Well said. When I read stuff like this implying 'consciousness studies' can be a hard science, the undefined and ill-defined terms just keep piling up until I n

Well said. When I read stuff like this implying 'consciousness studies' can be a hard science, the undefined and ill-defined terms just keep piling up until I nope out. I'm lucky if I make it past the abstract to maybe the third paragraph. No reproducible science can be built on so many subjective vagaries. I think consciousness studies can be interesting but they need to stay in the philosophy department between Searle's Chinese room and the P-Zombie lounge until they're ready to experimentally test falsifiable hypotheses with neuroscientists. And until they have a rigorous, consistent definition of what human consciousness is and is not, they really need to stop pretending AI has any relevance to human consciousness. There's no evidence AIs are conscious, and even if there someday is reproducible evidence - there's no reason to think it might be similar enough to human consciousness to make useful predictions about either (and that's assuming humans are conscious, which is still a matter of some debate in the field).