Talk:Consciousness

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Medicine Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Epilepsy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of epilepsy and epileptic seizures on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Science / Mind / Analytic / Continental / Modern / Contemporary High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of science Philosophy of mind Analytic philosophy Continental philosophy Modern philosophy Contemporary philosophy

Psychology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

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)

Any objections to re-structuring this page?

I think this page needs to be significantly re-organized. There are a lot of high quality sources and I think in general the page does a good job of covering lots of perspectives that researchers have put forward, but often not in a very systematic way. I'm planning to re-organize the page in a sandbox (without making any changes to the content) and then copy in my revised version here, but first I wanted to check if anyone objects to my overall plan. Here are the main problems I see and how I'm planning to fix them:

• The lead currently only addresses how to define consciousness rather than summarizing the whole article. The material in the lead belongs in the "Problem of definition" section with just a shorter summary in the lead along with summaries of other sections.
• The "Interdisciplinary perspectives" section is actually closer to a lead since it actually summarizes the sections for philosophy, science, and medicine below. A trimmed down version of that material and summaries of other sections can together form a new lead. The "Interdisciplinary perspectives" material doesn't need a section in the body, since it just covers what is said in later sections more briefly.
• Three of the sub-sections in the "Philosophy of mind" section should be moved out: "Consciousness in children", "Animal consciousness", and "Artifact consciousness". As the material in these sub-sections demonstrates, these topics are not necessarily only philosophical ones but rather span various disciplines. These three could be the sub-sections of a new section further down. Maybe it could be called "Consciousness outside human adults", though hopefully I can think of a better section title.
• Within the "Scientific study" section, there should be a sub-section for "Models of consciousness". Currently, there's already quite a bit about this crammed into the "Neural correlates" sub-section and for some reason "Entropic brain" has its own sub-section while no other model does.
• The "Stream of consciousness" section should be broken up. The part from William James can be worked into the "Scientific study" section, while the part about Buddhist psychology can be added to the "Spiritual approaches" section. The "Narrative form" sub-section is off-topic and I think the material should be moved to a more appropriate article, but for now I would just leave it as a separate section to avoid combining content changes with my organizational changes.
• The "Anasognosia" sub-section belongs within the "Disorders of consciousness" sub-section.

There may be a few other things to move around but that's basically my plan. Again, I won't bundle content changes together with my re-organization (though in the future a lot of these sources probably need updating). If anyone has objections/suggestions for this let me know. Otherwise I'll go ahead soon. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been a bit slow to get to this and I think it's better I implement the above piece by piece rather than all at once. Just fixed the organization regarding anosognosia. Let me know if any objections as I re-organize. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 21:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick note that I didn't finish all of these, but if someone else is working on the page and wants to discuss just ping me. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 20:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Theories of consciousness

According to Roger Penrose in a recent interview with New Scientist, there are four theories of consciousness current in scientific circles. One is obviously his Orch OR, another is Integrated Information theory (IIT). What are the other two? And should this article include a brief summary of them? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Steelpillow, I'm glad you posted about this – the article definitely needs to give a better overview of current theories/models of consciousness. I consolidated all the ones that are covered into one section called "Models", but it doesn't do justice to the research that's been done on the topic. I don't know exactly which four Penrose was referring to, but I just added references that compare across theories, showing there are at least 22. From my reading, though, Orch-OR is largely not considered tenable except by its core proponents (Penrose & Hameroff). Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 22:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I much appreciate your efforts here. Personally I suspect that Orch OR is better described as a postulate or proposal rather than a theory. It proposes extensions to quantum theory which Penrose says do not at present exit. Does physics acknowledge "theories" with no mathematical foundation? I suppose the question for us here is, do its opponents describe it as a theory in reliable sources? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Steelpillow, that makes sense, we should follow reliable sources when choosing a term. This 2009 paper uses the terms "model" and "proposal" to describe Orch OR. This 2006 paper and this 2012 paper use "hypothesis". This 2006 paper uses both "model" and "theory". So it looks like various terms could apply whether Orch OR is correct or not - all four of those papers are critical of Orch OR. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 21:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph of section 4.3

The phrasing from the second sentence onwards sounds unnatural. I find it difficult to understand. What do you guys think? Indochina2 (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)