ABSTRACT

In consciousness research, we have a very large number of theories, which exceeds by far the number of theories in other fields. We recently presented a set of criteria for evaluating and comparing theories of consciousness, and then applied the criteria to a number of different theories. Our publication sparked strong responses as evident by the many comments published in Cognitive Neuroscience (this issue). Overall, there seems to be consensus that a theory of consciousness (ToC) needs to have an unconscious alternative, but other criteria sparked controversy. The hottest debate is to what extent consciousness needs to work with purely 1^st person data, containing information not available in 3^rd person reports. We would like to thank all the commentators for their lively input and we look forward to continued dialog as theories evolve and compete.

摘要

在意识研究中，我们有非常多的理论，远远超过其他领域的理论。我们最近提出了一套评估和比较意识理论的标准，然后将这些标准应用于许多不同的理论。发表在《认知神经科学》（本期）上的许多评论表明，我们的出版物引起了强烈反响。总体而言，似乎有共识认为意识理论 (ToC) 需要有一个无意识的替代方案，但其他标准引发了争议。最热门的争论到什么程度的意识需要工作，纯粹1^日个人数据，包含3不可用信息^RD人报告。我们要感谢所有评论员的热情投入，我们期待随着理论的发展和竞争继续对话。