{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019543973941368076, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0018096272167933405, 'mean_word_length': 5.253393665158371, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Awareness of Agency : Three Levels of Analysis Problems of Monitoring and Metarepresentational Deficits

Exploring the neural correlates of consciousness presents three kinds of challenges. The first one has to do with the difficult notion of a neural-or of a cerebral-realization of a function. Although everyone agrees that every mental function supervenes on the activity of some part of the brain, some indeterminacy may arise on the kind of supervenience basis that is to be looked for. A common view is that every mental function, even highly modular ones, only operates on the background of other mental functions, or cerebral systems. Therefore when one looks for neural correlates of any particular function, one has to differentiate those neural or brain properties that are identifiable as directly correlated to that function from those that are only indirectly correlated to it. In other words, there are two ways of understanding the neural correlation of a mental state to a cerebral state. In the stronger sense, such a correlation should be both necessary and sufficient. The causal entanglement of cerebral functions makes such a demand implausible. What can be looked for is at most a weaker kind of correlation : only on the background of a normally functioning brain, can some particular neural states be associated with particular mental properties. In the case of interest here, the effort at locating the supervenience basis of consciousness in one definite well-circumscribed center is at odds with the notion that conscious states are information-processing states, using widely distributed data analyses and retrieval. The second challenge consists in specifying what the term "consciousness" is supposed to refer to. As Block (1995) shows convincinly, several different concepts are often confused under this word. Phenomenal consciousness refers to experiential states, like seeing green or feeling a pain. Access-consciousness has to do with the rational control of speech and behavior. While phenomenal states have a non-conceptual content, access-consciousness involves inference, and thus conceptual content. This second challenge is made still more difficult when one realizes that conscious states of both categories (phenomenal and inferential) might be related to a specific function which itself depends both on implicit (unconscious) and on explicit learning, i.e. attention. Attention cannot itself be identified with some conscious state, because if it helps determine which kinds of contents will be made phenomenally salient and inferentially promiscuous, it cannot without circularity be itself triggered by phenomenally and inferentially salient features of incoming or stored data 1. The third challenge consists in …