Talk:Consciousness

Untitled

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

• Archive 1 ( // to 21/10/05)
• Archive 2 (21/10/05 to 13/04/07)
• Archive 3 (13/04/07 to 29/11/09)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article doesn't follow the good article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are highlighted below:

• There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article.
• There are some sections that rely upon block quotes. This creates copyright concerns and increases the word count. This information might be better as summarised prose.
• The article, at over 11,000 words, is above the recommended length at WP:TOOBIG. I think this might be a sign that this is too detailed. I think removing most of the block quotes will resolve this, but the article should be edited for too much detail.
• The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

as the assessment showed, the topic is... very complex. ablockqyote in the page shows FORTY different definitions found by one researcher: medical-c is not distinguished from big-C, Chalmers describes big-C as "a hard problem", famous Western philosophers try to study the Upanishads and fail, the Wikipedia page on Advaita Vedanta gets chopped-and-changed by spiritually well-meaning individuals with no Wikipedia experience, I mean the whole ``thing`` is a mess basically :) the page ultimately reflects pretty accurately the confusion in Humanity's general Consciousness (ha ha) about what big-C actually is. regarding the suggestion to provide a better summary (made below) I have to say that that is a REALLY intimidating task on such a high-profile scientifictopic. it should be done with great care and a lot of review, no matter how simple the summary ends up being. Lkcl (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Consciousness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article. Some sections rely upon block quotes, which create copyright concerns, make the text more difficult to read, and increase the word count. This information might be better summarized in prose. The article, at over 11,000 words, is above the recommended length at WP:TOOBIG, I think summarising most of the block quotes will resolve this, but I think information can be spun out. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: you're our foremost expert(/masochist) at crafting articles on these large, philosophical concepts. No pressure to participate in this process, but just flagging it in case it piqued your interest. Ajpolino (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with the points raised by Z1720. The lead covers only the problem of definition and there are several unreferenced passages and unnecessary quotes that should be replaced by regular prose. These points could be addressed in the scope of the GAR, but given the length of the article, this is not a quick fix. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the length, although I would not flunk it on just this basis if the reference issues were resolved.

Also, whatever the outcome of the rating reassessment, rewriting the lead would be a major improvement to the article. I'm not volunteering, but I think it would be possible to do a pretty good job in less than an hour.

If no one takes this on during the GAR, maybe consider sharing on the talk page? It's not often you encounter an active solicitation to rewrite the lead of such a general article. Someone will step up. Patrick (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh: GARs are transcluded onto article talk pages, so this information will be there. You could also start a new section for the lead on the talk page, as it might lead to collaboration. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recommendation: Split this article into separate articles for different meanings of the word

In all other cases I know of, Wikipedia distinguishes different meanings of a word that defines an article, so that different meanings are covered in separate articles.

I strongly recommend that this be done with this article.

In particular, there really should be a separate article for the subject known to philosophers as "phenomenal consciousness": the phenomenon of experience. 2601:204:F181:9410:B5A7:6072:A62E:4507 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I did an intensive study of this topic and found that there is a medical definition known as little-c (to help distinguish from e.g. a coma) and then there is big-C. mentioning this very early and prominently in the article and referring to a separate page for the ``medical`` definition would I feel be a much better idea than splitting up what I think you would find is a high-profile (high pagerank) page. the practice of linking to other pages is already established in this page by having a subheading, a "see article X", and a single summary paragraph. I feel that "phenomenal consciousness" is better treated in this fashion, alongside medical-little-c, rather than breaking up this page. let me do a quick check to see if phenom-c has an article already Lkcl (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

ok a search on Wikipedia for "phenomenological consciousness" very interestingly gives the Qualiapage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia where a Google search "phenomenal consciousness wiki" search more usefully turns up ://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_theories_of_consciousness in which phenom-c is discussed. wikipedia's own search mechanism not so on-the-ball there. let's just check if the HOTC page is used in this one... Lkcl (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

ok done, added HOTC to "see also" and then noticed on reading that page that there is a phenom-c page noted in the HOTC one! irony. the HOTC one I also observed has a "related articles" categorisation, will investigate that next Lkcl (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

ok I am pretty happy with just adding the link to the HOTC page, however its description as "scientific theory" is pretty lame, resulting in See also getting an utterly useless summary. more crucially I spotted that there is a "medical-little-c" section in this page which has no clear distinction from big-C as is done in the Academic literature. that's really important to highlight Lkcl (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

although it is not "fun", it is a simple fact that world-wide this important topic is a mess of confusion as so many people have tried to make sense of it. the page accurately and correctly and faithfully and explicitly notes, documents, and explains that. knowledge cannot be created which does not exist :)

what you are seeing is a normal part of the summarise-and-refer process on wikipedia,but because of the overwhelming number of uses (over 40) of the word, even the collation of summaries is ridiculously long. phenomenology already has its own page! bottom line, trying to "fix" the "problem" can only do more harm than good. Lkcl (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Discern medical-little-c clearly from big-C

as noted above Academic literature goes to some lengths to distinguish "not in a coma" as in "the patient is conscious" as a synonym for "awake and alert" or "the patient was not unconscious", from the study of the phenomenon of Consciousness which is termed "big-C". the article has a medical section which is fantastic but it is not made at all clear that there is a recognized distinction between consciousness and Consciousness. this really important! Lkcl (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

as a very quick hack I have added a disambiguation link to the "Altered levels of consciousness" page. it's nowhere near clear enough but is along the right lines. Google searches discerning little-c from big-C are also a god-awful mess: lots of unhelpful links to YouTube videos involving philosophical discussion, and even googleAI is throwing its weight around (summarizing the state of human opinion on little-c *philosophy* instead of helping with the medical definition. sigh. Lkcl (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

aiyaa! there is a page "Altered levels of consciousness" which is medical and there is a page "Altered state of consciousness" which is classified as *philosophy*! this entire topic is a rabbit-hole time-sucking mess! :) Lkcl (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

on a re-read I decided to revert the disambiguation adding "Altered levels of consciousness" as it is different from the disambiguation of "Conscience" etc. not sure what is best, here. needs thought Lkcl (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

added ref to recent study on the Claustrum (needs work)

turns out Crick and Koch were wrong, the Claustrum is more a "router" than a seat of Consciousness itself. I added the URL but it needs work to put in the right format. "The new findings and hypothesis were published on Sept. 30, 2022, in Trends In Cognitive Sciences." Lkcl (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Disclosure regarding editing and discussion

partly for my own convenience so as to have easy access to the material including academic references I recently wrote two pre-print articles on consciousness. I am making other editors aware that I am aware (ha ha) of the state (implied pun intended) of Consciousness.

• http://lkcl.net/reports/consciousness_definition/
• http://lkcl.net/reports/consciousness_turing/

based on this I will create a separate quick section here for review on the collated Definitions of Consciousness that my research found. fascinatingly one of them, by Cleeremans and Jimenez, is actually a definition of learning. Lkcl (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

new section Academic Definitions of Consciousness (review needed)

I added a new section, academic peer-reviewed theories and papers that define consciousness. by contrast most academics discuss how hard it is to define. Lkcl (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

eek, note duplication on AC page, see separate talk section below Lkcl (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying misleading impression that (one) Dictionary definition is absolute-authoritative (review needed)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1298465194 apologies to whomever kindly made this cr3version, but I feel strongly that allowing one of the *dictionary* definitions of Consciousness to become the de-facto unilateral absolute definition, by implication and omission, is very misleading. one researcher found FORTY separate and distinct functional uses for the word "consciousness". if there was one and only one, of course I would agree 100% that that quoting a dictionary definition would be superfluous to say "this comes from a dictionary". but in the case where there are FORTY definitions, it is dangerously misleading to prioritize ONE of them as the impression that it is the de-facto canonical authority is clearly false. letting people know that this topic is chaotic, confusing, laced with division and uncertainty, is really quite important as it could lead tobreaththroughs and additional research. Lkcl (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

ok yes if you look in the section "problem of definition" the pre-existing quotes of both Webster and Cambridge are preceded by "According to..." which sets the precedent of clarifying and qualifying that there is division on the definition. Lkcl (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I requested a quick WP:GAR followup just to make sure this high-profile topic does not go without oversight Lkcl (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

GNWT not GWT (edit not needed - clarified)

quick note, GNWT is missing from the page, not to be confused with GWT https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2025/landmark-study-puts-leading-theories-of-consciousness-to-the-test-neither-comes-out-unscathed Lkcl (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

urrrr... another discussion of theories of consciousness https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425000533 Lkcl (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

okaaaay GNWT is *part* of Bernie's GWT. ow it makes sense https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehaene%E2%80%93Changeux_model Lkcl (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I spoke with Bernie Barrs and he confirmed the history. Dehaene and Changeux we're working on a neural computational analogue in 1986(?), heard of GWT, and Bernie, I gather from the tone of his reply, seemed honoured that they chose the name GNWT. anyway: all good, a little garbled but no name-change needed. Lkcl (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

dead link to paper

i don't know what exactly the policy is but guessed that finding the paper on researchgate is probably better than leaving a dead link, appreciate someone doing what is supposed to be done, for the 1st reference (40 different uses of Consciousness) Lkcl (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

gently on the editing folks!

editing large pages is tricky, I note the past few revisions have unintentionally reverted to older edits, and I suspect that what is at play is a bug in Wikipedia browser cacheing old data. I have noticed this several times: the contents displayed are NOT what is the current edut. much appreciate people who have kept an eye on this and reverted accidental damage. the obvious tiresome recommendation "clear browser cache" holds if you keep a Wikipedia page open for prolonged periods of time. Lkcl (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

raised on phabricator https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T399385 Lkcl (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has recently made a large reversion, can you provide any diffs where you believe this problem has occurred? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

if you go back to the point where you had to make the reversion, that is the point where the problem has occurred. as a software engineer i realised that there is a race-condition in the javascript-based editor, that is there all the time but only likely to be triggered on very large pages. like this one. i raised it as a bugreport but due to the PTSD from psychological torture and the Ischemic strokes from Domestic Violence, with the wikipedia developers not listening i was forced to unsubscribe from the discussion: i cannot risk further engaging with them. Lkcl (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Must be this diff from the IP editor, I had thought when they said in their edit summary "unhelpful, unclear and indirect language and the language used is not suitable for encyclopedia's" they were rebutting your edit which expanded on the definitions of consciousness, I thought they were trying to revert your lede change by copying and pasting from an older version. That's my idea of what happened as a layperson at least. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

yeah there were a whole stack: trying to even ask those two editors "when did you leave the tab open in your browser and for how long" is a futile exercise :) and I can see how you could have got that impression. I would not have guessed what is going on if I had not myself witnessed the corruption of an older edit being kept in a tab (I keep MANY tabs open, Fulguris has "sessions", one of my sessions had 600 tabs, another 200, etc) Lkcl (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

basically i recognised an older version of the page: an editor made some minor link-related changes but i recognised the submission of a first paragraph that was at least two weeks out-of-date. look at the very same reversion-diff you posted: notice how the entire first paragraph is modified? that was entirely unintentional - the editor had no idea that wording was being reverted. all the editor was trying to do was make some whitespace changes, which you can see further down the diff. so hilariously the diff you posted is where the problem occurred :) i had a similar potential-corruption occur a couple weeks back but was observant enough to correct it. it took a HELL of a lot of browser-refreshing, i can tell you, to get the damn page to reflect latest changes. which tells me that the problem is a server-side "cache expiry" tag reporting issue combined with a javascript race-condition bug. Lkcl (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

huge duplication on AC page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/talk:artificial_consciousness#duplication_of_parts_of_consciousness_page huge duplication and also some much better worded sections, just flagging it here Lkcl (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

ok whew, done editing session, my opinion is that the aspects of Consciousness section on the AC page is too specifically worded to AC to be moved here. needs further discussion Lkcl (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

technical help with the Graziano reference

hi could someone kindly help clean up the Graziano reference style, I am not sure what to do, having copied the ref from the Artificial consciousness page it is a different style there Lkcl (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Like this? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

... errr yes! thank you :) oh I know what was going on, the AC page has separate Bibliography as well as a References section. I never knew you could have a Bibliography on Wikimedia. Lkcl (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)