I’m grateful for the article for making me aware of this particular work. I look forward to digesting it, but honestly I am skeptical. I remember in the 1990s when Daniel Dennett came out with his “Consciousness Explained”. I quite enjoyed his book, but was it surprising that we learn that he wasn’t explaining consciousness at all, just optimistic brain research with a bunch of assumptions thrown in?

Arnt we disappointed with what we assumed we would have pinpointed by now?

How is this work any different?

Does the work actually present a scientific theory for how mind emerges from brain that can account for both first and third person data?

Does the work really show a testable hypothesis that shows how biological matter “must” develop a first person experience of the world while also
Accounting for the abstract image of the world that it is generating?

We don’t need an “explanation” of mind or consciousness to pacify the anxiety of the mystery, we need a scientific theory that can either prove mind emerges from matter or prove that the matter is emerging from the mind.

No more explanations, no more assumptions. Does this book contain a falsifiable hypothesis that proves what it is explaining, or is this work simply trying to explain away consciousness because that is somehow the obligation of science?

Does it provide a working definition of mind that can be universally agreed on. by both first and third person empiricism?

Is that definition consistent with the results of the experiment?

Say yes and I’ll buy the book, but if you say “oh we will get there soon!” I’ll just wait for the sequel