Added line 20:
* Tong, Nakayama, Vaughn, and Kanwisher (1998) - fMRI fusiform face area (FFA) responds twice as strongly to faces than non-face objects (But de Gelder & Kanwisher (1999) - patient without FFA can perceive faces as faces but impaired at identifying individual faces)
November 21, 2005, at 11:46 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed lines 18-20 from:
%rframe% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg | Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.
[- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
to:
%rframe% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [-Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]

* Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998).
[[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex]]. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.
November 21, 2005, at 11:45 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed line 18 from:
%lfloat% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg | Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.
to:
%rframe% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg | Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.
November 21, 2005, at 11:44 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed line 18 from:
%lfloat% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg
to:
%lfloat% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg | Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.
November 21, 2005, at 11:43 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed lines 18-19 from:
%lfloat% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
to:
%lfloat% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg
[- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
November 21, 2005, at 11:43 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed lines 18-19 from:
%lframe% attach:media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
to:
%lfloat% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
November 21, 2005, at 11:42 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed line 18 from:
%lframe% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
to:
%lframe% attach:media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
November 21, 2005, at 11:41 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed line 18 from:
%lfloat% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
to:
%lframe% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
November 21, 2005, at 11:41 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed line 18 from:
media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
to:
%lfloat% media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
November 21, 2005, at 11:39 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed lines 17-18 from:
media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]]
* Kanwisher - Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.
to:

media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [- [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]] Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.-]
November 21, 2005, at 11:38 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Added line 17:
media:face-house-rivalry.jpg [[http://web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/TongNakayamaVaughnKanwisherNeuron98.pdf|Tong, Nakayama, Vaughan, Kanwisher (1998). Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex. ''Neuron'', 21, 753-59.]]
November 21, 2005, at 11:19 AM by 219.78.20.128 -
Changed line 59 from:
Ungerlider and Mishkin (1982) brain-lesioned monkeys
to:
Ungerleider and Mishkin (1982) brain-lesioned monkeys
November 02, 2005, at 11:09 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Deleted lines 89-94:
can direct attention in the blindfield enhancing stimuli processing -

* Binding more important for perceptual experience of objects. But
* Dehaene et el (1998) is perhaps better evidence for unconscious binding.
* The attention hypothesis is not incompatible with the binding theory.

November 02, 2005, at 10:56 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Changed line 72 from:
# ''Location'' - the representations are in ventral stream
to:
# ''Location'' - the representations are in the ventral stream
November 02, 2005, at 10:43 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Changed line 85 from:
# Perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?
to:
# Perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy? There are neural connections between the ventral and dorsal streams.
November 02, 2005, at 10:42 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Changed line 63 from:
Milner and Goodale (1995)
to:
Milner and Goodale (1995) See http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v4/psyche-4-12-milner.html
November 02, 2005, at 10:33 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Deleted lines 76-77:
# Visual awareness of motion seems to correlate with activity in area MT, which is along the dorsal pathway. (But perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?)
# Ned Block: Perhaps it is possible to have unbound conscious experiences. ([[http://www.morningstarlight.com/technology.html|ganzfeld experience]])
Added lines 78-80:

# Visual awareness of motion seems to correlate with activity in area MT, which is along the dorsal pathway.
# Ned Block: Perhaps it is possible to have unbound conscious experiences. ([[http://www.morningstarlight.com/technology.html|ganzfeld experience]])
Changed line 85 from:
to:
# Perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?
November 02, 2005, at 10:32 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Deleted line 78:
Deleted line 79:
November 02, 2005, at 10:31 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Added lines 5-6:
* Kentridge RW, Heywood CA, Weiskrantz L. (1999). Attention without awareness in blindsight. ''Proc Biol Sci.'' Sep 7, 266(1430), 1805-11.
   
Changed lines 77-79 from:
# Visual awareness of motion seems to correlate with activity in area MT, which is along the dorsal pathway.
** (But perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?)
media:ganzfeld.jpg
to:
# Visual awareness of motion seems to correlate with activity in area MT, which is along the dorsal pathway. (But perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?)
Added lines 79-81:

media:ganzfeld.jpg

Changed lines 88-92 from:
# Perhaps. Blindsight patient GY Can guess correctly the emotion expressed by a face in the blind field (happy/sad/angry/fearful) - [=DeGelder, Vroomen, Pourtois & Weiskrantz (1999).=]
# But attention to blindfield not sufficient for conscious perception.

can direct attention in the blindfield enhancing stimuli processing - Kentridge, Heywood, Weiskrantz (1999)
.
to:
# Perhaps. Blindsight patient GY can guess correctly the emotion expressed by a face in the blind field (happy/sad/angry/fearful) - [=DeGelder, Vroomen, Pourtois & Weiskrantz (1999).=]
# But attention to blindfield not sufficient for conscious perception. (See Kentridge, Heywood, Weiskrantz (1999).) Block: "Perhaps the attention in the blind field is too low for X."

can direct attention in the blindfield enhancing stimuli processing -

November 02, 2005, at 10:20 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Changed lines 75-76 from:
# Visual awareness of motion seems to correlate with activity in area MT, which is along the dorsal pathway. ** (But perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?)
to:
# Visual awareness of motion seems to correlate with activity in area MT, which is along the dorsal pathway.
** (But perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?)
November 02, 2005, at 10:19 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Changed line 75 from:
# Visual awareness of motion seems to correlate with activity in area MT, which is along the dorsal pathway. (But perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?)
to:
# Visual awareness of motion seems to correlate with activity in area MT, which is along the dorsal pathway. ** (But perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?)
November 02, 2005, at 10:19 PM by 219.78.21.147 -
Deleted lines 64-65:
[-Problem : awareness of visual motion correlates with activity in area MT (along dorsal pathway)-]
Changed lines 73-75 from:
!!Block's worries
to:
!!Discussion

# Visual awareness of motion seems to correlate with activity in area MT, which is along the dorsal pathway. (But perhaps the NC is higher up in the visual hierarchy?)
Changed lines 77-80 from:
# Perhaps it is possible to have unbound conscious experiences. ([[http://www.morningstarlight.com/technology.html|ganzfeld experience]])
# Perhaps it is possible to have binding in the blind field.
# Perhaps it is attention that produced consciousness (and binding), and so binding is not sufficient for consciousness. (spatial attention often linked to the parietal lobe)
to:
# Ned Block: Perhaps it is possible to have unbound conscious experiences. ([[http://www.morningstarlight.com/technology.html|ganzfeld experience]])
# Ned Block: Perhaps it is possible to have binding in the blind field.
# Ned Block: Perhaps it is attention that produced consciousness (and binding), and so binding is not sufficient for consciousness. (spatial attention often linked to the parietal lobe)
November 01, 2005, at 05:04 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Deleted line 1:
[[Blindsight]]
Changed lines 5-6 from:
to:
* [[Blindsight]]
November 01, 2005, at 04:14 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed line 76 from:
to:
media:ganzfeld.jpg
November 01, 2005, at 04:06 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed line 2 from:
to:
[[Blindsight]]
November 01, 2005, at 03:58 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 69-87 from:
NCC has two components:

* Representations of perceptual features (e.g. "red", "line" in ventral stream) +
* Binding (
in parietal lobe) of features into a representation of a spatial-temporal token ("red line on the left now")

!!Block's misgivings

* Perhaps it is possible to have unbound conscious experiences. (ganzfeld experience)
* Perhaps it is possible to have binding in the blind field.
* Perhaps it is attention that produced consciousness (and binding), and so binding is not sufficient for consciousness. (spatial attention often linked to the parietal lobe)

!!Blindsight patient GY

* GY can direct attention in
the blindfield enhancing stimuli processing - Kentridge, Heywood, Weiskrantz (1999).
* GY Can also guess correctly the emotion expressed by a face in the blind field (happy/sad/angry/fearful) - DeGelder, Vroomen, Pourtois & Weiskrantz (1999).

!!Comments:

* Binding more important for perceptual experience of objects. But in Ganzfeld
, there might be no depth information but there is still binding of color with spatial coordinates in the coronal plane.
to:
NCC for visual consciousness has three components:

# ''Representation'' - representation of perceptual features (e.g. "red", "line")
# ''Location'' - the representations are
in ventral stream
# ''Binding'' - binding in parietal lobe
of features into a representation of a spatial-temporal token ("red line on the left now")

!!Block's worries

# Perhaps it is possible to have unbound conscious experiences. ([[http://www.morningstarlight.com/technology.html|ganzfeld experience]])
# Perhaps it is possible to have binding in the blind field.
# Perhaps it is attention that produced consciousness (and binding), and so binding is not sufficient for consciousness. (spatial attention often linked to the parietal lobe)

!!Replies

# In
the Ganzfeld case, there might be no depth information but there is still binding of color with spatial coordinates in the coronal plane.
# Perhaps. Blindsight patient GY Can guess correctly the emotion expressed by a face in the blind field (happy/sad/angry/fearful) - [=DeGelder, Vroomen
, Pourtois & Weiskrantz (1999).=]
# But attention to blindfield not sufficient for conscious perception.

can direct attention
in the blindfield enhancing stimuli processing - Kentridge, Heywood, Weiskrantz (1999).

* Binding more important for perceptual experience of objects. But
Changed lines 93-100 from:
Access requirements

* Kanwisher "awareness of a particular element of perceptual information must entail not just a strong enough neural representation of that information, but also access to that information by most of the rest of the mind/brain
."
* Dehaene and Naccache - "the long distance connectivity of these workspace neurons can, when they are active for a minimal duration, make the information available to a variety of processes including perceptual categorization, long-term memorization, evaluation and intentional action."
* But what about Sperling's experiment?

[[Consciousness and Attention]]

to:
!How is consciousness related to atention?

Is attention necessary or sufficient for consciousness?

* See [[Consciousness and Attention]]
.
November 01, 2005, at 03:50 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 65-67 from:

Problem : awareness of visual motion correlates with activity in area MT (along dorsal pathway)
Kanwisher's proposal for NCC for visual experience
to:
[-Problem : awareness of visual motion correlates with activity in area MT (along dorsal pathway)-]

!!
Kanwisher's proposal for NCC for visual experience
Changed lines 74-75 from:
Block's misgivings
to:
!!Block's misgivings
Changed lines 80-81 from:
Blindsight patient GY
to:
!!Blindsight patient GY
Changed lines 85-86 from:
Comments:
to:
!!Comments:
November 01, 2005, at 03:48 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 5-6 from:
to:
* Milner and Goodale (1998). The Visual Brain in Action. ''PSYCHE'', 4(12), October 1998. http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v4/psyche-4-12-milner.html
November 01, 2005, at 03:46 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 54-55 from:
media:visionstreams2.jpg
to:
media:visionstreams2.gif
November 01, 2005, at 03:45 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Added lines 41-44:
One way to identify NCC is to eliminate representations that correlate with unconscious perception.

media:grating.jpg

Added lines 51-55:

media:visionstreams1.jpg

media:visionstreams2.jpg

Deleted line 56:
Deleted line 60:
November 01, 2005, at 03:26 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 4-5 from:
* [Required] Block, Ned. (2001). Paradox and Cross Purposes in Recent Work on Consciousness. ''Cognition'', 79, 1-2, April 2001, 197-219. [The HKU Library has an electronic subscription] Also in Dehaene et. el (Eds.) (2001). ''The Cognitive Neuroscience of Consciousness'' Cambridge: MIT Press.
to:
* [Required] Block, Ned. (2001). [[http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Elsevier.html|Paradox and Cross Purposes in Recent Work on Consciousness]]. ''Cognition'', 79, 1-2, April 2001, 197-219. [The HKU Library has an electronic subscription] Also in Dehaene et. el (Eds.) (2001). ''The Cognitive Neuroscience of Consciousness'' Cambridge: MIT Press.
November 01, 2005, at 03:20 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 34-35 from:
media:half-brain.jpg
to:
media:half-brain.jpg [-PBS ''Power of half''-]
November 01, 2005, at 03:19 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 32-35 from:
But can we say in such cases that the NCC is (M or N)? media:half-brain.jpg
to:
But can we say in such cases that the NCC is (M or N)?

media:half-brain.jpg
November 01, 2005, at 03:19 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed line 32 from:
But can we say in such cases that the NCC is (M or N)?
to:
But can we say in such cases that the NCC is (M or N)? media:half-brain.jpg
November 01, 2005, at 03:12 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 27-29 from:
# Here direct correlation is supposed to mean only sufficiency. X direct correlates with Y = X is sufficient for Y (in normal human beings).
# The idea of minimal sufficiency is meant to rule out irrelevant brain processes, or brain processes that are common to many different conscious phenomena. In other words, X is the NC of conscious experience Y = X is the minimal condition that is sufficient for Y.
#
Why should we not require that X is necessary for Y if X is the NC of Y? Chalmer's answer:
to:
* Here direct correlation is supposed to mean only sufficiency. X direct correlates with Y = X is sufficient for Y (in normal human beings).
* The idea of ''minimal'' sufficiency is meant to rule out irrelevant brain processes, or brain processes that are common to many different conscious phenomena. If A is sufficient for B, then (A+C) is also sufficient for B.
* So here is the official definition: X is the NC of conscious experience
Y = X is the minimal condition that is sufficient for Y.
*
Why should we not require that X is necessary for Y if X is the NC of Y? Chalmer's answer:
Changed lines 32-43 from:
# But perhaps in such cases we can say that the NCC is (M or N). The problem with not requiring necessity is that for very general conscious states such as being awake, we might end up with too many NCCs. In fact, on his definition, it seems to follow that the NCC of X cannot be the activity of a group of neurons that behave identically. Because the activity of each neuron in the group would then be a more minimal condition.
# So for X to be the NC of Y, it must be the same that X occurs if and only if Y.
# Another advantage of the modified definition. On Chalmer's definition -  Perhaps we should say that the NCC is the smallest union of all minimal conditions.

# Different types of experiences will have different [=NCCs=]. So far studies on [=NCCs=] of visual experience have been more extensive.
# Correlation is not identity. Finding [=NCCs=] in human might not explain consciousness in general.

!!Technical comments

* X (positively) correlates with Y = X is present if and only if Y is present. This can be a statistical concept - can introduce correlation coefficient.
* Chalmers - There might be multiple [=NCCs=] for a conscious mental state.

to:
But can we say in such cases that the NCC is (M or N)?
* Different types of experiences will have different [=NCCs=]. So far studies on [=NCCs=] of visual experience have been more extensive.
* Correlation is not identity
. Finding [=NCCs=] in human might not explain consciousness in general.
November 01, 2005, at 03:05 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 27-28 from:
# Chalmers suggests that NCC should be understood in terms of minimal sufficiency. X is the NC of conscious experience Y = X is the minimal condition that is sufficient for Y.
# In other words, direct correlation does not require necessity. NOT: X if and only if Y
.
to:
# Here direct correlation is supposed to mean only sufficiency. X direct correlates with Y = X is sufficient for Y (in normal human beings).
# The idea of minimal sufficiency is meant to rule out irrelevant brain processes, or brain processes that are common to many different conscious phenomena
. In other words, X is the NC of conscious experience Y = X is the minimal condition that is sufficient for Y.
# Why should we not require that X is necessary for Y if X is the NC of Y? Chalmer's answer:
@@@This is an attractive requirement for an NCC, but it is arguably too strong. It might turn out that there is more than one neural correlate of a given conscious state. For example, it may be there there are two systems, M and N, such that a certain state of M suffices for being in pain and a certain state of N also suffices for being in pain, where these two states are not themselves always correlated. In this case, it seems that we would likely say that both M and N (or their corresponding states) are neural correlates of pain.@@@
# But perhaps in such cases we can say that the NCC is (M or N). The problem with not requiring necessity is that for very general conscious states such as being awake, we might end up with too many NCCs. In fact, on his definition, it seems to follow that the NCC of X cannot be the activity of a group of neurons that behave identically. Because the activity of each neuron in the group would then be a more minimal condition.
# So for X to be the NC of Y, it must be the same that X occurs if and only if Y.
# Another advantage of the modified definition. On Chalmer's definition -  Perhaps we should say that the NCC is the smallest union of all minimal conditions.

Deleted line 40:
* The idea of minimal sufficiency is meant to rule out irrelevant brain processes, or brain processes that are common to many different conscious phenomena.
Changed lines 42-43 from:
* It seems to follow from the definition that the NCC of X cannot be the activity of a group of neurons that behave identically. Because the activity of each neuron in the group would then be a more minimal condition. Perhaps we should say that the NCC is the smallest union of all minimal conditions.
to:
November 01, 2005, at 02:52 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 27-28 from:
# Different types of experiences will have different [=NCCs=].
# Studies
on [=NCCs=] of visual experience have been more extensive.
to:
# Chalmers suggests that NCC should be understood in terms of minimal sufficiency. X is the NC of conscious experience Y = X is the minimal condition that is sufficient for Y.
# In other words, direct correlation does not require necessity. NOT: X if and only if Y.
# Different types of experiences will have different [=NCCs=]. So far studies
on [=NCCs=] of visual experience have been more extensive.
November 01, 2005, at 02:09 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 28-30 from:
# Studies on NCC of visual experience have been more extensive.
# Correlation is not identity. Finding NCC in human might not explain consciousness in general.
to:
# Studies on [=NCCs=] of visual experience have been more extensive.
# Correlation is not identity. Finding [=NCCs=] in human might not explain consciousness in general.
November 01, 2005, at 02:09 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed line 27 from:
# Different types of experiences will have different NCCs.
to:
# Different types of experiences will have different [=NCCs=].
November 01, 2005, at 02:08 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Added lines 27-32:
# Different types of experiences will have different NCCs.
# Studies on NCC of visual experience have been more extensive.
# Correlation is not identity. Finding NCC in human might not explain consciousness in general.

!!Technical comments

Changed lines 36-45 from:

!Background

* Brain state X is a neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) = there is a significant correlation between brain state X and conscious experience E. X is present if and only if E is present.
Comments
# Identification depends in part on verbal report or other forms of behavior of
the subject.
# Different types
of experiences will have different NCCs.
# Studies on NCC of visual experience have been more extensive.
# Correlation is not identity. Finding NCC in human might not explain consciousness in general.

to:
* It seems to follow from the definition that the NCC of X cannot be the activity of a group of neurons that behave identically. Because the activity of each neuron in the group would then be a more minimal condition. Perhaps we should say that the NCC is the smallest union of all minimal conditions.
November 01, 2005, at 02:03 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 29-30 from:
* Chalmers - There might be multiple NCCs for a conscious mental state.
to:
* Chalmers - There might be multiple [=NCCs=] for a conscious mental state.
November 01, 2005, at 02:02 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 19-20 from:
!Definitions of NCC
to:
!Definition of NCC
Changed lines 25-27 from:
* X (positively) correlates with Y = X is present if and only if Y is present.
*
This can be a statistical concept - can introduce correlation coefficient.
to:
!!Comments

* X (positively) correlates with Y = X is present if and only if Y is present. This can be a statistical concept - can introduce correlation coefficient.
* The idea of minimal sufficiency is meant to rule out irrelevant brain processes, or brain processes that are common to many different conscious phenomena.
* Chalmers - There might be multiple NCCs for a conscious mental state
.
November 01, 2005, at 01:57 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 25-27 from:
to:
* X (positively) correlates with Y = X is present if and only if Y is present.
* This can be a statistical concept - can introduce correlation coefficient.

November 01, 2005, at 01:50 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 19-20 from:

to:
!Definitions of NCC

Koch, C. and Crick, F. (2001). [[http://www.klab.caltech.edu/refweb/paper/268.pdf|The neural basis of consciousness]]. ''Intl. Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences'' Elsevier, 2600-2604.

@@@The NCC is the minimal (minimal, since it is known that the entire brain is sufficient to give rise to consciousness) set of neurons, most likely distributed throughout certain cortical and subcortical areas, whose firing directly correlates with the perception of the subject at the time.@@@


November 01, 2005, at 01:41 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Added line 11:
@@@[- ... cells in primary visual cortex (V1) don't correlate well: when the monkey is stimulated with horizontal and vertical gratings but "sees" horizontal, a large number of "vertical" cells in V1 fire, as well as "horizontal" cells. At this point, most cells seem to correlate with retinal stimulus, not with visual percept. But further into the visual system, the correlation increases, until in inferior temporal cortex, there is a very strong correlation. - Chalmers-]@@@
November 01, 2005, at 01:39 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed line 3 from:
* [Required] Chalmers, David. (2000). What is a Neural Correlate of Consciousness? In T. Metzinger (Ed.) ''Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions'' Cambridge: MIT Press.
to:
* [Required] Chalmers, David. (2000). [[http://consc.net/papers/ncc2.html|What is a Neural Correlate of Consciousness?]] In T. Metzinger (Ed.) ''Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions'' Cambridge: MIT Press.
November 01, 2005, at 01:17 PM by 219.77.142.147 -
Changed lines 3-5 from:
* [Required] Chalmers (2000) What is a Neural Correlate of Consciousness? In T. Metzinger (Ed.) ''Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions'' Cambridge: MIT Press.
* [Required] Block (2001) "Paradox and Cross Purposes in Recent Work on Consciousness" in Cognition Volume 79, Issues 1-2, April 2001, pp.197-219. [The HKU Library has an electronic subscription] Also in Stan Dehaene (2001) ed. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Consciousness M.I.T. Press.
to:
* [Required] Chalmers, David. (2000). What is a Neural Correlate of Consciousness? In T. Metzinger (Ed.) ''Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions'' Cambridge: MIT Press.
* [Required] Block, Ned. (2001). Paradox and Cross Purposes in Recent Work on Consciousness. ''Cognition'', 79, 1-2, April 2001, 197-219. [The HKU Library has an electronic subscription] Also in Dehaene et. el (Eds.) (2001). ''The Cognitive Neuroscience of Consciousness'' Cambridge: MIT Press.
Deleted lines 79-103:
!!Attention-based theories

Example : Prinz (2000) "A neurofunctional theory of visual consciousness" Consciousness and Cognition 9 (2), pp.243-59.

* Attention necessary for consciousness (but might not be sufficient).
* Visual consciousness a matter of attention directing information from sensory systems into short-term memory.

Further discussion:

* Mack and Rock (1998) Inattentional Blindness MIT Press.
* Milner and Goodale (1995) Discussion here

Block's objections

* Intriligator and Cavanagh (2001) "The Spatial Resolution of Visual Attention" Cognitive Psychology 43, pp.171-216. According to Block, subjects have visual experience of the lines as individually distinct even though they cannot attend individually to some of the lines.
* Aerodontalgia - perhaps there is P-consciousness depsite the lack of attention.

!Phenomenal consciousness and attention

!!Change blindness and inattentional blindness

* Change blindness = Failure to notice large changes in the visual scene occurring in full view.
* Inattentional blindness = Failure to detect unexpected objects that are not under visual attention.
* Some interesting demonstrations.

Changed lines 78-79 from:
Reflexivity
Attention-based theories
to:
[[Consciousness and Attention]]

!!Attention
-based theories
Added lines 97-104:
!Phenomenal consciousness and attention

!!Change blindness and inattentional blindness

* Change blindness = Failure to notice large changes in the visual scene occurring in full view.
* Inattentional blindness = Failure to detect unexpected objects that are not under visual attention.
* Some interesting demonstrations.

Added line 3:
* [Required] Chalmers (2000) What is a Neural Correlate of Consciousness? In T. Metzinger (Ed.) ''Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions'' Cambridge: MIT Press.
Deleted lines 5-13:
!Background

* Brain state X is a neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) = there is a significant correlation between brain state X and conscious experience E. X is present if and only if E is present.
Comments
# Identification depends in part on verbal report or other forms of behavior of the subject.
# Different types of experiences will have different NCCs.
# Studies on NCC of visual experience have been more extensive.
# Correlation is not identity. Finding NCC in human might not explain consciousness in general.

Changed lines 8-9 from:
Diagrams of visual areas
to:
[[http://defiant.ssc.uwo.ca/Jody_web/fMRI4Dummies/functional_brain_areas.htm|Functional brain areas in humans]]
Added lines 18-28:


!Background

* Brain state X is a neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) = there is a significant correlation between brain state X and conscious experience E. X is present if and only if E is present.
Comments
# Identification depends in part on verbal report or other forms of behavior of the subject.
# Different types of experiences will have different NCCs.
# Studies on NCC of visual experience have been more extensive.
# Correlation is not identity. Finding NCC in human might not explain consciousness in general.

Changed lines 24-25 from:
* Lau, Rogers, Haggard, Passingham (2004) - pre-SMA (pre-supplementary motor area) activity with attention to motor intention.
to:
* Lau, Rogers, Haggard, Passingham (2004) - pre-SMA (pre-supplementary motor area) activity with attention to motor intention. ''Science'', Vol 303, Issue 5661, 1208-1210. doi:10.1126/science.1090973
July 26, 2005, at 10:53 AM by 219.78.20.18 -
Added line 92:
[[Category.Mind]]
July 25, 2005, at 11:05 PM by 219.77.144.13 -
Added lines 1-91:
!Readings

* [Required] Block (2001) "Paradox and Cross Purposes in Recent Work on Consciousness" in Cognition Volume 79, Issues 1-2, April 2001, pp.197-219. [The HKU Library has an electronic subscription] Also in Stan Dehaene (2001) ed. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Consciousness M.I.T. Press.

!Background

* Brain state X is a neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) = there is a significant correlation between brain state X and conscious experience E. X is present if and only if E is present.
Comments
# Identification depends in part on verbal report or other forms of behavior of the subject.
# Different types of experiences will have different NCCs.
# Studies on NCC of visual experience have been more extensive.
# Correlation is not identity. Finding NCC in human might not explain consciousness in general.

!Studies on neural correlates of consciousness

Diagrams of visual areas

* Logothetis (1998) - Binocular rivalry in moneys, single cell recordings, 90% correlation in inferotemporal cortex.
* Tong, Nakayama, Vaughn, and Kanwisher (1998) - fMRI fusiform face area (FFA) responds twice as strongly to faces than non-face objects (But de Gelder & Kanwisher (1999) - patient without FFA can perceive faces as faces but impaired at identifying individual faces)
* Epstein and Kanwisher (1998) - parahippocampal place area (PPA) responds strongly to images of places including houses, weakly to non-place stimuli, not faces.
* Kanwisher - Binocular rivalry study for face-house stimulus.
* Culham et el (1999), He Cohen and Hu (1998) - Awareness of motion correlates with activity in MT/MST (medial temporal cortex/medial superior temporal cortex). Goebel, Khorram-Sefat, Muckli, hacker, & singer (1998) - mental imagery of motion.
* Grill-Spector, Kushnir, Itzchak, and Malach (2000) - Object recognition success correlates with activity in LOC (lateral occipital complex).
* Lau, Rogers, Haggard, Passingham (2004) - pre-SMA (pre-supplementary motor area) activity with attention to motor intention.

!Unconscious perception

* Tootell, Hadjikhani, and Somers (1999) - uniform gray field alternates with visual gratings of same luminance. Subjects report uniform field but V1, V2, V3, VP, V3A, V4v respons more strongly to invisible gratings.
* High level perception - Whalen et el (1998) - Amygdala activation by masked angry faces vs happy faces.
* Luck, Vogel, and Shapiro (1996) - N400 ERP shows semantic processing without awareness.
* Dehaene et el (1998) - Preparation of a motor response that depends on the analysis of a masked stimulus.

!Ventral and dorsal stream
Ungerlider and Mishkin (1982) brain-lesioned monkeys

* Ventral stream : what pathway (object recognition)
* Dorsal stream : where pathway (location and movement for action)

Milner and Goodale (1995)

* Ventral stream : conscious pathway
* Dorsal stream : unconscious pathway


Problem : awareness of visual motion correlates with activity in area MT (along dorsal pathway)
Kanwisher's proposal for NCC for visual experience
NCC has two components:

* Representations of perceptual features (e.g. "red", "line" in ventral stream) +
* Binding (in parietal lobe) of features into a representation of a spatial-temporal token ("red line on the left now")

Block's misgivings

* Perhaps it is possible to have unbound conscious experiences. (ganzfeld experience)
* Perhaps it is possible to have binding in the blind field.
* Perhaps it is attention that produced consciousness (and binding), and so binding is not sufficient for consciousness. (spatial attention often linked to the parietal lobe)

Blindsight patient GY

* GY can direct attention in the blindfield enhancing stimuli processing - Kentridge, Heywood, Weiskrantz (1999).
* GY Can also guess correctly the emotion expressed by a face in the blind field (happy/sad/angry/fearful) - DeGelder, Vroomen, Pourtois & Weiskrantz (1999).

Comments:

* Binding more important for perceptual experience of objects. But in Ganzfeld, there might be no depth information but there is still binding of color with spatial coordinates in the coronal plane.
* Dehaene et el (1998) is perhaps better evidence for unconscious binding.
* The attention hypothesis is not incompatible with the binding theory.

Access requirements

* Kanwisher "awareness of a particular element of perceptual information must entail not just a strong enough neural representation of that information, but also access to that information by most of the rest of the mind/brain."
* Dehaene and Naccache - "the long distance connectivity of these workspace neurons can, when they are active for a minimal duration, make the information available to a variety of processes including perceptual categorization, long-term memorization, evaluation and intentional action."
* But what about Sperling's experiment?

Reflexivity
Attention-based theories
Example : Prinz (2000) "A neurofunctional theory of visual consciousness" Consciousness and Cognition 9 (2), pp.243-59.

* Attention necessary for consciousness (but might not be sufficient).
* Visual consciousness a matter of attention directing information from sensory systems into short-term memory.

Further discussion:

* Mack and Rock (1998) Inattentional Blindness MIT Press.
* Milner and Goodale (1995) Discussion here

Block's objections

* Intriligator and Cavanagh (2001) "The Spatial Resolution of Visual Attention" Cognitive Psychology 43, pp.171-216. According to Block, subjects have visual experience of the lines as individually distinct even though they cannot attend individually to some of the lines.
* Aerodontalgia - perhaps there is P-consciousness depsite the lack of attention.