No, it's not, but the problem with his argument is that he gives a narrow and extremely specific definition of consciouness and then all the structure works. I

No, it's not, but the problem with his argument is that he gives a narrow and extremely specific definition of consciouness and then all the structure works. I'm not really that much in the debate about consciousness but I'm a lot into the one about intelligence: there are many definitions of intelligence and none of them seems satisfying. You can define intelligence from a rational point of view, as some kind of function or model, but it's extremely narrow, arbitrary and limited. That's the trick he uses. To me it's not enough. The very idea of intelligence is restrictive, antropocentric and confusing. That's because with the existing tools we have (including reason) we cannot converge to a satisfying idea of intelligence, that eludes our analysis.