Head to head
Crick and Koch’s NCC vs Emergence
Crick and Koch’s Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) and Emergence (Principle of Consciousness), compared field by field from their entries in the Atlas.
At a glance
- Both belong to the Materialism family in Kuhn's Landscape of Consciousness.
- Both treat consciousness as emergent.
- On AI consciousness, Crick and Koch’s NCC says “Yes” and Emergence says “Conditional”.
- On life after death, Crick and Koch’s NCC says “No” and Emergence says “Conditional”.
- On mind uploading, Crick and Koch’s NCC says “Yes” and Emergence says “Conditional”.
- On meaning and purpose, Crick and Koch’s NCC says “Humanistic only” and Emergence says “Uncertain”.
Add more theories to this comparisonCompare other theories
The claim
In brief
Crick and Koch’s NCCThis theory proposes a scientific agenda to identify the Neural Correlate of Consciousness (NCC), defined as the minimum activities in the brain that are jointly sufficient and necessary for any specific conscious perception or subjective experience. It asserts that consciousness is entirely physical and can be fully reduced to these specific brain activities.
EmergenceEmergence is the philosophical claim that qualitatively new properties, such as consciousness or psychological states, arise from underlying physical properties governed entirely by physical laws. It is distinguished primarily into weak emergence, which is reducible in principle, and strong emergence, which is fundamentally non-reducible and may necessitate new physical laws.
What consciousness is
Crick and Koch’s NCCConsciousness (phenomenal consciousness/qualia) is identified as the Neural Correlate of Consciousness (NCC), the precise minimum pattern of neural activity in the brain necessary and sufficient for subjective experience.
EmergenceConsciousness is identified as a qualitatively novel property or psychological state arising from physical properties. This concept defines the relationship between mind and matter based on reducibility or non-reducibility to fundamental physics.
Big questions
Can AI be conscious?Differ
Crick and Koch’s NCCYesIf consciousness is entirely reducible to physical organizational patterns (NCC), then non-biological systems capable of replicating those precise patterns should also become conscious, barring technological constraints.
EmergenceConditionalIf consciousness is weakly emergent, AI consciousness is certain given sufficient complexity. If strongly emergent, AI consciousness is still possible if non-physical properties emerge from non-biological physical complexity, depending on the meta-psychophysical laws involved.
Crick and Koch’s NCCNoAs a Materialist theory, consciousness is wholly dependent on the physical brain; cessation of brain function entails the end of consciousness.
EmergenceConditionalWeak emergence, being close to Materialism, precludes survival. Strong emergence, particularly in the form of Emergent Dualism, could theoretically generate a nonphysical substance (mind/soul) dependent on, but not strictly identical to, the physical brain, allowing for potential independent existence after death, although this is speculative.
Crick and Koch’s NCCYesIf the NCC states can be perfectly measured and replicated in a digital or artificial medium (mind uploading), the resulting system would be functionally and phenomenally identical, achieving virtual immortality in principle.
EmergenceConditionalIf consciousness is weakly emergent, duplicating the physical states would duplicate the mental states (likely). If strongly emergent, the non-reducible properties and possible downward causation would need to be perfectly captured and recreated in the new medium, posing significant, perhaps insurmountable, technical and conceptual challenges.
Crick and Koch’s NCCHumanistic onlyConsistent with Materialism, consciousness is a biological product of evolution and physics, conferring no ultimate cosmic meaning or teleology beyond that which humans create for themselves.
EmergenceUncertainEmergence, especially strong emergence combined with concepts like top-down causation, offers a framework where higher-level properties like consciousness and its associated values could possess genuine causal power, potentially supporting cosmic purpose or meaning, depending on the resulting ontology.
Nature of mind
Ontology
Crick and Koch’s NCCReductive Physicalism/Materialism. The NCC approach is considered macroscopic materialism.
EmergenceHighly variable/Contested. Weak Emergence supports reductive Physicalism. Strong Emergence often implies Non-Reductive Physicalism or a need to expand the conception of nature, potentially requiring new fundamental laws (Naturalistic Dualism or Property Dualism).
Mind and body
Crick and Koch’s NCCIdentity Theory. Mental states are wholly identical to and fully explained by the physical NCC states.
EmergenceEmergentist. The mind arises from the body (complex physical systems). The nature of the relationship depends on the type of emergence: Weak suggests reduction in principle; Strong suggests non-reducibility even in principle, often involving downward causation.
Fundamental or emergent
Crick and Koch’s NCCEmergent
EmergenceEmergent
Qualia
Crick and Koch’s NCCQualia (the qualitative feel of experience) are identified with the minimum neural activities (NCC) that are jointly sufficient for specific conscious perception, although the mechanism for this identity remains the central 'hard problem' challenge.
EmergenceQualia are the novel, qualitatively new properties (e.g., sensory qualities) that arise from the physical system. Strong emergence views consciousness (and thus qualia) as the clearest case of a strongly emergent phenomenon, fundamentally irreducible to underlying physical facts.
How it works
Mechanism
Crick and Koch’s NCCThe search for and definition of the Neural Correlate of Consciousness (NCC): the specific minimum neural activities necessary and sufficient for subjective experience.
EmergenceThe principle is the claim that novel, qualitatively distinct properties arise at higher levels of complexity, which is often contrasted with the reductive assumptions of mainstream science.
Where it is
Crick and Koch’s NCCLocalized in specific brain areas. Early candidates included the claustrum (as a 'conductor' coordinating percepts); later candidates focused on the posterior cerebral cortex (temporo-parietal-occipital hot zone).
EmergenceTypically localized in complex biological systems (e.g., brains), although strong emergence proponents may argue that AI consciousness is possible if sufficient physical complexity is achieved, regardless of substrate.
What it does
Crick and Koch’s NCCConsciousness is directly caused by, and is identical to, the NCC activity. NCC mechanisms (spikes, flows, circuits) are seen as constitutive of phenomenal consciousness.
EmergenceVaries. Weak emergence aligns with standard physical causation. Strong emergence often posits top-down causation, where emergent higher hierarchical levels exert causal force on lower levels, giving the emergent property causal powers.
Evidence and criticism
Testability
Crick and Koch’s NCCEmpirically testable. The search for the NCC is defined as a scientific program seeking testable biological bases for consciousness.
EmergenceSpeculative and philosophically contentious. Weak emergence is scientifically aligned in principle. Strong emergence is difficult to test empirically because it posits phenomena are non-deducible from fundamental science.
Tests so far
Crick and Koch’s NCCIdentifying specific clusters of neurons or brain regions (like the claustrum or posterior cortex) that are active during conscious experience.,Measuring electrophysiological activity (e.g., action potentials and neural circuits).
EmergenceNot stated
Criticisms
Crick and Koch’s NCCThe primary tension is the 'explanatory gap': identifying a correlation (NCC) does not explain the identity statement of how physical activity (spikes/chemicals) literally generates phenomenal feel (qualia). The failure to identify a 'clear' NCC after decades of research is a practical limitation.
EmergenceIt is criticized by reductive physicalists (like Eliminative Materialists) as having little explanatory value, being superfluous, or acting as a 'restatement of a miracle' that fails to explain *how* unconscious complexity yields consciousness. Strong emergence specifically challenges the causal closure of the physical world.
Sources
Key sources
Crick and Koch’s NCC
- Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness, F. Crick and C. Koch (1990)
- What is the function of the claustrum?, F. Crick and C. Koch (2005)
- The Quest for Consciousness: a Neurobiological Approach, C. Koch (2004)
Emergence
- The Re-emergence of Emergence: the Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, P. Clayton and P. Davies (2008)
- Strong and weak emergence, D. Chalmers (2008)
- Why reductionism does not work, G.F.R. Ellis (2019)