I'm not a philosophy major, so the jargon is tough, but I can kind of read it. It's not nonsense. What helps me make sense of it is that I recognise the first

I'm not a philosophy major, so the jargon is tough, but I can kind of read it. It's not nonsense. What helps me make sense of it is that I recognise the first sentence to be similar to my own position on consciousness: Consciousness is those parts of the workings of the brain that are available to introspection. I dislike the use of the word "illusion", though. Just because consciousness doesn't have a separate material presence, doesn't mean it's not real. The article seems to boil down to this: If you take this view on consciousness, then other kinds of intelligences, such as a post-biological AI, will also be conscious, because why not. So whatever ETI is out there is also conscious. And then, weirdly, the author decides that this post-biological AI is going to have some other kind of ethics, because reasons, and that means something for SETI and the Fermi paradox. That part doesn't seem very convincing. I wonder what it means to "surpass someone in moral philosophy". I'm not sure it means anything. Maybe it ties back to the word "illusion". If you believe that consciousness is an illusion, then it follows that someone could be capable of looking past the illusion and seeing only the reality behind it, and that would have consequences for their moral posture. Since I don't believe the word "illusion" is used properly, I don't buy this conclusion either.