NCC can refer to content-specific NCC or full NCC.

In behavioral paradigms, consciousness is evaluated using verbal reports or physical responses indicating the perception of a presented stimulus. The accuracy of these reports/responses is unreliable when said stimuli are dubiously perceptible, because it is hard to tell whether the subject actually perceived the stimulus or simply guessed its position correctly. Forced-choice procedures can determine the subject's objective awareness of the stimulus by minimizing their subjective bias.

Some paradigms evaluate consciousness via subjects rating the extent to which they perceived a presented stimulus, as well as their confidence regarding the accuracy of that perceptual judgment. Such methods minimize inconsistencies between subjective and objective consciousness measures.

Clinically, consciousness is measured via a subject's behavioral responses, but their absence does not necessarily imply a lack thereof (as with minimally conscious subjects). A subject's level of consciousness (auditory, visual, verbal, motor) is typically rated using standardized scales.

Consciousness relies on proper functioning of midline brain structures, and specific experiences are related to particular neuronal activity in the cerebral cortex. Research on the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) relates behavioral correlates of consciousness to underlying neural mechanisms. Evidence from no-report paradigms suggests that the NCC may be restricted to a posterior cortical hot zone rather than generalized to a broad frontoparietal network (as was previously thought).

Consciousness is essentially phenomenological experience (seeing, hearing, thinking, feeling). It persists during dreams, and ceases during dreamless sleep. The neurophysiological origin of consciousness is an open question in philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience.

Speaking of summaries, AI worse than humans at summaries studies show.

Succinct reason why by David Chisnall:

LLMs are good at transforms that have the same shape as ones that appear in their training data. They're fairly good, for example, at generating comments from code because code follows common structures and naming conventions that are mirrored in the comments (with totally different shapes of text).

In contrast, summarisation is tightly coupled to meaning. Summarisation is not just about making text shorter, it's about discarding things that don't contribute to the overall point and combining related things. This is a problem that requires understanding the material, because it's all about making value judgements.

Stages of annotation in the medieval period

When is Hypothes.is going to branch out into the business of professional readers to add aids to texts?! :)

Link this to the professional summary industry that reads books and summarizes them for busy executives

Link this to the annotations studied by Owen Gingerich in The Book Nobody Read.

This is also a great exercise for readers and learners. If the book doesn't do this for you already, spend some time to annotate it or do it yourself.

I do much this same thing, however, I'm typically doing it using Hypothes.is to annotate and highlight. These pieces go back to my own website where I can keep, categorize, and even later search them. If I like, I'll often do these sorts of summaries on related posts themselves (usually before I post them publicly if that's something I'm planning on doing for a particular piece.)