What separates this from the other “steps” towards understanding consciousness that the op article talks about? My personal favorite is the open worm project.

What separates this from the other “steps” towards understanding consciousness that the op article talks about? My personal favorite is the open worm project. The sentience (not really sentience) of the worm emerges from the arrangement of the neuron models in the physics engine. The muscle models are similarly connected, and the worm model swims as if alive. The human connectome project may be the closest relatable thing in a more intelligent sphere. The hcp is also laughably far away from the resolution required to equate it to the open worm project. Your reply strikes me similarly to my personal fascination. Also, it’s similar to me in that there is no reason to select the Darwin automata as the most likely path towards artificial consciousness. Even the recent article you linked has the classic language of “it’s possible” and not “it’s reality”. This circles back around to why I enjoyed the book review. I do believe what you portray as incorrect (that we don’t really know much about the fundamental element of consciousness), and the different perspectives tickle my brain. I’m open to changing my opinion if you can put these things into simple ideas and terms. If you can’t put them into simple terms, though, I rest my case that we’re no closer to real understanding than Descartes was.