Talk:Neural correlate

message: I would like to ask the opinions of the editors of this page: is it all right to add a link to the MSIT (Bush et.al. (2006) "Multi-Source Interference Task" Nature Protocols  1 308-313 ) used in fMRI as a protocol for testing/assessing cognition and attention in normal subjects. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 19:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSIT 

message: This page needs to be either merged with the Neural correlates of consciousness page (after significant improvements), or simply deleted since it's superfluous anyway.  If neither, it needs a very serious overhaul.  Let me use just one small paragraph as an example of the absurd style of the entire page.  This is the first paragraph under the heading "Conceptual frameworks using the notion":
"The notion of a neural correlate of a mental state is an important concept for materialists, those philosophers and researchers who believe that all mental states are equivalent to brain states. According to strict materialists, all properties credited to the mind, including consciousness, emotion, beliefs, and desires have direct neural correlates. This is also a pragmatic view adopted by a number of scholars. This view frequently depends on considering minds exclusively as sentient knots[citation needed] in nature's causal net."
Honestly? It genuinely seems like satire to me, or like one of the bits of postmodernist nonsense that Alan Sokal savaged in his book Fashionable Nonsense.  "According to strict materialists"?  Are we honestly at this point?  Are we now categorizing logic and reason as just another possible subjective way of looking at the world... equally as valid as any other?  If that is the style we're to be using on Wikipedia... then we need to be consistent and go to every single other page (for example Evolution, Electricity, Gravity, Magnetism etc) and be sure to add similar prefaces... in fact, they very likely will have to be completely re-written since most of them have a very obvious "pro-materialist" bias.  Also, I quite like the "This is also a pragmatic view adopted by a number of scholars" line... as it implies that cognitive neuroscience "scholars" have taken on the "materialist view" simply out of pragmatism in this case... not because IT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL BEDROCK OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND, IN FACT, ALL CRITICAL THINKING.  
Carrying on... a new appropriate first paragraph for the Electricity, in keeping with Wikipedia's apparently new point of view guidelines, would have to go like this:
"Electricity, materialists believe, is the set of (supposedly) physical phenomena associated with the presence and flow of electric charge. According to the strict materialist interpretation, electricity gives a wide variety of well-known effects, such as lightning, static electricity, electromagnetic induction and electric current. This view frequently depends on the narrow view that radio waves are exclusively electromagnetic radiation."
or how about this for the wikipedia Ionosphere page:
"The ionosphere /aɪˈɒnɵˌsfɪər/ is a region of Earth's upper atmosphere, from about 60 km (37 mi) to 1,000 km (620 mi) altitude,[1] where many believe angels live. It is distinguished because it is ionized by unicorn farts, probably. It plays an important part in atmospheric electricity and forms the inner edge of whatever.  I hope I've made my point"
This page need to go.  
Bzzzing (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the reasoning above is entirely valid:  a materialist approach to consciousness raises issues that don't come into play in a materialist approach to electricity, and it is useful to make those issues explicit.  However, I will leave the redirect in place, because this article does in fact cover the same ground as neural correlates of consciousness.  For this article to be separately viable it would have to discuss something distinct, such as for example the neural correlates of behavior or cognition. Looie496 (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  This article needs to go.  I deleted it before and it came back from the dead.  Is there some way to permanently be rid of it?  The Neural correlates of consciousness page exists and is on the same exact topic, but is, however, orders of magnitude more complete and scientifically accurate.  This page is an unfortunate blemish on Wikipedia. Bzzzing (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is an embarrassment.  Something NEEDS to be done. 

message: Per above. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This article needs to go.  I deleted it before and it came back from the dead.  Is there some way to permanently be rid of it?  The Neural correlates of consciousness page exists and is on the same exact topic, but is, however, orders of magnitude more complete and scientifically accurate.  This page is an unfortunate blemish on Wikipedia. Bzzzing (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: The article uses technical words constantly. Huge pain in the ass to read. I intend to rewrite major portions of this article in a cleaner language. Perhaps after I'm done with my spring semester exams.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theintuitus (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilariously technical