ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Does neural computation feel like something?
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Consciousness in the Brain: An Integrative Review of Contemporary Theories.Brain sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial neural networks are becoming more advanced and human-like in detail and behavior. The notion that machines mimicking human brain computations might be conscious has recently caused growing unease. Here, we explored a common computational functionalist view, which holds that consciousness emerges when the right computations occur-whether in a machine or a biological brain. To test this view, we simulated a simple computation in an artificial subject's "brain" and recorded each neuron's activity when the subject was presented with a visual stimulus. We then replayed these recorded signals back into the same neurons, degrading the computation by effectively eliminating all alternative activity patterns that otherwise might have occurred (i.e., the counterfactuals). We identified a special case in which the replay did nothing to the subject's ongoing brain activity-allowing it to evolve naturally in response to a stimulus-but still degraded the computation by erasing the counterfactuals. This paradoxical outcome points to a disconnect between ongoing neural activity and the underlying computational structure, which challenges the notion that consciousness arises from computation in artificial or biological brains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.