This seems so intuitively wrong to me; like postulating that Windows is necessary for assembly to exist. Almost none of the preliminary claims in this article

This seems so intuitively wrong to me; like postulating that Windows is necessary for assembly to exist. Almost none of the preliminary claims in this article feel compelling to me: "no physical property or set of properties can explain what it’s like to be conscious". Where is the proof of this? All the author does is re-state this sentence in different ways. I imagine people have had similar conversations throughout history: "no one can really predict weather", "no-one understands economics", "no-one understands what makes people fall in love"; but would you claim that (for example) love is the trigger, or boundary condition which causes reality to coalesce? The claims which do feel believeable are: 1) Many aspects of physical reality are relational 2) Some boundary conditions are necessary in order to make everything well-defined But there is a real gap from the points above, to the conclusion that consciousness is the missing boundary-condition. Maybe we just haven't discovered the missing boundary-condition yet. Or maybe there is none, and reality is ill-defined. Everyone who's going on about "we don't know enough about the brain to even START this" feels like a Sunday-school teacher telling me not to question the Greater Truths. It's a thought-killing sentiment. It's a subconscious defense mechanism for people who can't admit that they're a mostly-deterministic machine.