Talk:Global workspace theory

message: On second thought, I have decided to go with my instincts. Please correct this judgement if it was incorrect. Srice13 04:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question for the authors: You have a link for Dorsal on your page that points to a disambiguation page of that name. As part of a cleanup effort (Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links) I arrived to try and point to the correct page, but I would have admit that I don't know which is correct. I would guess Dorsal stream vs. Dorsum (biology), but I rely on the experts to clear this on up. Thanks Srice13 01:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed your insertion. I think it is obvious that GW theory is meant to explain how consciousness works, not how it is produced; so the fact that GW theory does not explain the nature of consciousness would not seem to be a criticism of it. Of course, if you find a cite of someone specifically criticizing GW theory on those grounds, go ahead and put the material back. Ben Standeven (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. I think I just found one. I'll put it back, then.Ben Standeven (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't you think that thinking in terms of different definitions of consciousness may be one reason for disagreement? I think that the scientific concept of conciousness is still very young and a still evolving concept. Dehaene in his recent book "Le code de la conscience" clarify that conciousness is associated with three diffferent "ingredients": the level of vigilance (that span coma - sleep - awake states), a atenção and the access to consciouness. Are we discussing access to conciousness here or one of the two other aspect of consciouness? Another important point that Dehaene is that for the concept of conciousness to be scientific, it has to be possible to make expriments .THat's what the new definition allowed. If experiment can be made. Hypothesys can be proposed and tested...  --Manouchk (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There needs to be either a)a section explaining Stanislas Dehaene's updated version, the "global neuronal workspace" or b)an entirely new page devoted to the global neuronal workspace.  But at the very least, there should be some mention of Dehaene's work in this article, in order to make clear the differences between the two theories.  Hopefully I'll have an appropriate edit ready soon. 
Bzzzing (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global NEURONAL Workspace 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Global workspace theory's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Aggregates":
From Stream of consciousness (psychology): 
From Consciousness: 
From Mind: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Global workspace theory]]