What does it mean, exactly, for a given system to be a 'neural correlate of consciousness'?

Although I’m Australian, I find myself much more in sympathy with the Austrian version!

What does it mean, exactly, for a given system to be a “neural correlate of consciousness”?

Now I have to say I’m a complete atheist, I have no religious views myself and no spiritual views, except very watered down humanistic spiritual views, and consciousness is just a fact of life, it’s a natural fact of life.

Sense data are much more controversial than qualia, because they are associated with a controversial theory of perception – that one perceives the world by perceiving one’s sense-data, or something like that.

There’s certainly nothing original about the observation that conscious experience poses a hard problem.

I argue that neuroscience alone isn't enough to explain consciousness, but I think it will be a major part of an eventual theory.

They are dedicating a large part of their lives to this choir. Any gift from God is meant to be shared.

Almost everyone agrees that there will be very strong correlations between what's in the brain and consciousness, ... The question is what kind of explanation that will give you. We want more than correlation, we want explanation -- how and why do brain process give rise to consciousness? That's the big mystery.

Any sacred text comes alive in a unique way when it is sung, and composers from Gregorian chant to the present day have known that.