We need to be more cautious when using the term NCC and to define precisely, each time we perform a search for underlying neuronal mechanisms, which of the many aspects of “consciousness” we actually intend to investigate. We need to differentiate between processes assuring access to conscious processing, which are expected to be transient, and processes necessary for sustaining the stream of consciousness that has longer time-constants. And finally, we need to distinguish processes assuring sustained awareness of contents that are most likely related to the transfer of material to short- and long-term memories. If we proceed in this way, subdividing “consciousness” into subfunctions including reportability and defining these as explananda, some of the present problems may dissolve. However, the consequence is that we shall have to give up the search for “the” overarching NCC.
If we pursue this agenda, it is to be expected that correlates will be found for all aspects of consciousness except those associated with the “hard” problem, which appears to be a specific human problem. As I argued in the target paper, searching for the neuronal correlates of qualia in individual brains is unlikely to be successful because the immaterial and therefore somewhat mysterious connotations of qualia are likely to have the status of social realities. What we can achieve, however, is an identification of brain processes that underlie those cognitive functions required for generating social realities. These would be the ability to engage in social interaction, to develop a theory of mind, to find symbolic descriptions of internal states, and to reach consensus on the “reality” of these through communication with others.
To conclude this brief reply to the extremely inspiring commentary on my target paper, I want to express my sincere gratitude to Noreika for having pointed out the critical issues in our research on the NCC. The reply forced me to engage with this research again and helped me substantially in clarifying my own position in the debate.