The argument sounds like "1. consciousness is not Turing-complete. 2. Here is a process that is not Turing-complete. 3. Therefore, this process must explain con

The argument sounds like "1. consciousness is not Turing-complete. 2. Here is a process that is not Turing-complete. 3. Therefore, this process must explain consciousness.", which is a bit naive. Just because of some shared properties, it does not need to form the basis for consciousness. But even so, it should be investigated carefully - ideological biases in either direction are not helpful. I hope I will live long enough to see that researchers can measure an actual thought, even if I may not live long enough to see that we understand how it is represented. (No "grandmother cell", but also no, not high level MRI "there's more activity in this region", that's not good enough.)