I strongly disagree; Hofstadter is far more ready to admit that consciousness is a real phenomenon, causally relevant phenomenon, not an illusion, e.g. "who sho

I strongly disagree; Hofstadter is far more ready to admit that consciousness is a real phenomenon, causally relevant phenomenon, not an illusion, e.g. "who shoves whom around". Whereas this guy is buying wholesale into the idea that the brain literally "doesn’t in fact have this property [of self-awareness]", which is so beyond non-sensical it's barely worth responding to. Who is it that experiences the illusion of consciousness? Turtles [illusions] all the way down? This statement in particular is just utterly laughable horseshit: "In neuroscience, attention is a process of enhancing some signals at the expense of others. It’s a way of focusing resources. Attention: a real, mechanistic phenomenon that can be programmed into a computer chip. Awareness: a cartoonish reconstruction of attention that is as physically inaccurate as the brain’s internal model of color." - really? Go show me the math and computer simulation of neuroscience's understanding of the real, mechanistic phenomenon of attention, the way humans and other sentient beings experience it, programmed into a computer. Let's see some code.